UK linguist David Crystal was on the Media Report on ABC Radio National this morning. He was interviewed on the *issue* of SMS text and "declining spelling and literacy".
I've never had much time for this as an *issue*, thinking it to be a beat up. Though, I'm not a school teacher. If I were, I may think differently on the matter. If it *were* an issue...
David Crystal says the criticisms of SMS text are unfounded, as the data do not reveal any link between SMS text and 'poor literacy'. Quite the opposite, in fact. Less than 10% acutally use abbreviations. Also, abbreviations are not new to text messages; they have been around for a long time, in some case for 100 years or more.
We've probably all heard the story of a student submitting a school essay written in SMS text? According to David Crystal, this is a myth. Talking with students and their teachers, he found that they had significant awareness of the difference between standard written English and SMS text abbreviations. For example, British students report they wouldn't use SMS text in school work.
These days, most text messages these days are written by adults, and in standard English text. School age kids writing texts is a good thing, according to Crystal, because they are practising reading and writing and ultimately (and perhaps ironically?) are improving their literacy. For example, they've worked out which part of a word you can leave out such that it is still comprehensible.
Crystal reports that literary uses of texting are also increasing, citing the oft-observed phenomenon that as soon as someone learns a mode of communication, they start playing with it. The UK paper The Guardian started an SMS poetry competition: a poem of no more than 160 characters, to be submitted by text message. Also, text novels are popular in China and Japan. The novelist sends chapters to readers phones. Chapters are 160 characters long, and are sent one by one each day until the novel is complete.
So, thanks to David Crystal, I can now dismiss the SMS text=illiteracy brouhaha, and instead sing the praises of such technologies when used in language revitalisation, e.g. the mobile phone Kaurna dictionary.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Of course, as I high school teacher, I have to respond!
I think that 'texting' (as it's called here) is simply another type of literacy, one which I haven't acquired (as I don't have a mobile phone). However, I have had students tell me that they think their own spelling has been adversely affected by texting.
I certainly see lots of nonstandard spellings and words in student papers, like 'cuz' or 'cause' for 'because' and 'gonna' for 'going to'. I didn't begin teaching until after email was established, so I can't say whether that's a change from the days of yore.
Unlike the students Crystal spoke to, my students are not very good at knowing which language is appropriate for a school paper and which is not. I wonder whether he spoke to a wide cross-section of students? I wonder whether the studies would find different results if they looked at students with weak general literacy skills.
Most text messages being sent by adults isn't that meaningful since there are more total adults (20+ yr olds) than teenagers in countries where mobile phones are in high use.
I still think that using as many different technologies as are available to improve literacy is a good idea.
I thought this post would bait a response from you Catalin!! :)
Hmm, I like your point about texting being 'just another' form of literacy. If I understand you correctly, your comments about your students' knowledge (or lack thereof) of different writing styles/registers suggest this is perhaps 'just another' product of poor/non-literacy?
Post a Comment