Comments on: Is ‘text speak’ really so bad?

By: Gregor

Gregor — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:30:41 +0000

Hmmm, the scolarly answers may leave me looking a little unlearned I’m afraid.
I tend to agree though, that the ‘older’ generations are being left behind with the evolution of the language. In my opinion, this is fair enough, you had the Bodgies and Widgies, terms from my parents generation, and I am sure my grandparents had no clue as to what those terms meant. I agree, that each generation, to an extent, will adapt the english language. The use of incorrect pronunciation to distinguish a neighbourhood, almost as an accent, to prove what ‘hood’ you are from, the slang of gangs and groups. These things all seem accaptable if you are tolerant, but complete butchery of the language is something that needs to stop. I use phrases from TV, ‘fo shizzle ma nizzle’ being one of a few, but this is spelled phonetically, and text speak, is just plain laziness. If it is so hard to spell correctly, use the phone and call the person!!!

By: philippa

philippa — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:14:58 +0000

Thanks for raising this important point, Tom (and very well argued, I might add!).

It’s indisputable that ‘cos’ and ‘wot’ are not accepted as ‘proper’ English, but as I said in my post there is a difference between what people use in informal and formal communication.

In my opinion the issue surrounding any sense of alienation as a result of generational language change is slightly different to the issue I was discussing. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting phenomenon in the field of social linguistics – not a new one though.

I agree that it can feel alienating to hear language that we find hard to understand, but by that token should we be banning all foreign languages from public areas in an effort to avoid excluding anyone? Do we need to understand everything that is said around us?

Depending on your point of view, different languages and dialects (to include patois and invented speak such as ‘text speak’) can either threaten established traditions of communication, thereby creating a sense of fragmentation and division, or instead contribute to a rich mix of intercultural communication that finds a way to work in harmony.

I’m pretty sure that different social and age groups have been, to some extent, speaking with their own ‘languages’ since time began. My point in my post (I think) was that things are same as they ever were, rather than worse. Still, I think Prof. David Crystal and I might be in a fairly sparsely populated camp in terms of which side we favour!

I’ve been asked to publish an extended version of this article in the ITI Bulletin next month, so linguists look out for it and by all means send me feedback!

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:44:01 +0000

I agree that language must be allowed to evolve, but if you look at the very examples you give it has been nearly 200 years since the recognition of ‘cos’ and ‘wot’, yet they are still considered improper by many.
The problem is our language seems to be evolving at a rate which is beginning to leave generations behind. Many teenagers today speak a kind of bastardised patois, which sounds incomprehensible to many, including myself.
It has always been the way that youths will have certain slang terms almost purposefully designed to distinguish themselves from their parents, but I feel we are now facing an entire generational language which leads only to further alienation.
Great blog by the way.

By: oberone

oberone — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:56:41 +0000

Linguistic doom-mongers frequently lament d demise of d eng lngwij, complaining dat stdz R jst not wot dey Usd 2 b, dat kds dEz dAz simply don’t hav a grasp of how 2 uz lngwij coReclE, lack creativity, etc., etc.