shud i b anoyed by this? r u?

[TakeFive]

I find girls texting me with that chat speak, without punctuation/capitals/ORDER, a turn off.

So why is that? What does it communicate about the person that you find unappealing? Do others feel this way?

[JasonLB]

Jean Aitchison (Professor of Language at Oxford) wrote a book titled Language Change: Progress or Decay? I began writing a synopsis of some of her points, but the book is so dense that I wouldn't do her argument any justice by doing so. But, if anyone is interested, I've included a link to google scholar that, despite the fact it's missing a number of pages, might at least put this debate in its proper historical context. The first chapter is pretty interesting in this regard, and it's a pretty quick read:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... sCeTsVZ_ds

(Edit: thanks to whoever fixed the hyperlink!)

[Mehdi]

I find girls texting me with that chat speak, without punctuation/capitals/ORDER, a turn off.

So why is that? What does it communicate about the person that you find unappealing? Do others feel this way?

It tends to say something about how they are. Not less smart or anything, but usually less mature (whatever their age). I'm generalizing of course, there's an exception to everything. And honestly sometimes I like the chaos (opposites attract). But usually they lose points on this. Maybe it's because I care about it, so I don't like it when someone else doesn't do it.

[bluestreak]

Recently, one of the TV stations here decided to use TXT spk in their ads. There was a huge backlash and they promptly removed it.

About 10 years ago, provincial governments in Canada observed that new grads possessed poor verbal/written skills (something I've discovered in the workplace). Some started to implement a test you were required to pass in order to get your diploma/degree. I had to write it; it was the first year they did it at the college I attended.

What really irks me about text speak is that there is no set, standard definition so it can be a nightmare interpreting it. I guess this annoyance comes from bring a programmer. I expect strict rules in the language so I can use it to clearly and concisely tell the computer what to do.

[DaveT]

I am happy to accept that language will change, new meanings and spellings will arise, but I feel it should be for the better of the language not the worse, which is hard to determine. The problem that I have with text speak is that it doesn't improve the clarity of communication by the person. As we use language to communicate, surely this is a valid goal.

Ben (Bluestreak) talked about the confusion of there being no standard definition for words, which was brilliantly highlighted by the link he provided. The article talked about a tv station using 'TMW' to indicate 'tomorrow' in its promos, but then somebody in the comments said that they should have used "2MORO". Classic! This brings me onto the second part of clarity. We have different spellings for words to indicate the meaning of that word. For example, we have 'to', 'too' and 'two' which would all be written as '2' in text speak. Now I realise that we could interpret which '2' the person meant by looking at the rest of the sentence, but using '2' isn't improving or making the language more efficient and the message more understandable.

As to what using text speak says of people, I feel that many people use it to show that they're 'with it'. This is the cool, new, hi-tech way to communicate and if you're not communicating this way then you're living in the dark ages. Unfortunately, I don't give a rat's arse about what people think, so this possible need to be socially accepted says a lot about the person.
Secondly, I'm a believer in doing things properly, and I guess this stems from my upbringing. It may be a class and education thing, but I suspect that it's much more a parental example that was set. There's always a correct way to do things and my mother, particularly, would show me the correct way to do simple everyday tasks, such as sitting at a table and eating. This idea of learning the correct way, taking a little more time, putting in a little more effort so that something is completed to a higher standard/quality was instilled at an early age. I feel that it is this mindset that is probably shared by many SLers because it is something we do with our lifting and probably most areas of our lives. So what does text speak say to me? This person is probably not of that mind set, and maybe they are more likely to rush through something and think less about the quality of what they're doing.

These kinds of discussions always remind me of the movie Blade Runner and its dystopian split society, illustrated by the narrator (Harrison Ford):

“That gibberish he talked was city speak, gutter talk. A mishmash of Japanese, Spanish, German, what have you. I didn't really need a translator, I knew the lingo, every good cop did. But I wasn't going to make it easier for him."

I suspect we will see a mishmash of Chinese, Spanish and English. Having taught here in Taiwan, learnt some Chinese, and listened to the kids speak their Chinglish, you realise quite quickly that Chinese grammar is very efficient, and it wouldn't take much stretch of the imagination to see their Chinglish sentence patterns being adopted.
e.g.
English - He is going home now.
Chinglish - He now go home.
Why have complicated verb tenses which need to agree with the subject when you can just use the time phrase before the verb and leave the verb as it is?

[lovestolift]

We have different spellings for words to indicate the meaning of that word. For example, we have 'to', 'too' and 'two' which would all be written as '2' in text speak. Now I realise that we could interpret which '2' the person meant by looking at the rest of the sentence, but using '2' isn't improving or making the language more efficient and the message more understandable.

This idea reminds me of Orwell's 1984, especially "Newspeak." The only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. The idea was to remove all the subtlety from the language, leaving only dichotomous words like good-bad, happy-sad, hot-cold, et cetera.

In the novel it was something imposed upon the people by a totalitarian regime. In modern society, we are doing it to ourselves. We are shrinking our own vocabularies and losing our perspicacity.

Words have always had the power to motivate, cajole, inspire, enlighten and enrich our lives. I simply can't see "Textspeak" doing any of those things.

[TakeFive]

In modern society, we are doing it to ourselves. We are shrinking our own vocabularies and losing our perspicacity.

And this is occurring when new words are being created in the English language at an increasing pace. Here's a few that were added to the 2008 Merriam-Webster dictionary:

air quotes, dirty bomb, fanboy, kiteboarding, malware, netroots, pretexting, subprime, supercross, webinar, wing nut, and of course “w00t” (we Owned the Other team).

It's funny to listen to Spanish language radio and hear these words pop up in their perfect English pronunciation. I think the French were feeling rather threatened by this. I seem to recall an effort several years ago by the government to come up with French equivalents. They seemed particularly incensed by "floppy disk" or some such expression.

But your original point is correct. If you forbid the use of the words: like, actually, basically, thing, and half the swear words, many people would have to make a difficult adjustment in order to communicate.

It all seems like a devious experiment: give people a 10 digit key pad and a 120 character limit and watch how their language devolves. Kind of a reverse Sims.

[lovestolift]

And this is occurring when new words are being created in the English language at an increasing pace. Here's a few that were added to the 2008 Merriam-Webster dictionary:

air quotes, dirty bomb, fanboy, kiteboarding, malware, netroots, pretexting, subprime, supercross, webinar, wing nut, and of course “w00t” (we Owned the Other team).

These neologisms are a perfect example of our ever-decreasing vocabulary. They don't add anything of value to the language. It is the lexicon of the plebeian.

The problem is not with the shrinking of the English language itself, but in the shrinking use of the language. I have been forced to decrease my own vocabulary, because I've grown weary of having to explain myself to my friends and co-workers. I can use the quintessential word to explain what I mean, but I then have to explain the meaning of that word. So why use the right word in the first place? Why not let the language devolve into a series of grunts and groans?

[atypical1]

These neologisms are a perfect example of our ever-decreasing vocabulary. They don't add anything of value to the language. It is the lexicon of the plebeian.

The problem is not with the shrinking of the English language itself, but in the shrinking use of the language. I have been forced to decrease my own vocabulary, because I've grown weary of having to explain myself to my friends and co-workers. I can use the quintessential word to explain what I mean, but I then have to explain the meaning of that word. So why use the right word in the first place? Why not let the language devolve into a series of grunts and groans?

I think that you are perhaps taking things a bit too far. I don't think that the changing of the vernacular is necessarily a bad thing. Let's be honest (and this point has been made a few times) and just admit that language has evolved and will continue to evolve. Does that mean that we are necessarily being "dumbed down"? I don't think that language in and of itself is the sole or even the best test for that. Simply memorizing what a word means and how to spell it doesn't indicate intelligence. It indicates a good memory.

Words find their way in and out of favor. It just happens. Look at literature from the 1600's compared to modern lit and you'll see what I mean. That doesn't mean that guys like Billy Shakes (I know that will piss off you lit majors...) were any smarter than a guy like Kerouac at all. It just means they spoke differently.

For me a great sign of intelligence (maybe not best but certainly one of my favorites) is the ability to convey your message in the simplest way possible. That doesn't mean "dumbing down" that means truly understanding what it is you're talking about.

james

[lovestolift]

For me a great sign of intelligence (maybe not best but certainly one of my favorites) is the ability to convey your message in the simplest way possible.

Simplest, not simplistic. Many of the words I'm talking about make the point in the fewest words possible. These words serve to streamline our speech patterns. Your point about intelligence is valid, I think language is only one aspect to consider. It is difficult, and beyond the scope of this discussion to define intelligence.

I agree that language evolves over time, but it doesn't have to abandon its useful attributes in order to do so. We evolved, yet our genes share over 96% similarity to chimpanzees. Even using the word 'evolve' to describe the current state of language is a bit disingenuous. Evolving indicates a move up the proverbial ladder, where as simply being too lazy to type the word "to" doesn't qualify as evolutionary in my book.

[JasonLB]

I agree with most of the observations being put forward in this thread. I generally avoid using text speech (though I do use it on occasion), and poor grammar, especially in a formal setting, drives me nuts. But I find some of the conclusions being drawn about what this all means in terms of the trajectory of our language and culture a bit hyperbolic. As an undergraduate, I majored in history with a concentration in early colonial America, so I've read a lot of diary entries and letters written in the 17th and early 18th centuries. They are shot through with weird, idiosyncratic abbreviations and contractions (not to mention that there wasn't a standardized spelling at the time). My point is that informal speech, written and spoken, has always played fast and loose with language rules. Someone mentioned earlier that the current trend is contributing to the bifurcation of society -- when has a bifurcated society not been the case? Samuel Johnson, one of the men responsible for codifying what we consider proper English, made a point of saying that his goal was to purge the language of its crudities. Those crudities, it should be noted, were not in vogue amongst Johnson's peers, but they were alive and well amongst the vast majority of the 'under class.' His was a reaction against the exact same trend we are currently experiencing, a trend that has always existed and will always exist.

I can almost imagine how distraught the Anglo-Saxon conquers of Britain must have been when those damn Vikings (and, no doubt, Celtic natives) began screwing up their sacred mother tongue. Then came the Normans. The literati must have been dismayed when they realized that the way they wrote, which hadn't changed much at all over the previous centuries, wasn't at all the way the language was spoken by the vast majority of the people.

Changes in language, whether they be for the better or worse, whether they add to the richness of a language or subtract from it, originate from one sector of society and flourish, get picked up by another sector and spread, and, from there, either get adopted by the literary elite, become convention, and get passed down to succeeding generations, or they die and pass from usage. Every generation, almost as a rule, laments the fate of the language in the hands of its successor, and every time the Armageddon predicted has failed to come. What makes this generation so different?

[lovestolift]

Every generation, almost as a rule, laments the fate of the language in the hands of its successor, and every time the Armageddon predicted has failed to come.

It fails to come because there are those that watch out for the language. The torch-bearers if you will. Allowing something the freedom to grow doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to ensure it doesn't stagnate.

Sure, some of the points (mine, perhaps) have been hyperbolic. But doesn't it worry you when you use a word like hyperbolic and have to explain it? I don't want to live in a simplistic world, where ignorance is rampant and intelligent use of the language only nets you a blank stare.

[JasonLB]

It fails to come because there are those that watch out for the language. The torch-bearers if you will. Allowing something the freedom to grow doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to ensure it doesn't stagnate.

I'd argue that, in fact, the Armageddon always fails to materialize because (a) innovations that have a negative effect on the language (i.e. decrease the ease of communication), more often than not, eventually die out; and (b) each succeeding generation, as that which is responsible for those innovations that so alarmed its forefathers, quite naturally recognizes those innovations as convention, as the new rule, which is then passed down to the next generation. This cycle then repeats itself, sometimes quicker, sometimes slower, but each time the bearers of language standards decry what they see as a degradation of the language, only for that so called degradation to be adopted and then turned into the new standard. I think what we are seeing now, and why it seems perhaps more alarming (though, that's debatable) is that mass media, the internet, cellphones and the simple fact that so many are now literate (it's easier to confine a language when a small minority hold the reins) have sped up this process of change.

Sure, some of the points (mine, perhaps) have been hyperbolic. But doesn't it worry you when you use a word like hyperbolic and have to explain it? I don't want to live in a simplistic world, where ignorance is rampant and intelligent use of the language only nets you a blank stare.

It drives me absolutely nuts, and yes, it worries me. But when has this not been the case? In how many of Shakespeare's comedies does he employ a comic character, always from the lower class -- like Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream -- who constantly uses malapropisms? It's funny only because it rings true, then and now. I think now it seems more apparent and widespread only because society, in general, is more fluid. But I'm willing to bet there are more highly educated, highly articulate individuals, as a percentage of the population, then at any other time in the history of the world.

[lovestolift]

But I'm willing to bet there are more highly educated, highly articulate individuals, as a percentage of the population, then at any other time in the history of the world.

Yes, it's quite possible as education is more widespread.

In how many of Shakespeare's comedies does he employ a comic character, always from the lower class -- like Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream -- who constantly uses malapropisms? It's funny only because it rings true, then and now.

It would cease to be funny if his plays were populated only by Bottom-like characters. I feel like I'm surrounded by these people sometimes, and it makes my head hurt. It's not just the ignorance, but the arrogance that gets to me. People are afraid to be wrong. When they are shown to be wrong, they shuck-and-jive their way out of it, without accepting their mistake. Then, they continue to make that mistake.

[TakeFive]

Damn guys - so many interesting points raised. If only time permitted...

Someone mentioned earlier that the current trend is contributing to the bifurcation of society -- when has a bifurcated society not been the case? ... What makes this generation so different?

Guess that's the advantage of being a historian. The long view tends to smooth out these little cultural Armageddons. I think what’s different this time is both the speed and number of fronts in this assault on the language.

I don’t think it’s entirely nostalgia, but back when we went to grammar school, that there was a specific focus on proper English in our educational system. There was a certain expectation to speak and write well – at least in the average middle-class schools I attended. Now it’s about learning enough of the rules to pass the exit exam.

Look how ghetto slang is mainstreamed into movies and television. Now you’ve got little white kids calling each other Bro and talking about poppin’ cap in someone. Same for the massive distribution of Hip-Hop/Rap. Some 16 year old girl pulls up next to me in mom’s BMW playing rap about bitches and Ho’s and I can only shake my head.

How about the social networking sites? Kids spend hours on these and it’s by and large just gibberish that reinforces sloppiness.

And if a further push is needed, my cell carrier will take a typed message and “translate” it to text speak – for no additional charge!

Maybe as a protest I’ll run my replies to text speak through the Yoda Speak translator:

http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/index.php

My briefs are twisted in a knot over this.

Yoda speak: Twisted in a knot over this, my briefs are. Hmmmmmm.