Damage!

Oh, that's a hard one, pash... that first one, anyway. Any answer I give will completely affirm that I'm a crumudgeon. Language seems to be ever evolving; but, unfortunately, it's evolved in some places into something totally unrecognizable to the world outside the groups for and by which it was evolved.

My answer to your second question is, predictably, "No." But that's just me. I wonder if - and hope! - he has something that will help older people develop a stonger sense of what the heck the younger ones are saying.

pash said:

What does the expression "damage the language" mean to you?
And is David Crystal right here?

"Dressed in a brown tweed jacket and matching trousers, and sporting a salt-and-pepper beard, Prof David Crystal, 60, an internationally renowned linguist, says abbreviations used in text messages and e-mails ‘‘will not damage the language’’. ‘‘Instead,’’ he says, ‘‘this will help schoolchildren develop a stronger sense of the language.’’ "

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=102561

Click to expand...

I think he's an idiot. Most of the kids I see doing this can't spell, have no concept of grammar, etc.

It may or may not damage the language, but I guarantee it's damaging the kids.

pash said:

What does the expression "damage the language" mean to you?

Click to expand...

First, define "the language". That's not a trivial exercise. Then define "damage".

I believe texting and netspeak will affect the language. I believe some of the abbreviations will eventually become standard usage. Which ones--that's beyond my abilities to predict. I favor the odds for 'U', though. Someday, 'you' may look as quaint and old-fashioned as 'thee' and 'thou' look today.

Damage, however, I doubt. Those of us born before the 1980s may not like the changes, but we won't be around forever.

pash said:

Neanderthals? ;-))

Click to expand...

Teenagers?

pash said:

But what evidence do you have that such messaging will damage the language?

Click to expand...

Teenagers.

pash said:

Just received this reply to the same question on another forum.

Apparently study by researchers at Coventry University revealed that teenagers who texted frequently had better language skills, not worse, which would bear out what Crystal says.

Click to expand...

And a couple years ago, researchers said hormone therapy was good for menapausal women. Now, no. Some say salt's okay; others say 'no'. Red wine? Good. No. Wait. Red wine bad! Researchers have a tendency to find whatever it is they're looking for... just my opinion, solidified over the last 52 years or so here on Terra.

pash said:

Just received this reply to the same question on another forum.

Apparently study by researchers at Coventry University revealed that teenagers who texted frequently had better language skills, not worse, which would bear out what Crystal says.

[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/5327358.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/5327358.stm[/URL]

Click to expand...

"A Coventry University study of 35 11-year-olds found those who texted frequently also scored highly in school tests and in standard spelling tests."

A study of 35! Hardly conclusive.

pash said:

Hmm. How many would it take to be able reach a fairly strong conclusion?

Click to expand...

35 cannot be a representative sample of children in England, let alone worldwide. This sounds like it is one class of 11-year-olds--or possibly the Year 6 children who have cellphones in a 2-form-intake school. That school may rate highly in OFSTED inspections, and thus the children may be fortunate in being well-educated and well-ground in the rules of grammar. The researcher's comments "She hopes to interview more pupils this coming term to focus more on children who were not considered strong readers or writers" indicates that this is so.

And I would have thought that the segment of 11-year-olds that have cellphones, blackberries, or the like would be from the more affluent segment of society. Before anyone jumps on me and says I'm branding affluent children as being clever and poor children as being thick, I'm not. However, I do have several years' experience in the matter, having worked in a school with diverse demographics--drawing some children from one of the more deprived areas of England and some from one of the more affluent regions--and sadly, it was often shown that the more affluent children had better attendance records, and hence, did better in school.

In order to produce a representative sample, a random selection would need to be taken from diverse schools the length and breadth of the country, encompassing various social classes and ethnic origins. And as to numbers--I would have thought a sample of hundreds, if not thousands, would be necessary. Maybe one way to do this would be to ask on the Year 6 SATS whether the child texts a lot, and draw conclusions from their SATS results.

Throughout history, every time we've created a lasting new medium for communication, the language has changed.

E-mail and (to a lesser degree) text messaging, are major changes to our communication system. The language will change drastically.

Arguments about 'damage' are merely about aesthetics.

pash said:

What does the expression "damage the language" mean to you?
And is David Crystal right here?

"Dressed in a brown tweed jacket and matching trousers, and sporting a salt-and-pepper beard, Prof David Crystal, 60, an internationally renowned linguist, says abbreviations used in text messages and e-mails ‘‘will not damage the language’’. ‘‘Instead,’’ he says, ‘‘this will help schoolchildren develop a stronger sense of the language.’’ "

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=102561

Click to expand...

When you receive a business letter that has 5 text message shorts in it, then it probably is damaging the language. What linguists’ are failing to see is that change in communication requires change in the dogma that surrounds the use of our language.



I hate to sit for too long in a group who use shortcut slang in perpetuity. The art of conversation has dwindled. A caveat to this is that we need to add to our language. Sadly, I don't think school children are learning the basic forms of the language, only the shortcuts.

Just a crusty old guy's perspective.

John Serra