According to this news story from our friends at the Beeb, text speak might actually be helping students spell. I know, I don’t believe it either.
I’m not entirely sure whether to just wave my hand dismissively and say “Bah!”, or whether to concede that perhaps kids texting each other in something that looks like English but missing half the letters might not be the slippery slope to Idiocracy either…
Thoughts on this one? I’m not sure about it, myself.
O rly? :dubious:
I suppose it may be that using text language promotes an awareness of what the words are supposed to be, but unless it promotes usage of those words, it’s not a lot of help, is it?
Dr. Clare Wood, who published the research, was interviewed about it this morning on the radio. Her argument is that in order to be able to use consistently a text replacement like ‘l8r’ and to interpret it, you need a relatively sophisticated understanding of phonics and alternative spelling. You have to, in that example, be able to understand that the phonic sound can be equally represented by ‘ate’ and by the sound represented by the symbol ‘8’. She says that this is precisely the deep understanding that primary schools are trying to teach new readers through complex phonics. I suppose it’s like that ‘joke’ around being able to spell ‘fish’ as ‘ghoti’ if you use the phonic sounds (is that tautology? I’m not sure) from other words.
The counter argument, which actually turned out not to be much of a direct opposition, was that there is an inverse relationship observed between the amount of time spent texting and performance on cognitive tests, particuarly on verbal reasoning. However, as Dr. Wood said, it isn’t seriously suggested that texting a lot in and of itself makes you less adept at verbal reasoning, and there is likely to be one or more additional factors, particularly socio-economic, affecting the relationship, rather than it being a causal link.
Dr. Wood was very measured and (from the little you can tell during a 5 minute radio interview) seemed well aware of the derision her results may be subjected to, but defended and interpreted them robustly. I wasn’t hugely convinced, I have to say, and typing ‘l8r’ just now made me wince as all txtspk does, but it was an interesting interpretation and discussion.
You do, in order to invent the “alternate spelling” in the first place, but not to just apishly spell it that way because that’s the way you’re used to seeing it spelled.
Well the thing about interfacing with the internet is that you have to spell things correctly or you cannot find what you are searching for.
Yeah, that’s the flaw I’m seeing here. In order for textspeak to reinforce standard spelling, the person in question already needs to know the standard spelling of a word. There’s nothing in the word l8r to suggest that 8 = ate instead of eight or aight or whatever, and nothing in b4 to suggest that it’s really before instead of bifour.
Further, who’s to say that the letters and numbers need actually represent other chunks of letters? Much of textspeaking only requires that you know your ABCs and 123s. If you’re not a keen speller in school, but you know the word before (as in you know what it means when you speak it, not how to spell it), it’s not a very large leap to realize that the first syllable when you sound it out is equal to b, and the second syllable is equal to 4. Thus, the “spelling” of the word for you becomes b4. It’s not a mere representation or shortened spelling, that is the spelling. And I don’t see how that helps with standard spelling at all.
And mswas, that’s becoming increasingly unnecessary thanks to Google’s “Did you mean?” and the fact that others online probably misspell your search words the same way anyway, so you’ll just get those hits. It’s entirely possible to rely heavily on Google’s automatic spelling correction and not pay too much attention to what it’s correcting it too.
Plus, the discussion is about textspeaking, not netspeak. Different animals, although admittedly closely related. You can textspeak all day using a phone and never go near a computer.
Writing is a form of communication where the goal (well, one of the goals, but probably the most important one) is to be understood.
My daughter texts me in textspeak; sometimes quite lengthy and convoluted passages that, despite looking, to my eyes, very weird, are very intelligible. So much so that when she occasionally makes a ‘spelling mistake’ in her textspeak, it stands out as a mistake.
Language is constantly evolving. In fact it’s only in the past couple of hundred of years that ground rules for spelling have been agreed upon. This latest development is more than evolution though; it’s a completely new standard. As with all new standards, many of those who are comfortable with the existing rules are going to find the new one distasteful. It will be interesting to see if it gets assimilated into the mainstream, if it becomes dominant, or if it just withers on the vine.
Yup, no argument from me with that one. Except I didn’t get the impression that she was arguing that it reinforced the standard spelling of a given word, more that it showed the individual was adept in using the phonic rules and logic that teachers were trying to teach them.
I absolutely agree with everyone who’s said that this assumes the individual knows the actual spelling and is consciously subverting it, which is an over-generous interpretation.
As part of my job I monitor a customer services-type email inbox and I’m constantly horrified at the number of contacts we get which use text speak. Bearing in mind that we are a professional organisation, offering professional (and expensive) education and that these mails often begin ‘i have just finished my MSc in’ blah blah, and it’s very alarming. I don’t object to the growth and development of language, but too many people seem to have no understanding of what might be appropriate forms of expression to be used in a particular set of circumstances. (One of the main reasons I find the dope to be a nicer place to be than most of the internet)… aaaaand now I’m ranting at a tangent.
Yes, but doesn’t that say as much about our standards of acceptance than the suitability of the writer? It’s a bit like using the right dress code for an interview. The interviewee is expected to conform to the standards set by the people he wants something from. And that’s why, I guess, you’re ‘horrified’; it’s not (presumably) that their form of communication is unintelligible. I’m assuming that you don’t think it conforms to the standards you expect. Nothing wrong in that, of course. It’s just the clash between an existing and an emerging culture.
No - the BBC did not say that. Researchers from Coventry University argue that.
Any particular reason you took this as a chance to have a dig at the BBC?
Absolutely. I don’t see any problem at all in using text speak between peers, for want of a better expression. You’re right, my objection is solely because the people whose mails I see don’t seem to have any idea of appropriate context. They choose to use excessively informal communication in a very formal setting. Your tie analogy is a good one, and maybe in a couple of decades time insisting on more formal expression will seem as old-fashioned as insisting on a tie appears to many people now.
:rolleyes:
I’m a huge admirer of the BBC, you know.
And the linked news story was from the BBC, so in common parlance “The BBC says…” even though the people they’re quoting in the story are actually researchers from a University. And more importantly, for the title to work, it needed to conform to something approaching txt speak, and the abbreviation “UoC” doesn’t mean anything to most people whilst “BBC” is instantly recognisable.
Any particular reason you decided to be a wanker in the thread for no good reason?