Im as guilty as any computer-savvy teen of sprinkling my writing with
the abbreviations and shortcuts that are popular in email, online chat, IMs,
and text messages. To be honest, these shortcuts dont bother me because I like to think that I know enough
about language use to avoid any embarrassing slips into emoticons, acronyms,
and abbreviations in rhetorical situations where they dont belong.
The NCTE
Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing explain that “Just as the nature
of and expectation for literacy has changed in the past century and a half, so
has the nature of writing. Much of that change has been due to technological
developments, from pen and paper, to typewriter, to word processor, to networked
computer, to design software capable of composing words, images, and sounds.” Part
of this change has been the development of abbreviations for the words and phrases
used in digital messages. As children and teens learn to use digital tools to communicate with others, they adopt the language of the Internet—its abbreviations, diction, and grammar.
Yes, I said grammar. There is a clear system behind Internet language usage.
Microsofts A Parents Primer to Computer Slang discusses some of the most basic rules behind the evolving word choice people make online. Describing Leetspeak, the article explains, for instance, how word spelling has evolved:
Numbers and symbols replace the letters that they resemble. You could write the term “leetspeak” as “!337$p34k”. The character “!” replaces the letter L, “3” replaces E, and so on. Other examples of character/letter replacement might include “8” for B, “9” for G, and the number 0 for the letter O.Whatever the Internet language you explore, you will find very specific rules in place that govern diction. Sometimes, as is the case with leetspeak, the rules are playful substitution that creates a special code. Other times, the rules have to do with technological limitations. Many shortened word forms and abbreviations result from the limited length of text messages. If you can use “b4” for the word before, youve saved four characters.
Nonstandard capitalization springs from similar roots. Typing a capital letter in a text message requires two keystrokes (one to turn on caps, one for the letter), so writers opt for the faster lowercase version of the words if the meaning will not suffer. Consider the Internet abbreviation “LOL,” which stands for “laugh out loud.” In a cell phone text message, the all caps version could take up to six keystrokes, while the lowercase takes only three. In the frequently high-speed communication of text messages, writers are more likely to opt for the lower number of keystrokes.
Beyond diction and conventions, there are clear grammatical rules at play in the use of Internet slang and communication. A fun example is lolcats, images of cats (like the illustration above) that include playful captions that invoke a grammar all their own. Anil Dash has outlined some of the underlying grammar rules of the lolcats in his blog entry “Cats Can Has Grammar.” The grammar of lolcats includes attention to verb tense, pronoun use, and sentence construction. In fact, lolcats require multimedia literacy skills, as writers combine image with caption and follow conventions for font appearance, caption placement, and overall layout.
The systems that I see Internet writers use dont indicate laziness or a lack of education. Far from it. They require complex understandings of how language works. When students use Internet language in the wrong place, we shouldnt mark their work incorrect any more than we would mark students use of dialect and home language wrong. What we should do is talk about code-switching and how the uses of Internet language and Standard English contrast. In Code-Switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms, authors Rebecca S. Wheeler and Rachel Swords state:
When we talk about “proper grammar”; and “good English,” we make a lot of assumptions about the nature of language. We assume that English is Standard English. We assume that Standard English is Right with a capital R, and that anything else is improper, bad, incorrect, and fractured. Indeed, we seem to believe that anything other than Standard English is pretty much not English. (5)Their observation fits Internet language well. Articles like the Hartford Courants “R T33ns KO'ing Eng?” begin with the notion that there is or may be something wrong with writers use of emoticons, acronyms, and abbreviations in digital messages and texts. In truth, its not error. It's just language in use in new and creative ways. The best thing teachers can do is take advantage of this language play and explore the ways that words and phrases and clauses work in the different kinds of language that we all use.
READERS: Please take a second after reading to share some immediate feedback by clicking the comment buttons below that reflect your reaction to this entry! Im always trying to improve the blog, and your feedback will help me make sure Im meeting your needs.













8 comments:
Traci, reading your lolpost on the same day as Ford's rap-post in IHE has been the best bookend to a stressful day. I'm off to do some lolndry now. :)
Traci, I agree with much of what is said here, but on a few points, I must disagree.
Yes, text-messaging is rule governed. But it doesn't require any more complex understanding of language than does every day conversation. People acquire their dialects and codes unconsciously through use. Few understand the complexities of language use, except, of course, those who study language. I remembered taking an English syntax class in my thirties, learning for the first time that the difference between blue bird (a type of bird) and blue bird (a bird that is blue in color) is understood through stress. The former has equal stress on blue and bird, while the latter has stress only on bird. Until that class I didn't even know that I was making that distinction unconsciously. So, no, most people do not have "complex understandings of how language works."
Yes, we should not consider dialects and home languages as wrong. They aren't. However, that doesn't mean that such work should not be marked incorrect in an academic setting. We are not helping our students if the resumes they send out do not have a formal dialect, if the company's reports they write do not have a business dialect, and so on. So, yes, talk about codeswitching and contextual uses of language, but, no, do evaluate the dialect according to the audience and purpose for which it is intended.
When I first read through Gardner's posting, I thought it strikes an "I am wise" position relative to students or others using new forms in their electronic communication.
"The systems that I see Internet writers use don’t indicate laziness or a lack of education. Far from it. They require complex understandings of how language works. When students use Internet language in the wrong place, we shouldn’t mark their work incorrect any more than we would mark students’ use of dialect and home language wrong. What we should do is talk about code-switching and how the uses of Internet language and Standard English contrast."
And as I prepare this, the posting from charles nelson arrived...to suggest that the problem is not the message form but the writer's awareness of audience. YES...my thought exactly. Not all users of IM lexis and syntax fully control the conventions of even that language form...any more than users of more conventional forms of written expression are always 'error free.'
I'm in the 'a place for everything and everything in its place' school of language use. I love the variety and creativity we see in electronic communication. At the same time, our students deserve our support and guidance in getting them to recognize purpose and audience when they consider the forms they use.
Traci, it's funny that you should bring this up now. I was just thinking of beginning my new school year talking to my ninth graders about dialect changes and code switching and using IM ing as an example. There's a wonderful essay about this in David Foster Wallace's paperback book, "Consider the Lobster."
It's important that students understand that there's a time and a place, however. Just as I don't speak to them in "their" language in the classroom, they need to write in SWE in an academic and professional setting.
The ability they have to pick up each new dialect is truly astounding, though, isn't it?
-Emily
On “Correctness”
Charles Nelson commented, “However, that doesn't mean that such work should not be marked incorrect in an academic setting. We are not helping our students if the resumes they send out do not have a formal dialect, if the company's reports they write do not have a business dialect, and so on. So, yes, talk about codeswitching and contextual uses of language, but, no, do evaluate the dialect according to the audience and purpose for which it is intended.”
The problem is that marking language “wrong” doesnt work. Rebecca S. Wheeler and Rachel Swords address this fact in Code-Switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms:
<block quote>
Of course, as teachers, we also try to correct our students writing, not just their speech. When we come across examples of “improper” English in our students papers, we cant resist marking them . . . . But does the student learn from these corrections? Not really . . . . And so despite all our efforts, minority dialect students just dont seem to command Standard English, even though we have been teaching our hearts out. (4)
</block quote>
Wheeler and Swords point to the research of applied linguistics and the work of educators such as past CCCC president Keith Gilyard that indicates the correction of vernacular language, the languages used with family and friends in the home community, just doesnt work (4).
Rather than marking “right” and “wrong” expressions, teachers need to build on the language rules that students currently use and ask them to compare that usage and practice to other language systems and rules. What we need to do is help students with code-switching so that they move smoothly from one language system to another.
Yes, there's considerable research that shows that traditional teaching of and simple correction of grammar doesn't work. And there is also quite a bit of research, albeit somewhat controversial, in second language writing on how to provide feedback on grammar. And there's research in other areas, such as expertise and cognitive psychology, which indicates that changing grammar would require much more time than the composition research to date has really considered and also that the approaches to changing grammar would not be the traditional approach that has been shown to be ineffective. However, the "fact" that traditional grammar correction doesn't work doesn't show that all grammar feedback doesn't work. For what does work in second language writing, check out the many publications of Dana R. Ferris, the leading researcher in this area.
You wrote: "teachers need to build on the language rules that students currently use and ask them to compare that usage and practice to other language systems and rules. What we need to do is help students with code-switching so that they move smoothly from one language system to another."
Of course, part of learning another dialect is through comparison and contrast--and also through a lot of practice. But how something is learned is not necessarily connected to how something is evaluated.
Comparing, contrasting, and using are learning approaches. Evaluation, or feedback, is another learning/teaching approach: It's a reality check saying how well someone is meeting certain expectations and what that person might do differently to meet those expectations. The two are complementary if done appropriately.
idc wot studnts say 2 me n their msgs, & i don't mrk txt as RONG -- I try to explain that language use always has a context, and part of a class like Freshman Comp has to do with learning the appropriate context for an utterance.
I think the students do learn complex L rules with texting, but since most L is really learned socially, most L-users would have to struggle to explain their rules. Usually the best they can come up with is, "Well, it just doesn't sound right when you put it that way."
I point out that none of the students (at least not here in Lubbock, Texas) would walk up to their grandmothers, throw their arms around her shoulders and ask, "Hey, babe. Wanna have some hot fun tonight?" On the other hand, they wouldn't use "grandmother talk" with their roommates. The students have no trouble grasping this concept.
I see two problems, however, when it comes to this sort of discussion. First, I don't understand why so many teachers themselves seem to ignore context. They treat email like term papers, when the email comes from students. So many, many teachers, both in and out of English departments, refuse to answer or send back lectures to students who use texting in their correspondence. Excuse me, but out of the classroom is out of the classroom. Unless the email was part of an assignment, I don't see why "teachers" can't learn the appropriate language for this out of the classroom form of communication.
My second problem has to do with the whole question of so-called Standard English. For more than a decade, I, an American, taught "English" to students in Nigeria. I had to learn British idiom to succeed, but I also had to learn Nigerian Pidgin AND Nigerian USE of English (for example, a bureaucrat out of his office is said to be "not on seat" and someone who dips his hand into someone else's salary is said to "chop" the other person's money). I couldn't tell my students they were WRONG when they didn't say things the American way.
BTW, do most American English teachers realize that British English does not have the entity that we call a comma splice. The Brits use commas all the time in places where Americans insist on semicolons. And who says we MUST NOT start a sentence with a conjunction? That a preposition is not a thing to end a sentence with? That one should NEVER use fragments? Etc, etc, and so forth.
We don't speak the way Shakespeare did, and I don't expect English 400 years from now to sound as it does today. Unless it becomes a dead language like Latin. Let us not, in the name of education (or gate-keeping) kill a living language.
oho good dear !!!! very intersting blog and a good posting !!! you must maintain your blog, its intresting !!! Nice Buddy
________________________________
MLA Research Papers
Post a Comment