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

[RedDeadFred]

Maybe I'm just being a bit of a dick, but I find it weird that the OP complains about the lack of citing peer reviewed evidence in one thread, and proceeds to argue the point with an anecdote.

Which is why I preceded the point by saying that I was not a researcher, sociologist, or linguist. While I was debunking the scholarly validity of the articles presented, I attempted to imply that I would not be approaching my argument from a scholarly perspective.

So even when I was employing proper grammar in attempt to communicate a complex opinion, there was something lost in translation. Imagine the communication breakdown if I wrote in text-speak.

And there are people who still insist that correct grammar isn't as important as literature nerds and grammar police claim?

D#13 (yes that was completely intentional) never said he didn't see your justification for not citing any sources, just that it's funny you chose not too. Surely as an English teacher you should know that "In response to your point which you pulled out of your ass, I present my own point with a similar anal origin" is not a good way to debate. Doesn't take a genius to figure out fighting fire wit fire is a bad idea, same applies to fighting unfounded opinions with unfounded opinions.

I questioned the validity of the research that was presented.

I then stated that I was not in a position to argue from a scholarly perspective myself.

I then offered a personal anecdote related to the topic and drew a simple argument based on that personal experience. I understand that it's not well-founded argument since it is limited to my personal experience, but I had already established I wasn't attempting to create a well-founded scholarly argument, but rather, my own personal opinion on these matters.

Maybe I didn't communicate that point clearly enough, so I'll be as direct as I possibly can. When I said "I'm not a reasearcher, sociologist, or linguist," I was attempting to establish: "What I'm about to say is not founded in research; it is my personal opinion."

If you want to argue that my point is unfounded, bravo. You're regurgitating a point I attempted make in my original post and then expanded upon in my reply to thenumberthirteen. Am I not allowed to call out someone's research as unfounded and then follow up with my personal opinion on the subject, all the while maintaining that I'm not attempting to argue from a scholarly perspective? In formal debate this would not fly, but on a damned internet forum, why not?

Maybe try to get a good understanding of where someone is coming from, and/or lower your expectations, before you accuse that person of pulling things out of their ass.

I understood what you were saying. Also, the fact that you are posting this on a forum (too me at least) generally means that what you say is going to be opinion based. The entire argument going against you is completely semantics and is just dodging around the point that you made:
I believe that textese is bad and here is a real life example that happened to me to show why I believe this.
I don't really understand how that could have been difficult for anyone to get...

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Because I've been terribly serious during this discussion and I don't want to be known as some kind of austere, grammar-policing, teacher person, I thought this would be a good moment to say that "textese" sounds like "testes" (another name for "testicles"), and every time think about this I get an immature grin on my face.

 

[Unesh52]

For a teacher who presumably had to attend college, you sure seem to have neglected to make a proper argument with this little rant. You confidently assert that it's ridiculous to defend the use of so called "textese," but offer no word on how or why. Why it is inappropriate to attempt to communicate "as simply as possible?" In fact, this has always been the foundational rule of all my writing instruction throughout my educational career; never express in 100 words what you can express in 10. If this new language can impart the same level of understanding in the audience that more conventional speech can in a shorter space, then how is it not better? Why does it matter "how something is communicated," as long as the message is the same?

Especially considering the way you've worded your derision, you don't get to assert your conclusion that easily. That being said, I don't necessarily advocate the use of this language. There's a lot of nuance, connotation, and convention tied up in proper academic language and grammar. At the moment, there are no standards regarding "textese," meaning to use it would inevitably invite confusion. Surely though, it could be integrated and standardized. Whether this is a good idea is a little less clear. Surely, "plz" is simpler and easier to write (and even read) than "please," but to adopt that might cause further confusion in the already labyrinthine and contradictory realm of English phonetics. I honestly don't know. It's sort of a moot point right now anyway -- standards are as they are now, and changing them will always be a slow process. You have to learn them, even if that's not how they will stay.

And frankly expecting a student to understand that is a little much. Don't presume your more experienced intuition is available to all.

EDIT: And in response to your sentiment that you're just "stating an opinion" based on "personal experince," just... no. You still made a non-argument. You still need to actually support your opinion if you want to be taken seriously. I don't mean you need to show me research, I just mean you need to have a premise -- at all -- to support your conclusion that "textese" (which does, to your credit, sound like testes) is an indefensible abomination. Because when you come in and just say that, it sounds like you're just butthurt because your teachers back when you were in school wouldn't have let you get away with it.

 

[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.

(god, I hate laugh tracks!)

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.

 

[theheroofaction]

So let me get this straight, people are going about and writing their academic texts without looking like total snobs.

How is this bad exactly?

 

[SadakoMoose]

Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

Oh no you don't!!
Stop right there!
That is no way, shape, or form what George Orwell intended to convey with 1984!
It was basically Orwell's thesis on a number of topics, nationalism and socialism being two of them, but not freaking text messages.
That, and your in violation of the 1984 reference act of 1987.
Find another dystopian/science fiction novel to allude to/be snarky and or contrarian with, or pay the fine.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

 

[peruvianskys]

People are making the mistake here that a masterful command of the English language is somehow the same as wordiness or pretentiousness. This is an excerpt from a Raymond Carver short story:

Saturday afternoon she drove to the bakery in the shopping center. After looking through a loose-leaf binder with photographs of cakes taped onto the pages, she ordered chocolate, the child's favorite. The cake she chose was decorated with a spaceship and launching pad under a sprinkling of white stars, and a planet made of red frosting at the other end. His name, SCOTTY, would be in green letters beneath the planet. The baker, who was an older man with a thick neck, listened without saying anything when she told him the child would be eight years old next Monday. The baker wore a white apron that looked like a smock. Straps cut under his arms, went around in back and then to the front again, where they were secured under his heavy waist. He wiped his hands on his apron as he listened to her. He kept his eyes down on the photographs and let her talk. He let her take her time. He'd just come to work and he'd be there all night, baking, and he was in no real hurry.

That prose is not verbose or overwrought, but you won't find many people ever with a command of the language like Carver had. English is a language with a huge amount of subtlety and variety and being a "good" writer means knowing when to take a word out as well as put one in. Anyone can say: "That afternoon, the bright sun rising in a plethora of cacophonous auburn rays, phosphorescent in their blah blah blah blah blah" but that's not good writing and you won't find many academic circles where that would be met with anything more than disdain. Most any English professor you'll ever have would hate that with about the same passion as they would the use of "LOL" or "plz." Good writing strikes a balance between overly simple and overly verbose. Text speech fails as good writing because it lacks the capacity for subtlety and flair, both of which are really important in any good piece of writing.

I applaud anyone who stands up for the spirit of language while avoiding petty formalism, especially teachers. Demanding five-syllable words in each sentence to flex your academic vocabulary skills is elitist; demanding that people use language with the capacity for any of the qualities that make writing worthwhile is not.

 

[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!