Texting as Language: Evolution or Regression?
One of the hardest concepts for my mind to grasp is how many of my teacher colleagues refuse or are afraid to use e-books. They crave the look, feel, and, yes, smell of an actual print book. After the recent closings of major bookstore chains thanks to e-commerce sites and the ever-growing popularity of e-readers, I’m wondering how long before these same individuals begin to realize that print books are becoming somewhat of an endangered species.
What does the extinction of print books have to do with texting? Ø RLY. But then again, maybe it does. What the two share is their representation of the fear of change.
So What’s the Point?
Let’s hop in an imaginary time machine and explore around 3400 BCE to investigate a recent advancement in communication for ancient Sumerians. This form of writing will later be known as cuneiform. It was not unlike its predecessors from Egypt (hieroglyphs) and China (ideograms) in that they all used images to convey meaning. Cultures adapted and developed these forms of communication for use in trade of not only goods and services but also ideas. These early pictographs had to express ideas in the shortest form possible to minimize distraction and maximize understanding.
Now, let’s use that time machine to head further into the 1890s to explore yet another SMS (short message service) advancement: the telegraph. Telegraph operators frequently found themselves yearning for ways to communicate in the shortest word forms possible. They initially started with the simple greeting of g.m. and ending with g.n., which meant good morning and good night respectively. These telegraph men would have long-distance conversations without ever having the benefit of speaking to one another and would even find the time to create fight circuits, instances where two operators vie for control of the line simultaneously. Even our modern day LOL stemmed from the early use of “ha, ha” to represent laughter in the short form.
Traveling on, let’s return to the present and consider that the two main purposes of language are to make sense of our surroundings and to engage in social relationships. Textisms, by function, fit that definition.
It seems that the SMS has been around for thousands of years, so why do some people have such resistance to accepting its departure from the vernacular into a more distinguished role as a universally accepted form of communication? Consider that every year the Oxford English Dictionary updates four times. The last update that was published on March 24, 2011 revised more than 1,900 current entries, as well as included the addition of new words to the English language. Two such new additions were OMG and LOL. These textisms have cemented themselves in our current culture to the point that one of the leading authorities on the English language has deemed their inclusion in the dictionary necessary. It appears as if textisms might finally be getting their due recognition. Maybe, as educators, we should be encouraging instead of discouraging its use.
How Could SMS Be Used In The Classroom?
Our students have been trained at some point to always ask what an assignment is worth, or how many pages it has to be, or what the word count requirement is. This does become problematic when creating a rubric for an SMS-based project, but here’s a solution: Don’t grade it. Do it just for fun to see what your students can produce. Imagine taking entire passages from Macbeth and having students transcribe it into textisms. Have students compare their versions or have them work in groups. Provide sites for them like Netlingo as an English-to-textism glossary. Just for fun, have them perform their Shakespeare SMS creations in front of the class.
I have to admit that I’m a bit of rule breaker in the classroom. My district has a strict policy in regards to portable devices in the classroom. Most of my students have some sort of mobile phone, PS3, or Internet-ready iDevice, so why not take advantage of that? It happened to be the day of open house and the lesson-du-jour was about the purpose of government. I asked all my students to take out any device that they had through which they could send a text message. I asked my students to text their parents the following question: “What is the purpose of government?” Within minutes students were receiving texts ranging from asking if they were cheating on a test to hilarious conspiracy theories to actual answers that we could debate about in class. Later that night, the parents asked me about my use of cell phones and even asked if they should go out and buy a phone for those students that didn’t have one. Surprisingly, I received not one negative response. Parents were actually happy to have the chance to be involved in the discussion.
Did I grade this assignment? No. Did I check the texts to make sure that they were replete with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation? No. Did I manage to create a classroom event, involving synchronous conversation and communication with individuals not in my classroom? Yes.
TWIMC: txtN S d Nxt step n Evlutn. Mbrce it.
Translation: To whom it may concern: Texting is the next step in evolution. Embrace it.
Embrace the evolution, stop fighting the change. Try something new. Encourage your students to use textisms in class. You might be surprised at the results.
References
“Friends They Never Meet: Acquaintances Made by The Telegraph Key.” The New York Times [New York] 30 Nov. 1890. Print.”What’s New : Oxford English Dictionary.” Home : Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 28 July 2011.
Wikipedia contributors. “Cuneiform script.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 27, Jul. 2011. Web. 28 Jul. 2011.
For further reading: Standage, Tom. The Victorian Internet. New York: Walker, 2007. Print.