Do you think instant and/or text messaging has greatly affected the communication skills of our children?

Question

We've all seen the abbreviations. LOL. ROTFLMAO. PPL. L8TR. I am guilty of using LOL when making quick responses to my wife or co-workers via IM or E-mail when the situation warrants a laugh.

However, I am finding that, more and more, these abbreviations and shortened words are appearing as part of every day written language, even in instances where they are inappropriate.

Do you think that instant / text messaging has had an adverse affect on the way we communicate with each other, and do you think that frequent users of instant / text messaging are falling behind the curve on the proper use of grammar and spelling in the English language?

Please support your answers. Thanks.

A poster commented that instant / text messaging allows people to communicate with each other faster and that it was more efficient. I wouldn't consider the example given, "(wiich wuld b sumthiin liik3 thiisz lolz)" to be faster or more efficient.

In addition, to clarify my original question, I am specifically addressing the way we communicate in the "real" world.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that abbreviated text and/or shorthand in messaging is the accepted norm. However, I have seen these abbreviations pop up in real world instances, like in book reports, papers, news articles, etc.

In response to another poster:

By no means do I claim myself to be perfect where grammar and spelling are concerned. I doubt anyone other than English majors would qualify as "perfect". However, I doubt that anyone here has had any trouble in understanding the question as presented.

drshorty:

"In short, I disagree with you that language change is necessarily bad. I see it rather as a reflection of the changing language needs of its users. I suspect that you just don't feel the same communication needs as the people you are criticizing. Please don't assume that their needs are the same as yours."

With respect, I make no such assumptions. I also am not intending to criticize, and no, my communication needs are not the same as someone half my age.

I am simply asking if this type of "language change" as you put it has had a negative effect on the way that children are learning to use the English language to communicate with each other; and more importantly, has it had a negative effect on the way that children interact with adult society.

ps...I would love to continue this conversation via email, if you are interested.

Answer 1

It seems that we get so caught up in the "Toys and Devices" we have today, that we forget how to be PERSONAL and communicate face to face.

It also is a distraction for the most part when you are at work or are driving. Unless it is an ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY (life and limb), it shouldn't be so important where you can't wait to text back.

Some people blame this on the Fast Food Industry for the "I WANT IT NOW" syndrome. The quality of communication has gone down greatly.

You can't read the emotion behind the text unless it is heavily narrated. I prefer to be face to face with the person I'm talking to. I would be able to better "read" them.

If they want to meet with me, THEN they can TEXT me!

Answer 2

"Instant" anything has a detrimental effect on people of any age, because it tends to discourage self-control and thinking before speaking or acting.

There is probably little of SUBSTANCE being communicated via IM; therefore what positive effect could it have on either the sender or receiver.

If used selectively, it's probably not harmful. But becoming addicted to anything, over time can interfere with one's life livelihood or schooling. There has been a general decline in proper use of grammar and spelling in the U.S., which goes along with the lack of sufficient funds for education overall.

We have to face the fact that we live in an electronic age, which has its assets & liabilities. Too much reliance on technology for entertainment is not necessarily beneficial, especially for children who should be engaged in physical activities and learning activities, not sitting around playing video games & text-messaging each other. IM only seems to exacerbate the normal teenage dramas & struggle for identity. I have read about online bullying where some kids have committed suicide as a result.

Where are the positive role models?

Answer 3

No, I for one don't think that text or instant messaging is affecting people in the fields of spelling or grammer. Being a frequent text and instant messenger myself, I find the time and place to use abbreviations and when not to as well. Prime example is in the way I may type on this website, and the way I type when I'm instant or text messenging (wiich wuld b sumthiin liik3 thiisz lolz). The only way text and instant messenging is affecting people is the fact that it allows people to communicate with eachother in faster, more efficient ways.

Answer 4

It is not just instant messaging but also emails that use shortened English that is adversely affecting grammar and spelling. I wonder if we will eventually have 2 versions of English - everyday usage and "high English" for official documents. I also believe that teachers (especially in grammar schools) who state that they do not care about misspellings or poor grammar as long as the idea is there are a major part of the problem.

Answer 5

Sure the abbreviantions can get annoying, or just annoyingly long or unnecessary, but i'm sure people still know how to write. I am on aim all the time and i can still produce an A-quality english paper. I think most people are smart enough to know the purpose of abbreviations (to save time typing in a game or save typing on those cumbersome cell phone key pads) so as not to use them too excessively in the "real world".

ROFL

Answer 6

It is further proof of the dumbing down of America. It is laziness. I admit to using some as well (who doesn't) but if one is a student of grammar or has a grasp on the language and it uses, that's different. I only worry about the kids growing up with this and what the results will be in 15-20 years.

Answer 7

I recently looked over some papers that high school freshman had written for their English class. Many of them had massive points taken off for things like writing b/c instead of "because" and w/ instead of "with." I think that the problem is that many kids can't distinguish when formal writing is appropriate and when it's okay to type like that. But if everyone continues to abbreviate and deform the English language when they correspond, it will eventually become the norm.

Answer 8

Yes, definitely. I think most of the youth don't really know how to spell that well in the first place, and nor are they very aware of how things are grammatically correct. And these abbreviations that are used definitely seem to be taking a toll on them, because they forget how to spell correctly, talk correctly, and use correct grammar (I've seen it myself, or else I wouldn't have said anything.)

Answer 9

I think the Internet, chatrooms and spell check in emails have killed the communication skills of today's young generation. They no longer know how to spell, the punctuation and or grammar is atrocious, they can't write a letter, they may not even know how to mail a letter.
I'm scared.

Answer 10

Shame on your for implying that text messaging, IM, and other forms of communication are not the "real world"!

Different contexts of communication call for different forms. For example, when you are talking to your friends and family you use different language from what you use when you talk to your boss. When you write an e-mail, you use different language from when you write an essay. (Imagine ending an essay with a signature, for example.) Every different communication context and style of discourse has its own genre and structure.

It appears that what you really have a problem with is that language is changing. I have seen many times, on this forum and elsewhere, that people assume that language change is language degredation. But why should that be the case? Languages naturally change as part of their development, and in order to accomodate the ever-changing needs of their users. Imagine if our language had stopped changing at the time of Shakespeare, for example. We wouldn't have words like "automobile", "computer" or "refrigerator" in our vocabularies, for one thing. As another example, surely you use e-mail at work and for personal communication, but I suspect that the structure of your e-mail is not the same as, let's say, a personal letter, either in length, content, or grammar. But e-mail is something that we have all learned to use in only the last 10 or 15 years. So, actually, all of us are part of changing language forms, whether we claim it or not.

Whether something is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to a particular communication situation is a value judgment, often based on our opinions of the people using the language rather than the language form itself. The language only exists as a form of communication. Many of the grammar rules that tell us that grammar is "proper" or "improper" were created after the forms that they prohibit had been in use in English for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, today, much of the grammar that people claim sounds "uneducated" or "trashy" has been used by English speakers for hundreds of years, but it is currently used by people who are discriminated against in our society. It's the discrimination, not the language itself, that causes that language to be less valued. Examples of grammar forms that fall into this category are bsplit infinitives, stranded prepositions, and double negatives, just to name a few.

Users of language are actually incredibly savvy at knowing which language forms would work or not work in a particular situation. People in general are largely unaware of their language behavior. That's why it's important for us to study it in a more objective way, by recording and analyzing all of the data that's available, not just what catches our attention. As a linguist trained in conversation analysis, I have gained a healthy respect for how incredibly patterned our conversations are, and how we are so quick to pick up on the very subtle language cues that we are constantly sending each other unconsciously. Discounting language forms as inappropriate robs us of the opportunity to see just how patterned, subtle, and clever they are.

In short, I disagree with you that language change is necessarily bad. I see it rather as a reflection of the changing language needs of its users. I suspect that you just don't feel the same communication needs as the people you are criticizing. Please don't assume that their needs are the same as yours.