"Textese" is Not Good and here's why...

[Gladiateher]

As a teacher you have the power to penalize students for writing this way and you should, but don't trash talk "textese" it exists for a reason. People should use textese in many situations I believe someone else mentioned that in game when fast communication is important it is the best option, and this is absolutely true with the pace of online gaming today. While I agree with you that it should stay out of academic writing, your wrong to say that there aren't instances when a more efficient way of communicating is needed.

 

[Dracowrath]

The only times these days when I use textese is in combination with leet and intentionally misspelled words (liek for instance) in order to mock someone. I use a cell phone to communicate via text, and I spell out every single word. If you're in such a damn rush you have to shorten "you" to "u", put the damn phone down and finish what you're doing first.

 

[Kuroneko97]

This is why I write out all my texts in proper English. People can better understand me, and they reply faster. When people write like that on YouTube, and they're trash-talking other users, it just makes them look more stupid.

 

[omega 616]

Do you sit around and talk to family and friends, speaking perfectly, throwing in massive complex words? No.

Actually, I do.

I frequently have complex discussions with my wife and my friends that include massive complex words. And while I don't speak perfectly at all times, I do strive to avoid slang as a rule, unless I'm tired, angry, frustrated, or otherwise in some state that pushes me to not care about how effective my spoken words are.

Yeah, I don't mean having discussions about metaphysics how a super fluid works. I mean like when your watching NFL and describing the ball being thrown like Joey in friends when he finds the thesaurus function on his laptop.

Nobody says something like "the athlete gave the inflated leather oval ball, gravitational and kinetic energy with enough velocity to make it travel the desired distance where upon the other athlete absorbed the energy, which dissipated around his body as he caught it" do you? You say "that guy launched the thing 90 yards to that skinny dude!".

Like Stephen said, it's about suitability.

I didn't realize that you were going for a reductio ad absurdum angle in your argument.

No, I don't use words like that, but I frequently use words like "characterization" when talking about my favorite books or video games.

I use the word "socialization" all the time when talking about politics or religion.

Maybe it's my choice of hobbies and friends, but I find larger complex words popping up in my vocabulary often enough.

And I don't watch sports, so I wouldn't know what kind of words I would use to respond to exciting moments.

"characterization" and "socialization" aren't that big or complex, then again I am probably subbing big and complex for unusual.

Either way, you can't expect people to be like and talk like you talk. In an age where everything is disposable and quicker than it has ever been before, where I can talk to you and I have never even met you, you think language is going to stay exactly the same?

Words will get shorter, people will communicate more quickly and language will change. Like I think having "where", "were" and "we're" is useless, if I was speaking to you, you would have no clue which were I used ... so I do the same with my typing and writing (I was also never taught the difference, my school got shut down for bad teaching).

I do the same with "there" and "your" as your reading you might be thinking "HE IS USING THE WRONG WORDS GAHHHH!" but imagine not knowing the difference, just read the sentence out loud and it makes sense. That's how I see it anyway and I know 99% of the world disagrees but there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[KaiserKnight]

There used to be a program used over 12 years ago that was similar to this. It showed the proper word then a spelling similar to text/chat speak as a short cut of how it was pronounced. There was a vhs and textbook with it and at the end of each chapter (4 total) it would quiz you on how to say the word, spell the word and pronounce the word. I do think this could help people learn english if it is not their first language but it should be used like this old teaching course so people will know how to properly SPELL the world.

This should NOT be the MAIN way things are done though and only done for beginner courses or people with a large difficulty in learning...though I still wonder why we have silent letters.

Examples

What, wat
Please, plz
Later, l-8-er (saying l-8-r the way its written sounds incorrect)

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Either way, you can't expect people to be like and talk like you talk.

I don't expect people to be like me and talk like me, but I do expect that people should write properly in academic and professional settings and communicate clearly in all situations, especially if an important topic is being discussed.

That's how I see it anyway and I know 99% of the world disagrees but there is nothing I can do about that.

And there's the key difference between you and I. You accept that the world is moving in a certain direction and you accept that. I don't. I'll accept oversimplification of language to its detriment when I am forced to, and not a second sooner.

 

[omega 616]

Either way, you can't expect people to be like and talk like you talk.

I don't expect people to be like me and talk like me, but I do expect that people should write properly in academic and professional settings and communicate clearly in all situations, especially if an important topic is being discussed.

That's how I see it anyway and I know 99% of the world disagrees but there is nothing I can do about that.

And there's the key difference between you and I. You accept that the world is moving in a certain direction and you accept that. I don't. I'll accept oversimplification of language to its detriment when I am forced to, and not a second sooner.

Like I have said 3 times now, it is about suitability. Talking with friends and such you use a more basic form of language, shorter words etc.Not all the time.

Talking in an interview or on an essay you use bigger and better words. To make a better impression or get better marks.

It is not to it's determent, be more like wheat and less like dry spaghetti. That's like saying e mail was the to the detriment of mail, it's not worse and it's not better ... it's different.

I would much rather get a hand written letter as it shows personality and it's more personal. E mail is far more efficient, cheaper and quicker.

Nobody is forcing you to start putting "plz" and "m8" but standing against it would be like people standing against what you term as correct English. We stopped speaking like "wherefore art thou?" and started saying "where are you?" as times changed and times are changing again.

Who knows, before the next millennium we might be like those Bynars on star trek who walk around in pairs communicating in binary 'cos it's quicker than this.

 

[CordlessPen]

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

While I'm possibly just as distraught as you are when "Textese" is involved, you really went in the wrong direction when you started this discussion. Not only is your given example extremely anecdotal, it doesn't even concern the point you're trying to make. Your student used "Textese" in a formal assignment, so "Textese" doesn't help in the learning of the manipulation of phonetics? I'm sorry (genuinely), but the facts say that it does.

None of us individually control how a language evolves. Hell, we barely even do it institutionally. Society and common use dictates language, and those who use "textese" will one day grow up to be parents, and might tell their children "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" So, yes, this might be the next evolution of American English. I doubt it though.

And in a way, they're right; the message IS the important part. Simplifying the orthography of words has always happened. Do you not understand when someone writes "esthetics" (aesthetics), "center" (centre), "plow" (plough) or "maneuver" (manoeuvre)? Do you accept those words, spelled like that, in your class? Of course you do, all those words can be found in any American English dictionary. But you couldn't spell like that in 1755. English evolved by getting simplified.

The only thing that is lost in "textese" is an intrinsic artistic part of language that you and I love, but those people obviously don't care about. I also happen to care about "Manoeuvre", but I sure as hell can't hold the same discourse about it. you have every right to not like it, you even have every right to not accept it in your class, since they're not words, but you can't say it doesn't "train a person in the manipulation of phonetics", because it does.

Now, I won't go into why it's never going to be an actual evolution of language (at least not within our lifespan), but I will nevertheless say that you seem pretty close-minded about the issue of language for a teacher. You'd probably have an aneurysm if you were going through our "new French" bullshit. It's almost as bad as "textese", but it's sanctioned by the Académie...

 

[Suicidejim]

If it's a formal writing environment, then no, abbreviations and 'textese' (first time I've ever heard that term) are simply incorrect. If you are having a conversation with a friend however, or have limited time or character limits in which to compose your message, then I see no reason to crucify 'textese.' Personally, I try to write with as much accuracy as I can, though my grammar is hardly perfect. Still, that's just one of my compulsive desires for things to be 'correct' (like how I'll refuse to listen to a song on my iPod if I realise that the title isn't capitalized properly).

 

[spartan231490]

I've seen multiple threads decrying the use of "textese" or "txt spk" (retching noise), and I'm glad. On of the reasons I like the escapist is that the user base seems to have a level of respect for intelligence, and that kind of respect is a rare thing on the internet.

But then today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

I'm not a researcher, nor am I a linguist or sociologist. But what I am is a teacher, and I'd like to offer up an anecdote:

During my first year of teaching I taught secondary English. Of course, when you have class full of 16 and 17-year-old students, everyone is going to have a cell phone, and the majority of my students were fluent in "textese."

I, of course, had them write multiple essays and papers over the course of the year, and on more than one occasion, I saw the use of slang and shorthand WITHIN ACADEMIC WRITING. When I explained to the class why this was unacceptable, several students attempted to argue with me, asserting "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

Brevity is not equivalent to simplicity. Do you not teach your students to write concisely? I'm not arguing that text speak should be used in academic writing, especially not an English class, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because it's longer, that doesn't mean it will be more complex. The clouds are dark and water is falling from the sky and we call it rain. That is not a complex, or a good sentence, but it is lengthy.

That said, I think certain forms of text speak are acceptable in some academic circles. I don't find it completely abhorrent in scientific circles, where the purpose is to convey the meaning in the most brief and concise manner possible, but it is totally unacceptable in an English class, where the purpose is to show your ability to wield formal English.

To an extent, I agree. Concision is very important and I do try to teach that.

But neither brevity, nor simplicity, nor complexity, nor any characteristic of written language is as important as its effectiveness, and for language to be effective, it needs to be standardized: there must be a standard set of rules of definitions. The alternative is confusion and semantic miscommunication.

I would argue that the standard for a language is it's common usage. That's why ain't now appears in dictionaries, among other things, and like it or not, textese is becoming common and "standard" even if us low-texters can't understand it at all

 

[SilentFlames26]

"Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

That is just the same as saying that if I write the word bird, brid and you can somehow understand what I am trying to say, then it should be correct. What utter rubbish! Their misunderstanding of the english language astounds me!

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I viciously refuse the usage of this "textese" at all times, save for the extremely few number of people who speak my dialect. It's fucking retarded, it ruins people's literacy and it's fucking retarded (I simply have to point that out twice).

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

The only times I use Textese is when I'm texting someone and:
A)I can't fit it into the 140 character limit
B)When I need someone to read it RIGHT NOW and I have no time to put the extra letters in (my phone uses a keypad instead of a full keyboard).

 

[Lilani]

Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will.

That's the issue, though. As this sort of communication becomes more and more common, especially among teenagers and young adults, there is a certain expectation that certain shorthand SHOULD be allowed in formal writing, as I showed in my anecdote.

I'm with you that some people are more alarmist about it than they should be, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I do think that "textese" does more harm than good for the development of writing skills.

I see your point, but I think what it all comes down to is how much a person cares about knowing and using proper grammar. I mean, you can block a child off from improper grammar their entire childhood, but in the end when they are inevitably exposed to the "real world" they will pick up what they want here and there and decide on their own what they want to use. Some people are just predisposed to using simpler language than others, and some people care about mistakes more than others.

In school, they will learn proper grammar--or they should, anyway. And if their future careers, or their aspirations, or even just their curiosity require them to retain that knowledge (or even seek out more), then that is what they will do. If they aren't interested, they won't learn it.

Also, you act as though the use of proper grammar in common situations with young folk was running rampant before "textese." Have you heard children and teens talk amongst themselves before? It can be almost painful sometimes. Their little mistakes and made up uses for words run rampant like trends when they get out. And in the school situation, they're all packed in there together, allowing those grammatical fallacies to slowly cook into the deepest parts of their minds. These mistakes slowly becoming adopted as the "right" simply by repetition and peer pressure.

And in the end, the ones who learn and care enough will grow out of it. And those who don't will not. It's sad, but true. That is why you'll get a certain group of college students who still say things like "You times the numbers" and confuse the usages of there, their, and they're, and another group solely devoted to pointing out the mistakes of the former. Some people just don't give two shits. They'll keep making the mistakes regardless of how they learned them, simply because it doesn't matter to them.

 

[crudus]

It is just like cursing or guns. They have beneficial applications and we may use them if taught when it is appropriate. Remember when you would be punished for saying stupid shit like "shit" and "stupid". Now that we (most of us) and adults or young adults people seem to care less if we say it unless it is in a professional setting. "Textese" helps with communication skills, cursing helps manage pain, guns help catch food. We should be taught that you can't use "textese" on a job application, can't use cursing in a job interview, and shouldn't use guns in populated areas. Other than that textese is perfectly fine. Honestly, I can't wait for "textese" to be a dialect.

if you agree with the prevailing opinion on the site, anything goes.

History goes to the victor.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Do you allow your students to use contractions in their academic writings?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will.

That's the issue, though. As this sort of communication becomes more and more common, especially among teenagers and young adults, there is a certain expectation that certain shorthand SHOULD be allowed in formal writing, as I showed in my anecdote.

I'm with you that some people are more alarmist about it than they should be, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I do think that "textese" does more harm than good for the development of writing skills.

I see your point, but I think what it all comes down to is how much a person cares about knowing and using proper grammar. I mean, you can block a child off from improper grammar their entire childhood, but in the end when they are inevitably exposed to the "real world" they will pick up what they want here and there and decide on their own what they want to use. Some people are just predisposed to using simpler language than others, and some people care about mistakes more than others.

In school, they will learn proper grammar--or they should, anyway. And if their future careers, or their aspirations, or even just their curiosity require them to retain that knowledge (or even seek out more), then that is what they will do. If they aren't interested, they won't learn it.

Also, you act as though the use of proper grammar in common situations with young folk was running rampant before "textese." Have you heard children and teens talk amongst themselves before? It can be almost painful sometimes. Their little mistakes and made up uses for words run rampant like trends when they get out. And in the school situation, they're all packed in there together, allowing those grammatical fallacies to slowly cook into the deepest parts of their minds. These mistakes slowly becoming adopted as the "right" simply by repetition and peer pressure.

And in the end, the ones who learn and care enough will grow out of it. And those who don't will not. It's sad, but true. That is why you'll get a certain group of college students who still say things like "You times the numbers" and confuse the usages of there, their, and they're, and another group solely devoted to pointing out the mistakes of the former. Some people just don't give two shits. They'll keep making the mistakes regardless of how they learned them, simply because it doesn't matter to them.

Now there's a good point.

I've argued that most of human behavior comes down to value systems, what a person values as compared to what they don't.

I value the "how" that is being communicated just as much as I value the "what" that is being communicated, thus I get frustrated at people with the attitude: "Why does the 'how' matter?"

Some people value the "what" more. They'll simplify language wherever possible and not bat an eye.

Some people value the "how" more and these are your grammar nazis.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Sure, you can get away with that sort of thing if your *AHEM* someone like House, so good at what you do that it doesn't matter if you're unkempt (and I doubt that this sort of thing ever even happens in the real world). However, for most people, if you're going to be taken seriously at whatever job you work, you need a professional appearance that suits that job.

I'm sorry, but please tell me you did that on purpose. Please.

OT: Textese is obviously not good, and the two articles saying it was, were wrong. It's really as simple as that.
Hell, I have trouble deciphering it, and when I attempt to do so, it gives me a major headache. So for me, the "it doesn't matter how it's spelt, as long as you understand it"-argument really doesn't work; I guess that's subjective, though.