Having promised not to repeat the conversation to the parties concerned, I was asked by Goshia how her new friends, Aisling and Ellen, managed to hold down their jobs seeing as both were illiterate. Ireland, she surmised, was amazingly tolerant of people with serious learning difficulties. The reason for her concern: Text messages she received from them.
Much has been written in the media recently about the rise in usage of text speak in Irish school examinations. This phenomenon is common in most English speaking countries. Scotland and New Zealand, for example, are debating whether it should be permitted in some cases.
But every article I have read about this in the papers misses some important points.
How did text speak originate? SMS was a technology developed without a purpose. There were suggestions that service providers could use it to send customers important information about special offers, for example. When person-to-person SMS became possible in the late 1990’s not even the scientists, the service providers or the phone manufacturers could have predicted how popular it would become. It’s popularity was mainly due to it initially being free of charge. By the time the providers worked out how to charge for it, it had already taken hold. Furthermore, due to very high voice tariffs, it was still a cheaper way to communicate. This perception survives today despite being no longer true.
At that time the manufacturers were playing catch-up. Predictive texting had not yet evolved. Email however, was commonplace. People were used to composing long rambling messages. With SMS being limited to 160 characters, this wasn’t possible. The workaround was to truncate words or spell them phonetically. The English language lends itself to this. Text speak was born.
Today, every handset supports predictive text (T9). Every provider supports concatenated messages. It is just a easy to compose a properly punctuated message with fully spelled words as it is to use text speak. Yet text speak has already taken hold as it is perceived as being faster - another misconception.
What the journalists miss is that text speak is no longer a necessity. Yet they continue to attribute the poor spelling and grammar of our students to mobile phone text messaging. They also blame email, as do the State Examinations Commission. Since when did email every force a user to truncate their message? Since when has a short email been cheaper to send than a long one?
The technologies are being used as a scapegoat to avoid facing up to a dramatic cultural change. Everything now is in bites. Many get their news via sound bites on radio or TV. They scan headlines and don’t read articles. Websites are glanced at and if the content is not displayed in short snippets they are ignored. Yesteryear’s 5 minutes is today’s 5 seconds. I am not arguing if this is good or bad. It is just the way it is. Perhaps it is the way it has to be given that we all suffer from information overload.
The journalists also miss the fact that the education system is itself to blame. Young children are introduced to writing by being encouraged to spell phonetically. Mi mudr nd fadr r grat is totally acceptable. The problem arises when they are being taught correct spelling and grammar. They have to re-learn a skill they have already mastered. In any field, at any age, with any level of ability, it is far more difficult to learn a new method of doing a task you are already competent in. But this difficulty is compounded by trying to retrain older children in a skill they have acquired at their most formative age.
If technology is to bear some blame then so be it. Spell checkers, for example, may not pick up whether you intended to type through, true or the American thru. But should they have to? Is it not the purpose of the education system to teach this? Spell checkers are intended as an aid and only an aid.
My greatest fear is for when our students enter into the arenas of business, science or technology where English is the internationally accepted language and where almost all communication is written. Will they survive when competing against their peers with excellent standards of written English in growing economies such as India, China and Eastern Europe?
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Addictions Advertising Back to school Banks Blogs Builders Characters Charity Commentary Crappenings Driving Economy Education Environment Estate Agents FAQ Farming Friends Fun Gaeilge Gardaí Guest blaggards Health HSE Immigration Internet Irish identity Jokes Kids Kildare Law Life Literacy Local Media Mothers Movies Neighbours Occasions Painting Pet Hates Pets Photgraphs Photos Plonkers Poetry Polish Politicians Politics Pubs Pub talk Racing Radio Relatives Religion Science Shopping Snippets Spam Sport Tech stuff Time Transportation Travel Travellers TV Uncategorized Weather Wildlife Women Work
Glad you raised this - Only had to hear Shilpa and Jade speaking in the BB house to get an insight on how far behind “native” English speakers are falling relatively to other countries.
Mobile phones have a lot to answer for, but incorrect grammar, punctuation and spelling pre-date mobile phones by a long way. Take for example the ‘I done’ and ‘I seen’ [instead of 'I did' and 'I saw'] syndrome. You only have to listen to Bertie for that one.
The emphasis in English education seems to favour memorising large tracts of poetry and Shakespeare, rather than teaching the basic foundations.
And the standard of English in England is much worse. Or should I say worser?
Interesting topic. You could write a 100-page tome on this and still not exhaust the subject. Let me just add a couple of things.
First, one other reason why text messages have become so popular - in my humble opinion - is because they are mobile and asynchronous. You can reach somebody wherever they are but you don’t have to interrupt them and they can attend to your message in they own time. That’s why I love text messages, anyway.
Second, the fact that text-speak has now evolved, with its quasi-phonetic spelling, only highlights how arbitrary and irregular the so-called rules of English spelling really are: see for instance the famous example of ghoti.
And finally, you are very right in your observation that native English speakers are sometimes much poorer communicators than second-language speakers. I keep coming across this myself all the time. Sometimes you get English monoglots who think they own the world just because they speak English. Pathetic.
Flirty - True. But all English speaking cultures develop their own dialect over time. e.g. South African, North American, New Zealand, Kinnegad. The non-native speakers learn school English - Oxford English. Whatever you term it, it is a standard. It is the standard which all speakers, native or not, must use to communicate effectively. This what native-speaking countries’ education systems are falling down on.
Grandad - Although your example does not fall into this category per se, let’s not confuse Hiberno-English with poor grammar. Hiberno-English developed mainly from words, phrases, idioms and the grammar of an Gaelige. But to achieve a standard form of communication we must, as you say, teach the basic foundations. This applies to all disciplines.
A Chainteoir - Texting is a fantastic medium, not least because it is discrete. But it does not have to be through text speak. Users of text speak are using it by choice, not compulsion. It had its place for a very short time following the introduction of SMS, but no longer. I hate the way the media and civil servants use it to explain the education system’s failures.
Native English speakers, in particular the English themselves, have historically been monolingual for a number of reasons I won’t go into. English speakers never bat an eyelid at hearing a non-native speaker use English, but when a native English speaker uses another language the reaction is always one of shock/awe/admiration.
Great post, Sneezy. I think the media has something to do with it too. Here in the US even the newsreaders make the most basic grammatical mistakes. If a kid can’t rely on the news-reader (sorry, anchor) to get it right that kid will learn that imprecision in language is perfectly acceptable even when relaying facts. That kid might never hear the correct usage or form at all.
I think while it’s clear (though, as you point out, not to many journalists) that Text-Speak is no longer necessary, like any language or word usage that has taken hold it will continue and thrive regardless of the removal for its need to exist.
Yesterday I was pleased to see Twenty pull up somebody leaving a comment on Damien’s site. So I think while education systems carry the bulk of the burden of fixing what they’ve allowed to break, the responsibility reaches much further.
I do worry however that some Text-Speak, if that’s what it is, has an arguable need to still exist because of the difficulties in expressing tone in the written form. I’m thinking of the various acronyms that sprung up as shorthand for emotions mostly, even if they have been superseded by emoticons. (lol, roflmao, wyefo, etc.) While they in themselves are not a huge problem for business or science because they’re really just appended emotion clarifiers, or social punctuation, they still help to foster a language not spelled out.
Personally I think there’s nothing wrong with full-length spelling and writing how one feels in long-hand - as you may have gathered from the length of this comment.
Sam - A good point. News readers should be standard bearers.
Eolaí - Nice one by
20Twenty. Thanks for pointing it out. I have no great problem with LOL etc. when used in an informal context. The problem I do have is when shorthand such as IMHO are assumed to be acceptable by students/pupils sitting exams. My group were presented with a set of notes by Dr. So-and-so (yes, Dr.!) a while back. A considerable time was spent trying to decrypt IMHO by the Chinese guys in the group. Was it Irish Medical Hospital Organisation? (The notes were on the PPARS computer system).The acronym was used out of context. No account was taken of the audience.
Unfortunately, Irish students not only fail to understand the need to context-switch, but they simply cannot as they don’t have the ability to use standard language.
Oh, and I go on a bit myself.
You’re right there. Context-switching is the skill that’s missing here. There is nothing wrong with text-speak and other forms of short-hand in certain situations. But, what many people miss is the skill to upgrade their language to a context-neutral level that can be understood even by people from outside their in-crowd.
gt fkd, hehehehehe
There’s always one!
Eh? Americans spell “through” as “thru”? Sorry, but that is just ridick.
I know it’s ridick, Annie, but it’s through. I have been true it with them and that’s how they spell it.
I disagree, and think that text speak should actually be incorporated in the English language.
Think about the advantages…
1) Teenagers would read A LOT more books if they were written in text speak.
2) Less paper would be used because of the amount of space not needed if you write in text language.
3) Because of (2), less trees would be cut down, which will greatly benefit the fight against Global Warming.
These are only 3 points, though there are many more! But of course as a 13 year old who goes nowhere without her phone, I refuse to think any other way!
Ashniga - We are just going to have to disagree.
You wrote eloquently above without resort to text speak, so I suspect the absence of books written in it is of no hindrance to your own reading. Or perhaps Queen Margaret College simply insist you read widely.
But think about this: If you had used text speak here, would your comment be replied to? Would it even be read? No is the likely answer in both cases - it would be out of context. See the comment by An Cainteoir Dóchais above.
By the way: I am more than three times your age and I too go nowhere without my phone. Yet with the help of predictive text and a selection of dictionaries I can compose messages in proper form just a quickly as by using text speak.