Texting

Rationale:

In this unit the topic that truly interested me is texting and how it is affecting language, which is what my written task was based on. The creative writing piece I have chosen was a letter to the editor on from the perspective of a teacher and the other from a job recruiter at a marketing firm. The reason I chose this type of imaginative response because I wanted to show both the negatives and positive sides to texting without being bias (as in not from the perspective of a linguist). The reason I decided to choose an English teacher is because because it could show the reasons from a person that has to deal with students who might use that type of language in class. And I chose a job recruiter simply because when they look for new recruits for their firm they always are interlinked with technology and texting. The target audience is anyone who texts and doesn’t see both the benefits and limitations of texting. Since texting is such a recent concept there is not much history to back it up and get all sorts of facts and evidence, therefore the time period that will be discussed is now. The cultural status of this article is that it is based in the UK. Lastly for the ‘social’ part, it will be basing off how the topic links people socially. Lastly, the language that is being is used is basically just facts and graphs, so I guess the language that is being used is factual language. It provides information of how texting affects language, in society today (both the benefits and limitations) connected with personal and cultural identity, with no bias. 

Written Task 1: Letter to the Editor

Dear Anuli Akanegbu,

            My name is John Smith I am an English teacher of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme here in the UK. I have been teaching in this sort of programme for over thirty years, and I have noticed a downfall in the way kids are using language these days. Thus since you wrote the article ‘Is Texting Killing the English Language?’ I thought that I should give my insight on the topic due to my experience, which is why I am composing this letter to you right now.

            Firstly I agree with your statement that ‘texting is a lot more global now’, however since I have been a teacher for so long I now can see a difference between how students used language before texting rather than how it is being used now. Simply because it affects students spelling and grammar. There is even research to back this statement up http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3346533/Pupils-resort-to-text-language-in-GCSE-exams.html, where it states that students started using ‘textspeak’ in their GCSE exams. Including text message spelling such as ‘U’ for you, or not using apostrophes, or full stops etc. That being said how can anyone argue that texting is not killing language as a whole?  Thus leading to your second point that ‘some text words have been around a lot longer than when texting was ever created, such as OMG’. Yes, this might be true however back then it had no effect on language because people did not use it as much as they obviously do now. Therefore I completely disagree with that statement. As mentioned before texting is killing language in the sense of how it affects people grammatically, but what about socially? This topic is not mentioned in your article however, I wanted to bring it up because I believe that this is an important factor of how texting has affected language not only individually and personally but socially as well. As for the third statement ‘texting helps shape paralinguistic restitution and drives language brevity and speed’. Paralinguistic restitution the study of vocal signals beyond the basic verbal message or speech. If this is the case then texting is provoking it, since it has nothing to do with vocal speech, but more to do with ‘textspeech’. Lastly texting does not help language speed whatsoever bearing in mind that when people are texting they lose focus on their surroundings and focus mainly on their phones, thus decreasing the speed of vocal language.

            In conclusion Anuli, I believe that since you are a writer and editor of a big website (rather than just some blog), all your statements lack detail and it really does not portray the negative impacts of texting to be as bad as they actually are. I hope this letter has changed your mind on what texting is really doing in the world; to individuals and communities.  

To Anuli Akanegbu,

            My name is Jennifer Dawson and I work for a marketing firm in downtown London, as a job recruiter. I read your article on ‘Is texting killing the Language?’ And it seemed that you were sort of confused whether to say it was or wasn’t. You might be thinking is why I (a job recruiter) is composing this letter to you? The reason is I am here to give my insight and personal opinions on the matter, due to the fact that since I am a job recruiter I deal with texting, social media and that sort of language every day.

            Right from the start I agree with your statement that ‘texting is more global now’. In my eyes this is a great thing, because there is no need to meet the people I need to interview face to face (unless I consider them as serious candidates). What I mean by this is that since I am a recruiter I need to be able to make assumptions on the candidate. Before texting this was very hard to do with just one 20 minute long interview. Whereas now I am able to text my candidates, check their social media to see what kind of people they really are etc. In my opinion texting is a form of communication, and even though some might say that it is killing language grammatically at the same time it is its own separate form of language. Not only has it linked people all over the world, but also it has created a sense of community and togetherness. Due to me experience on the topic I can honestly say it has helped me and my firm to pick out the best candidates for this style of work. Yes, I agree that 95% of people who text are 18-24, but that shouldn’t be the case. People need to start being more open to this form of language because it is the most global way of communicating with one another in this time period. Another point is due to texting my firm is able to keep communicating with each other and keep it concise and not waste time, because we are always to the point and focused on the topic at hand whatever that may be. As well as that, in my firm we send out a page of questions for any potential candidates before we even talk to them in person or through text. This provides us with the knowledge we need, to make our assumptions on the person before we even think about researching this person.

            To sum up texting is most definitely not killing language due to the reason that there are many different forms of language. For example: there are different forms of English such as Singlish or Konglish etc, and whether people nowadays can accept it or not; texting is a form of language. In my opinion it is helping evolve language for the better rather than destroying it. I hope this letter has been of some use to you, and I hope to read more from you soon. 

Texting

Texting

Texting: successfully sending a text message to someone. The first text message was sent in 1992 from Neil Papworth, a former developer at Sema Group Telecoms. Mobile phones didn't have keyboards at the time, so Papworth had to type the message on a PC. Papworth's text "Merry Christmas", was successfully sent to Richard Jarvis at Vodafone. At what long way texting has come from that first text. This blog will discuss the word ‘texting’ basing it off the opinions of two world renowned linguists; David Crystal, and John Mcwhorter.

             Linguist John starts off his speech by stating the point that “texting is not writing at all”. What I interpreted he meant by this is that texting is not so much writing as it is speech. He states that it is speech because when people do talk casually they tend to shorten sentences so that it is averaged between 7-10 words, however writing is formal. This is similar to the when David Crystal mentions in his commentary the word ‘Textspeak’, because he is addressing how texting is more related to speech than writing. People say that texting has no structure and it’s murdering language, and they feel that something has just gone wrong somewhere. However to these two linguists they both mention how texting has rules and structure for people who actually do text. Such as: how John Mcwhorter mentions the abbreviation ‘lol’, it is supposed to mean laughing out loud, however people these days who do text know that that is not all it is used as.  In addition they both mention briefly how texting has evolved and keeps evolving (such as the abbreviation lol). However David focuses more on how the words are written, for example: David makes reference to the word love and how it has evolved in some cases to ‘luv’. Unlike John who bases his point on what the words actually mean (such as: like mentioned the contraction ‘lol’). What I find interesting is how both these linguists never said that this is the end of how far texting can go, as in it can’t possibly evolve or be involved in the world any further. David actually mentions that texting might be creeping into other forms of writing such as school essays etc. As well as that John states that throughout all of language there have been people saying that there is no structure and this is the same sort of thing that is happening with texting now. When he said that, it reminded me of how people used to say the same things about forms of dancing and that people used to discriminate against some of the most popular ones of today at that time. For example: People used to say that tango and salsa are a lot less sophisticated than what dancing should be, and now they are widely celebrated all over the world. We can relate this to the new and upcoming form of dance that is being discriminated against; twerking. Which people are saying is very vulgar and not a form of dance whatsoever, sort of what people say about texting. So history repeats itself once again… 

Letter to the Editor of 'On Reverse Cultural Appropriation'

Letter to the Editor:

 I personally agree with what your main point was in the article that you wrote. Which is that cultural appropriation should not and cannot happen this cruelly when power is not distributed in a cruel way. With culture comes a sense of identity by what we wear, the symbols we create and it’s a sense of self, and when our culture is stolen from us, there is this deep sense of loss, is the thing I interpreted from what you were trying to put across in your article.

I concur with your point that not everything that is taken from other cultures counts as cultural appropriation due to certain reasons. For example: When ‘white’ people say “people of colour being able to speak English because it is a form of cultural appropriation”, however they somehow don’t take into account the fact that in many cases, COLONIZED countries were forced to adopt the culture of the colonizer while their own culture was violently removed. This is NOT the same situation as to when ‘white’ hipsters wear the Native American headdress because it is a commodification of indigenous culture. It takes something from someone else’s culture without any context or respect and turns it into something marketable and profitable. How can something like this go unnoticed, but when people make a fuss about ‘black’ people wearing suits, or people of colour speaking English there’s a big problem? 

Then people have the audacity to say that they are being sensitive and being overly dramatic, and just trying to cause drama. In my opinion they’re not being dramatic enough! These are the people that came and slaughtered a lot of their ancestors, diminished a lot of their privileges and basically considered them outlaws on their own home land, and then come around and have the discourtesy by wearing these headdresses. Lastly what I think about sometimes is that, is power really divided equally? Let me rephrase my question a bit better…is ‘white’ supremacy really over? 

Mother Tongue

Blog Post #2: Mother Tongue

In English class today we had a heated discussion on the topic of mother tongues. However not what people usually associate the phrase "mother tongue"
which is the language which a person has grown up speaking from early childhood, but more of the way her mother actually speaks to her in the essay.
This story "Mother Tongue" by Amy Tan, discusses the difficulties and struggles her mom has had to gone through not being able to speak formal English,
and the way she has had to cope with her mother as a child. But mainly this essay in my perspective was her interpretation on phrases such as "broken English, limited,
or fractured English". She discusses the main fact, how most people didn't understand her mother's way of speaking. Thus not taking her mother seriously
in shops, banks etc. It was because of this that the writer was embarrassed by her mom's way of English, but now grown out of that stage and realizes that
there is no specific way to speak English. For the reason that it is so international, and there are many types of English not just one. That's what bring me to my next
topic: stereotypes. People make accusations about people who do not speak English as their first language, do not have knowledge on the language itself. This accusation
is not true at all. Yes, true there are a lot of them who are great at maths and science however that does not mean in any way that makes them less capable at English just because
it is not their first language. Just like in the essay where her mom is not able to speak English formally, however she's able to read "Forbes" magazine and the "Wall Street Journal".
Thus proving that she does have a wide range of knowledge on the English language, but just does not know how to speak it properly just because it is not her first language.
I believe that is the point that Amy Tan tried to get across is that Asians are not just capable at being good at science and math, but also English.

Bob Marley Interview

Bob Marley Interview

*Interview with Bob Marley in 1980*

Me: Reggae music was born in the poverty and filth of the slums in Jamaica in the 1960s. But over the past decade it’s become the war cry of the not so beautiful Jamaicans; the street people, the hustlers, the smoker and the pushers. Reggae and reggae bands have become a musical raze throughout the world, however to many in the Caribbean it is the sound of revolution. Leading this musical raze is the sensational reggae band, Bob Marley and the Wailers. And today I have the pleasure of interviewing this human icon, please give it up for the legendary Bob Marley.

*Shakes hands with Bob Marley as he walks onto set of the Tonight Show*

Me: A pleasure to have you here

Bob: Pleasure to be here man

Me: You are just everywhere nowadays, and I personally love your music and what you stand for. Could you just tell everyone what your message is briefly when you make music? Like what do you want people to feel or think about when hearing your music?

Bob: Just as my song says y’knaw Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight. I want people to fight for what dey believe in, life is short you know? Live it to its fullest.

Me: Of course, of course. Now I’m sorry about what’s happening currently in Jamaica about the civil and having your country divided into two, how do you feel about that?

Bob: How I feel about that? Why do you tink I go beck there man, you tink because I like de view? No I go beck there because my home is being destroyed, and I feel I need to fix it somehow. I do not want to die without feeling I coulda made some difference.  

Me: Very admirable, I was just going to mention your ‘Just Smile’ concert in Jamaica, how was it?

Bob: It was okay I could not really perform good because of de people who shoot me, I was in much pain.

Me: Yeah must have been, but how and why do you believe that your music and concerts could help your community?

Bob: It helps de people in Jamaica back home I tink because with all this war and hate between them dey need something y’knaw to help them not tink bout what is happening.

Me: I think it’s amazing how you still went to the concert and performed after being shot, they really mean a lot to you don’t they?

Bob: Dey mean everything to me man, I have da best family back home. I will tell you something my friend even though I do not live there, it is home to me, it is where my heart is and always will be.

 Me: Lets talk about your music, specifically redemption song. Now whats it all about to you?

Bob: In my career there were two things I stood for tha most ya feel, it is freedom and redemption. Meaning anyone can come back from anyting man. But more dan dat it is a song dat reminds people to stand up for themselves and tha people they love.

Me: Will you sing a little for us of that song?

Bob: Always willing my friend

Me: Alright this is Bob singing his hit song acoustically “Redemption Song”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFGgbT_VasI

Me: That was AMAZING! Give it up one more time for Bob Marley and The Wailers!

Bob: Thank you always a pleasure. 

*Show ends*