hey txt me yr ppr kthx bi!

April 26th, 2007

Txtspk–a.k.a., “Aimspeak.” Is it the tool of the Antichrist? A weapon destroying our students’ ability to write “normal” sentences? In a word: no. Y’see…as a collegiate English instructor, I’m fully cognizant that language is not a universally fixed, stable medium: at best, it’s metastable in the short run (if it weren’t, word meanings and usage would be so chaotic that communication would be nigh impossible), but changes greatly over time. And this is a good thing! Language simply must change because it always needs to stay relevant and provide an adequate, powerful means for any two given humans to be able to communicate concepts to one another; times change, new concepts are invented, old concepts are rethought or recast in more contemporary terms, and, as a result, language is always mutating. But, like I said, a certain amount of order is always necessary–which is why we have different types of language (consisting of different sets of vocabulary, usage rules, and so forth) that are applicable in different situations and for different people. These different types of languages are often called jargons. And you’re all familiar with them. Computer g33ks have their own jargon, scientists have their own, teenagers have their own, old folks have their own–language subsets that are self-consistent and help specialized groups communicate amongst themselves.

Txtspk is a jargon with its own sophisticated structures designed to compress a lot of meaning into a small amount of characters, thus saving time and money when firing SMS messages back and forth over the cell nets. Academic writing is just another jargon: it has its own usage and vocabulary requirements that are accepted anywhere and everywhere that students write research papers. On the first day of any class, I inform the students that academic writing comes with its own set of rules and requirements that they, the students, will need to learn in order to do it properly. And then I tell them that if I find any trace of txtspeak or AIM shorthand in their papers, they will immediately fail that assignment.

But…wait a sec, Pegritz. What’s up wit da harshness there?

Simple: many students are not aware that jargons do not mix. Oh, in the longterm development of language, they certainly do–after all, how many average folks today know the terms “google” and “upgrade”, words once common only in the jargon of computer geeks? But in the short term, mixing the rules of two different jargons naturally produces internal violations of either jargon. In short: txtspk and academic writing simply do not mix–and this is something that many students are not entirely aware of. So they need to be taught. I’m a teacher. Ergo….

Recently, a study conducted by the State Examination Commission in Ireland seems to show that “[t]ext messaging, with its use of phonetic spelling and little or no punctuation, seems to pose a threat to traditional conventions in writing.” It further mentions that incoming college student writing is “unduly reliant on short sentences, simple tenses and a limited vocabulary.”

But does this necessarily mean that txtspk is to blame? In my experience, most Freshman writing by default is “unduly reliant on short sentences, simple tenses and a limited vocabulary”–because these students just are not experienced writers! Back in the day, a thousand years ago, I, too, was reliant on short sentences and simple tenses, too, and my vocabulary was mostly measured in expletives, slang, and terms associated with arcade games (”Fuck, man, you got the high shore! BAD-ASSED!”). As I grew older, studied under good instructors who showed me how to build up my writing skills, and just wrote more and more papers…well, naturally, my skills improved. My vocabulary grew and grew. Now, I am fortunate that I have a natural aptitude for language and a voracious love of words; no doubt, my progress was more rapid than others. But I’ve seen students who, as freshman, could barely string together the sentence “Furthermore, I like dogs because they are loyal” graduate with master’s theses containing some extremely sophisticated language.

Many incoming freshman are fluent in txtspk. It is their jargon, because it makes communication between them easier. VERY few, once I set forth my pronouncement on the verbotenness of txtspk in academic writing, ever commit the crime. Why? Because I carefully point out to them the difference between txtspk jargon and academic jargon. To be honest, most of them are already aware of this different, having had teachers in highschool who also addressed the same problem of jargon-mixing. All it takes is a good, staunch reminder to never let your fluency in one jargon interfere with your fluency in another…and it’s just not a problem.

In my experience, txtspk does not, in any way, harm (or, for that matter, enhance) a student’s academic writing ability. People become fluent in jargons through usage, through actively writing within that jargon (and most students spend 50% of their time texting their friends on their cellphones–sometimes during classes, which is a whole ‘nother issue entirely). The reason why students often perform poorly when writing within the academic jargon is simply that they don’t have much experience in it.

I do not doubt the validity of the numbers produced by the above-mentioned Irish study–but I do greatly doubt the conclusions drawn from it. One cannot blame txtspk for students’ inability to write good, clean academic prose. One can blame faulty secondary education that does not provide ample opportunity for students to learn how to write within academic jargon.

It’s important when teaching to understand how your students think and to attempt to understand their academic backgrounds. This will always help instructors identify why their students aren’t so great at academic writing…and will hopefully minimize the urge to blame bad writing on a completely separate jargon.