Over the past decade, rapid technological and communicative advancements
have resulted in massive ramifications pertaining to the English Language. These
changes have influenced both the composition and directives that have long
defined the language. No other aspect,
of this once esoteric craze has played a more prominent role than texting.
Both linguists, John
McWhoter and David Crystal raise cogent arguments, appertaining to the subject
of texting as both a positive product and authority of language.
While both men arrive at the same illation in regards to the
matter, Crystal dwells far deeper into the workings and practical aspects of
this modern dialect, McWhoter instead opts for a more macroscopic approach to
the subject.
At outset both Crystal and McWhoter establish texting as a
separate entity, possessing ‘its own language…etiquette and…humor.’ Crystal
goes on to state, that texting, was never originally purposed to act as a
‘means of communication.’ However as our current reality would suggest, this is
not the case. The once mere act of bashing buttons having evolved into a new medium
where one may covey their thoughts, in a precise, coherent manner.
It is important to understand that texting shares far more
in common with speech, than writing, despite the brute mechanics they might share.
McWhoter goes as far to describe it as ‘fingered speech.’ In that sense, texting
acts as the means of expression one might adopt to directly notate their speech,
devoid of the formalities and red tape attributed to formal penmanship and
writing.
Furthermore, McWhoter expounds on the fact that texting pays
little heed to capital letters and punctuation, on the basis that people do not
pay attention to such things when they talk and therefore why should they when
they text.
Both linguists eventually make their way to discuss the
conventions regarding texting and the actuality that it is not bereft of a
defined structure rather characterized by it’s own loose rendition.
In regards to the conventions the language has spawned, both
authors recognize two in particular, ‘LOL and ‘slash,’ both of which have
developed into pragmatic particles over time. ‘LOL was originally intended to
express a sense of amusement or draw attention to a joke or amusing statement,
however it has steadily changed to represent a far subtler expression acting as
a marker of empathy and accommodation. Like wise slash, once represented a
separation between elements of a text or alternatives. Though it’s modern
interpretation hasn’t strayed far from its roots, it has now grown to be a new
information market, denoting a change in scene.
Silver, progresses to elaborate on the various language
notes and contraptions evident in text speak, as well as the distinct
graphology and prominent usage of rebus abbreviation, which McWhoter only
touches upon.
Finally both men confront the criticism and bad press that
shroud texting and its subsequent text speak. McWhoter raises the argument,
that people have forever been condemning and stressing about the language of
their time, evidence of such dating as far back as 63 A.D. Despite the planets
remain to spin and the world continues to remain.
In closing Silver states that the future of text speak
remains uncertain, it’s existence and continued longevity reliant on continuation
of a particular technology where space is at premium and abbreviation serves a
purpose. McWhoter concludes that texting acts a new form of writing young
people have devolved alongside their ordinary writing skills and concurs with
Silver in the regard that it acts as the ‘latest manifestation of the human
ability,’ in particular of today’s youth and their ability to be
‘linguistically creative,’ morphing language and adapting it to suit the
various demands of increasingly diverse world. In this manner texting exhibits
in it’s one little manner the continual evolution of language.
