Thursday, October 7, 2010
Textism? Txtsm!
As mobile text messaging and internet communication technologies develop, a seemly inferior branch to the English language is born out of the convenience to communicate on electronic devices. This simplification of words and expressions due to difficulty of writing words on a numeral pad is referred to as textism. While some anti-textism advocates strongly oppose the use of text messaging words in more formal situations, textism can also be viewed as a step towards literacy development instead of a corruption of the English language. Textism is mainly blamed by teachers and linguistics for its defiance for the standardized rules of English and its ‘savaging’ of the use of words. But the emergence of textism itself shows the unlimited potential of the language. English is able to be condensed to its limit to create convenience for people while still successfully retaining its original purpose as a method of communication. Language exists to help people communicate, and textism aids this purpose by creatively twisting and turning English around to help people communicate more easily in text messages. Another reason for textism to be considered inferior is probably fear for its taking over and replacement of the standard English. Nevertheless, Textism, though much different from formal English, is able to coexist with English just as colloquialism coexists with formal English. Just as people are able to switch back and forth with conversational English and formal English, textism is also interchangeable with formal English. Textism itself will not interfere with the usage of English, not any time soon. Even if far into the future, textism will actually replace English, it is not necessarily a bad sign. Textism is concise, yet its use of visual and symbolic representation of emotion can effectively express what takes formal English many paragraphs to describe. As for lovers of literature, formal English texts do not need to be distinguished. Just as how Old English and Middle English texts still remained today in a world which does not speak these forms of English anymore, English can still remain even if the world is adapted to using textism. Textism should not be considered as a degradation of the language but a step helping the literacy development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Linda,
ReplyDeleteYour message about the positive nature of slang and abbreviation was really inspiring and I found myself agreeing with a lot of your ideas. I really like your idea about the unfathomable potential of the English language. In my opinion, English is amazing in the sense that it has been able to continuously adapt and evolve over these past centuries. It began developing as a German language but then other native words such as Latin, Scandinavian and French were added that helped to create English today. Its somewhat like a mix of many languages. Although that was a really notable point, what I liked most about your post was how you said that the imminent rise of textism is not ominous but actually a change that would help English. Following on your idea of textism being concise, I feel that this will encourage people to write more. Because people will start to write more, the quality of writing will inevitably improve. In writing, quantity tends to lead to quality. Why else would teachers and parents continue to promote the idea of writing and reading on a daily basis?
Great post Linda!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on the fact that textism is a step towards the development of English. At the same time though, I can also see how textism can corrupt the English language. While it's true that it is possible for textism to coexist with English, the problem is that sometimes, people confuse textism with formal English. Sometimes, people forget that textism is merely colloquialism, and replace words in formal assignments with them. Others that see this mix up will follow suit, and a snowball effect will be created, and English will become "corrupted". Textism and formal English should coexist, but in actuality they are sometimes merged, which is something that should not happen yet.
Hi Linda,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that textisms and abbreviations, condensed forms of English, are much more convenient and in their efficiency, can convey messages much more concisely. Furthermore, your argument that colloquial and conversational English is able to coexist with formal English and therefore, textism should be able to as well is completely valid. However, a quick survey of assignments and essays written by the average high school student would surely prove that although formal English coexists with its less formal forms, many do not have the ability to write with such formality. Therefore, I disagree about the ease for many students and even adults without professions that require them to write formally to “switch back and forth” between conversational and formal English. This reality is a direct result of the introduction and wide acceptance of informal English into formal settings within the last decade; if this is allowed to continue, increasingly more people will lose or never fully develop their ability to write formally. In this way, textisms degrade the English language with their acceptance causing a lack of effort in many to develop their formal English skills; in losing its most refined aspect, the English language is stagnating rather than advancing.