As a teacher of English, and one who not only espouses the grammatical value of the language, but also embraces the beauty of it, I have recently come to the conclusion that the language as it existed when I was a young student is slowly dying. The importance of knowing and understanding the very intricate nature of the colourful landscape that is the English language is not high on the agenda for my students anymore. And, it saddens me to a certain extent. For a few years now, I have lectured my students of the inappropriateness of using their everyday technological vernacular in their assignments and begged them to remember that when their feet cross the boundaries into my classroom, they must then morph into a student of English. An English student who speaks and writes correctly, one who follows and uses the generic conventions of the language of which we are learning. Not too much to ask of a generation who communicates primarily through speaking, even when they are writing? Right???
The evolution of the English language has intrigued me for some time now. I’ve queried the use of ‘bro’ when referring to a friend and not a brother. I’ve been confused when ‘yo!’ has been shouted across the path and bemused when a student has stated ‘lol’ instead of actually laughing. Until recently, while ‘textese’ had infiltrated the school ground conversations of the youth, it hadn’t begun to appear in the writing of my students. However, words (if we can refer to them as such) like ‘bae’, bff, 2, u and BRB have been increasingly appearing in written assessment items in English. At first, I was perplexed, disgusted, angered and shocked. I fought it and I even badgered my students about their lack of respect for myself as an English teacher and the language. One might even suggest that I went through the various phases of grieving for the death of a language that I had spent many years learning about and had grown to adore. But, as I learnt during my university days, the English language is ever-changing, it evolves to reflect societies, cultures, attitudes, values and beliefs as generations experience and engage with the world on completely different platforms. Technology has shifted the way in which the youth engage with the world, and therefore communicate (Crystal, D, 2008). So, after indulging my own highbrow tantrum, I felt it was necessary to do some research to try and decipher how I could firstly accept this shift in language, and secondly to gauge whether or not this modern language is impacting upon the literacy skills of the millennials in our English classrooms.
Textese is defined as the abbreviated, informal and even nonconventional form of language that has become common practice in texting and various forms of technological communication (Oulette and Michaud, 2016). As it has become more popular in the manner in which the youth communicate, many teachers have begun to blame textese for the death of the English language and for the steady decline of basic literacy skills. Perhaps, I have been guilty of playing this blame game also. It turns out that linguists have been exploring the phenomenon of textese for some time now and can actually challenge the assumption that we as teachers believe that this language has had a detrimental effect on the English language. In fact, it has been identified that by allowing children to be creative with language allows their minds to open and encourages greater abilities to learn new languages (Martiyniuk, 2013). Further to this, recent studies have completely challenged the assumption that textese has had a negative impact on literacy skills, indicating that there is no clear relationship between the practice of text-messaging and literacy skills in the youth (Oulette & Michaud, 2016). David Crystal, renowned professor of linguistics goes further by espousing the benefits of texting and the inherent language that is used in his book, ‘Txtng: The Gr8 Db8’. He argues that texting and textese has added a ‘new dimension’ to language and its use, stating simply that ‘it’s not a bad thing’ (Crystal, pg 10, 2008). Even the media have jumped on the bandwagon, espousing the damage teachers can do if we continue to denigrate and ignore the consistent use of this modern language in the youth (Bloom, 2015). So, if academics and facets of the media can accept this shift in the use of language, then maybe I should too?
Technology has been embraced by this generation and as a result, 5 billion text messages and 30 billion emails are exchanged on a daily basis. The sheer extent of these interactions demonstrates how technology and its language have increased the value of reading and the ability to interact with others (Baggott, 2007). This reliance on text messaging has added new layers to our understanding of what it means to be literate communicators and has also allowed teenagers with a sense of control of language (Baggott, 2007). Further to this idea of control, ongoing research into this language phenomenon indicates that text messaging and instant messaging often varies dependent on the dialogue, relationship, seriousness of content or rhetorical situation. Basically, it is suggested that when a person texts or IMs another who is not a close friend, or when the message contains a more serious tone, the grammar and spelling become less abbreviated and more conventional (Williams, in Baggott, 2007). This notion can then allow for teachers to understand that if their students have the capability of switching style in their dialogue for a contextual purpose, they then have the skills to do so when writing in a more formal tone and scenario, such as in the classroom. Furthermore, it demonstrates complexity in their comprehension of language and its purpose in the modern world. In all reality, myself and my colleagues are clearly underestimating the value of our modern ‘bilingual’ students.
Let’s look a little further…
In his presentation, John McWhorter explores this common assumption among academics in regards to the decline of the English language as a result of technology, texting and textese. After watching his discussion, and reading the works of David Crystal, I think I can safely say that there is value to their research and their findings in regards to language. The language that we use on a daily basis, that is our conversational communication continues to evolve. As it has since its inception. Language, in its spoken form does not exist today as it did when cavemen grunted, the Romans deliberated, Shakespeare prosed, Martin Luther King dreamed or as Kanye West devolves back to grunting. The youth are simply utilising the modern tools that they have been given to continue this evolution and embrace the emerging complexity that is the language of texting (McWhorter, 2013). In fact, texting has allowed this generation to engage with writing on a more diverse level. Texting provides a level of communication that utilises the ability for our youth to write as they would speak, therefore allowing a platform for them to engage in the written world. While the generic conventions of writing are ignored in textese (capitalisation, punctuation and simple spelling, for example), we must admit that these are also rules that we don’t consciously think about when speaking on a conversational level. Text messaging and textese has simply embraced this notion of writing as we may speak. It’s not necessarily a written language, but a spoken language (McWhorter, 2013). When considering these ideas, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the way in which we approach the teaching of language?
As teachers, we constantly espouse the benefits and importance of writing, but when students attempt to engage with writing, we berate them for using a written language that is common practice with them and we forget about the value of speaking as a form of language. The written word and its formal conventions seem to be the only platform for communication that we accept. When doing so however, we subconsciously degrade their language as ‘silly’ and inappropriate and in essence, then devalue their ability to communicate. O’Boyle (2015) suggests that teachers underrate their students’ language skills simply because we don’t understand this new form of language. This attitude then devalues the voices of the youth, we make them feel less important and promote the idea that we don’t want to listen to them. So do we, as English teachers or teachers of literacy allow for the use of textese in assessment items or formal writing in an effort to appease their fears of communicating in the classroom? Maybe not. But we can allow for students to engage with traditional texts and the learning of language with teaching activities that perhaps use elements of their common language. Take the teaching of poetry for example. For centuries, poetry has been the one written genre that allows for variations in the use of language, grammar and punctuation. In 2001, The Guardian ran the first text-messaging poetry competition which required the entrants to write a poem the fit the 160 character constraints of a mobile phone screen (Crystal, 2008).
txtin iz messin,
mi headn’me englis,
try2rite essays,
they all come out txtis.
gran not plsed w/letters shes getn,
swears I wrote better
b4 comin2uni
&she’s african
(Hetty Hughes, in Crystal, 2008)
The first reading of the piece of prose is somewhat painful as an English teacher, however, upon further readings, the underlying message is clear. The poet is able to convey her ideas in a simple and succinct manner while still incorporating the basic conventions of the poetry genre. In order to be able to comprehend the message within the text, one must be able to manipulate the language of which they are fluent in. To be able to dissect or even write this poem, one must be able to understand the basic rules of English that engage the use of vowels. Furthermore, the poet demonstrates an advanced literate mind when writing in order to meet the requirements of 160 characters, as she was able to eliminate the ‘unnecessary’ and still provide a clear, identifiable message within her poem. If this was delivered in spoken form to an audience, it would be just as clear as it is in its written form. And, in IMO, this poem is no less confusing than when our students first encounter the works of Shakespeare, Keats or Poe. There is definitely value in allowing students to express themselves with a language that they are comfortable, familiar and fluent in when attempting to teach in a genre or style that they may find confronting and challenging.
‘There is no evidence that texting teaches people to spell badly; rather,
research shows that those kids who text frequently are more likely to be the most literate
and the best spellers, because you have to know how to manipulate the language.’
(David Crystal, 2008)
So, based on my new found knowledge of language and textese, the root of my problem is not the language and the manner in which my students are communicating with me. My problem is my lack of respect for their way of communicating. A lack of understanding and a restricted respect for them as ‘bilingual’ modern speakers. Textese is not ‘killing’ the English language, but is in fact broadening the language. It seems that questions and doubts surrounding the levels of literacy and the knowledge of grammar, spelling and punctuation have existed since the beginning of language use. These concerns are not new. What is new, is what we as educators now blame the decline of literacy on. And, like the texts that become entrenched in popular culture, so will the blame game evolve as the years go on.
References:
"Textese": A literacy teacher's nightmare or benjamin franklin's dream come true? (2008). Voices from the Middle, 15(4), 61-62. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/213930643?accountid=13380
Baggott, K. (2006, March 21). Literacy and text messaging: How will the next generation read and write? Technology Review. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407022/literacy-and-text-messaging/
Bloom, A. (2015). SWYP with txtspk? teachers urged to see the value in online slang. London: Times Supplements Ltd.
Crystal, D., 1941. (2008). Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford;New York;: Oxford University Press.
Ouellette, G., & Michaud, M. (2016). Generation text: Relations among undergraduates' use of text messaging, textese, and language and literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48(3), 217. doi:10.1037/cbs0000046
Five News. (2013, November 21). ‘Text-speak’ creeps into the classroom. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rKp-bLfEGw
McWhorter, J. [TED]. (2013, April 22). Txtng is killing language. JK!! [video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmvOgW6iV2s