Language & Technology

Texting - For Better Or Worse?

Texting began in the late-1990's and at the time, proved to be an inefficient way of communication. Fast forward about two decades later, and it is the most common way of communication. The purpose of this blogpost is to summarize and compare two perspectives on how texting relates to language and how technology in general, can have a negative or positive effect on the English Language and its many speakers. The first article, "Txtng is killing language JK!" by John McWhorter approaches the topic in a slightly less positive manner, whereas the second article, "Texting" by David Crystal, provides a more positive approach.

In the first piece, Txtng is killing language JK!, John McWhorter, the man of this theory believes that texting and technology will not affect the English Language, period. He believes that it will not have a positive nor a negative affect on the language. He also states that the way people text is written in a manner that is similar to 'writing out how you talk'. He does believe that texting is almost its own language, although he strongly believes that it will not have an affect on any of the teenagers, with their homework's or essays. He believes that children are 'intelligent' and want or 'feel the need to' to get good grades. He also mentions that many hundreds of years ago it wasn't simple and people were not able to 'write how you talk'; but these days with the technology available and texting, that has now become possible. He also uses the famous term 'lol' used in texting as an example. In the second piece, Texting, David Crystal describes texting as 'language in evolution'. Just like the previous theory of John McWhorter; David Crystal also believes that texting and technology will not affect the English language itself, but he does indeed believe that texting does affect children and teenagers when it comes to completing school work and essays as texting, like many other things in a teenager's daily routine, is time-consuming. Many teens in the world text friends and family for long periods of time during their time, and David Crystal believes that it will only be worse when it comes to school work as they are used to writing 'r' instead of 'are' for example. As we all know, LOL stands for 'laugh out loud' or 'lots of love'. David Crystal mentions how the term LOL is now only rarely at times used on the context on what LOL truly means. The similarities and differences show that clearly, both authors of both theory have the same General idea about how texting and technology will definitely not impact the English Language at all. John McWhorter thinks that children's grades and essays in school will not be affected by texting and technology as they are 'intelligent' enough to know the difference. On the other hand, David Crystal can disagree with that statement, as he believes that children's essays and schoolwork will be affected since they spend lots of their time texting and will get used to it. John McWhorter's theory focuses more on the historical view of language, while David Crystal focuses on the different terms used by people in texting in the modern day. We can conclude that there are bits and pieces where the two author's have different opinions, but they generally have the same opinion on the topic of texting and technology.

Cultural Appropriation - Imitating Accents

Is imitating an unfamiliar accent to fit in with the locals considered wrong?

Letter To The Editor

Aaron L. Pereira

October 5th, 2014

Dear Jean Hannah Edelstein, 

Upon reading your article on imitating unfamiliar accents, I would like to say that the strong opinions that are trying to be conveyed, are fairly one-sided, in my opinion. I mean to state my personal opinion with the upmost respect, since I feel that your argument was constructed using misinformed information. To understand why accents exist, we must look at how they originated. Accents are more than just words, as you call them out to be. Accents are different contexts of speech that are heavily influenced by one's background (which includes culture, environment, traditions, etc.). Since this is the case, I strongly believe that the use of an unfamiliar accent spoken in a different context (often influenced by a completely different background) can cause confusion among its unsure speakers. I do however understand, how speaking in an accent that  familiar to the locals would be effective, but this would only work in moderation and can only be used to convey simple or basic ideas and messages across. I believe that the most effective alternative to this problem would be, to speak in a more basic constructed dialect of english, while clearly pronouncing words and speaking in a steady pace, understandable to most. To conclude, I do not completely think that your opinion is wrong, but I do think the method in which your argument is presented could be backed up by using socially and ethically appropriate pieces of information which are relatable to this day and age.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With regards, 

Aaron Leo Pereira.