Recent Changes

OTHERS
BRAIN STORMING PREZI AS AN INTRO TO THE AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE (new curriculum)
http://prezi.com/75_ionx5clcu/area-of-knowledge-brain-storming/
The notion of PERSPECTIVE: (and stereotypes/ ) Very useful-
" THE DANGERS OF ONE STORY" (Shashi thanks!) 20 min max ted lecture.

http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2011/20-terrific-ted-talks-for-language-lovers
texting is killing language (?) / John mac whorter 13.48 Min.(joelle)
[[@/profiles/1702469|天恆 賴]]
0
11 hours ago: Written language, unlike spoken language, is limited in its formality due to the lack of more convenient instruments. But even after our writing tools have improved greatly, there are still those who believe that if you write as you speak, you are being inelegant. This is a taboo: the reason for such practices has already vanished.Thank McWhorter for telling us that using more advance tools such as txting not only doesn't deteriorate our language, but enhances it.
[[@/profiles/1036576|jinhee kim]]
+1
2 days ago: Why is my video just end up not finishing the story?Anyway txting also becomes a problem in Korea too. But as I am one of the 20s and also txting skills users, I think it is unsuitable to see that txting is bad. What i mean by that is we always change and develop in more comfortable and adaptable way to our environment. And many so-called conservatives who disagree with txting also accept the idea of changing and they have went through even they didn't know it. Becasue the proof is our bodies, languages, society strucures and educations, etc. We have experienced and known the law of nature. The things that have a power will survive. Then why we just look at the idea of txting is same. Txting now survives and even develops.That is the proof of my opinion. In addition, It makes our languages richer.What I really want to say is people who argue that the young ruin the traditional launguage should change their thought. And you know what? they have chaged the laguage too. They will know that their language is different from their parent'sThank you for reading.
[[@/profiles/1280117|Marc Watkins]]
+2
3 days ago: I do not believe that the modern texting style constitutes a "dumbing down" of language. If you get deep enough into any technical field you are surrounded by the constant use of acronyms, abbreviations and symbols. The reason why nobody complains about these forms of "dumbing down" of language is that they relate the required information to people who need to understand it quickly and efficiently. Furthermore these are not just accepted they are expected. Could the texting writing style be preparing the youth for ease of understanding and communication in technical disciplines?
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
+4
4 days ago: I find the arguments against this speaker highly amusing and somewhat frightening. The assumed Illuminati judging the base vernacular of the unenlightened. Your swollen pride for how well trained you are in the rules of an antiquated system that obviously limits human expression is more a reflection of how misanthropic you have become over any indication of a collective mental entropy. Why judge the tool before understanding why it works? The reason why people of all ages use it (not just "young people") is because it allows ideas to be shared between two people in an environment that otherwise did not exist prior. It's not a reflection of regression, it is a product of our changing environment. Perhaps you should be critical of how ineffective written language is as a tool for thoughts, emotions and ideas (how many interpretations are there of the bible?). Writing obviously doesn't contain the breadth of human thought otherwise we wouldn't be looking for other forms of expression or other tools to communicate. Remember letters are just tools that are used to archive thoughts, they are not the thoughts themselves. They grew from the technique of writing hieroglyphs. Should we have persecuted those that attempted to change to the written word back then? "Those damn young kids with all their letters and words! No respect for the symbols we worked so hard to create!" OMG...
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: Mr. McWhorter presents, with palpable favorable bias, one side of this issue. He characterizes great oration from history as, "blah blah blah blah blah!" while portraying today's 16-year old girls as the capable developers of the next generation of intelligent communication which goes something like this: "OMG LOL L8R BFF". Do we really not talk the way we write and vice-versa as McWhorter insists? I wonder if the speaker advocates the restructuring of school curriculums to purge all the BLAH BLAH BLAH and leave just the shallow banality of the texting lingo? Long live literacy!
[[@/profiles/95893|Travis Miller]]
0
4 days ago: Maybe try to understand something before commenting on it. You have clearly never texted if you think "OMG LOL L8R BFF" represents text. It is like saying, "This new French people are speaking is destroying language, 'Bonjour je ne sais quoi merde à la mode'."
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: My remarks are based upon my attempt to understand why a highly educated language expert would advocate for texting in place of "blah blah blah (meaning current writing/verbal communication methods). Perhaps I could make sense of your point if you used text lingo,because I have no idea what "This new French. . .: means. Thank you for your quick assessment of my opinion.
[[@/profiles/1847051|Andrew Sinclair]]
+1
4 days ago: Instead of wondering, you should listen. McWhorter does not advocate the restructuring of school curriculums, or purging anything at all. His point is that texting is not a replacement for formal writing, or for formal speaking, for that matter, but something else entirely. For someone so keen on oration, Mr. Long, your oral comprehension skills seem quite limited.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: Most of my skills are indeed limited. I simply did not get the sense that Mr. Mc Whorter views text language as something else entirely from formal writing or speaking, quite the contrary. I think he did a fine job of defending and promoting the proliferation of texting. Do you deny he portrayed texting lingo as a refreshing, more sensible alternative to "blah blah blah"? Perhaps we should talk the way we write and vice versa. I do not deny anyone's right to compose any code they like amongst themselves. What I object to is "an authority" promoting that code as superior to the zeitgeist. There are no one-sided stories.
[[@/profiles/1306682|Stew Ogilvie]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]
0
3 days ago: He definitely did not promote this as an alternative to formal writing everywhere. He said, it is beneficial to know both and use them contextually. We definitely do not talk like we write formally. Take a look at some movie scripts; they do not look like any type of formal writing. The point is that when you are using writing to communicate in the short term, Why not use the most efficient method? Nobody is advocating converting the English language as we know it to txt, he is simply defending it as a useful form of communication in the context of instant messaging like SMS.
[[@/profiles/1458275|stewart buller]]
+1
5 days ago: I like the idea of texting as a new language. Perhaps that explains why I struggle to understand a lot of it. Judging by some interesting debates on this topic, it seems we are trying to blame texting for just about everything that students or teenagers arent as good at as we might like them to be. Texting as an evolving language... now there's a real concept "to make you think". Given its basis in fairly primitive mobile communications using poorly structured keypads, is it only transient? Will video message take its place? Exciting to see how it might evolve
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
5 days ago: *"the majority of anything the majority of kids talk about is shallow and empty" But what about the adults? Why should kids talk about serious issues everytime they want to talk to somebody? Same for adults, the majority of anything the majority of adults talk about is shallow and empty... don't you think so ? The world would be sad if everyone talks about big issues at dinner, breakfast, work etc. *"Quite a lot of teenagers texts don't look like a foreign language." Most of teenages texts don't look like a foreign language. No doubt. It is obviously easier and quicker to read and understand a text without mistakes. I believe people of my age understand it. We don't need to type as formally as in a paper when talking to our friends and family. I don't have enough time to spend 2 hours writing mails I would like to send to my family.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
0
6 days ago: A lot of what he says may be true... but as a college professor, texting has destroyed students' ability to write anything correctly. All the of my students' essays and research papers have grammatical errors and they look like a giant text message. Mind you I am not an English professor and I do not have perfect grammar. But when I see students use "then" when they meant to use "than", or "ur" instead of "your", or when they think a paragraph is two sentences long, then there is a problem.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: The only thing you mentioned that I might attribute to texting is the "ur" problem. And even then, I see that as a failure of their high school education more than an artifact of texting.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
0
5 days ago: Schooling might be a problem, but more kids are texting than actually reading and not taking the time to text correctly, and that's the problem.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: More kids are talking on the phone or with friends in social gatherings than they are actually reading as well. Hasn't it always been true that most teens are far more involved in social activities than in reading?If by the time young adults are in college they do not know that it is generally inappropriate to use "ur" in place of "your" in formal writing, we pretty clearly have a schooling problem. It doesn't matter how much they text, they still have to pass their English courses. And those courses should impart that knowledge. I see no reasont to think that learning texting abbreviations should or would undo other learning.
[[@/profiles/1847051|Andrew Sinclair]]
+1
4 days ago: Kids are taking the time to text correctly. Using abbreviations in text conversations is correct. End of story. If you don't like it, don't text. Using abbreviations in an English essay, job application, or formal letter is obviously not correct. This is not a difficult concept to teach or learn. I teach the various conventions required by different kinds of communication every day, and my students have no problem whatsoever learning when it is appropriate to use text language and when it isn't. I really don't understand why people are saying that if you spend a lot of time texting it is difficult to write Standard English. There is absolutely no truth to this at all. None. Do people who speak two languages have difficulty switching from one to another? If people are using text language in their college essays it is because a) they were not taught the appropriate conventions of academic writing, b) they are stupid, c) they don't care, or d) all three.Texting is not the problem.
[[@/profiles/1845174|Kari McArdle]]
0
5 days ago: I do not associate your point with Texting. I think the evolution of our societies forms of communication are to "blame". Until 28 I did not realize I was misusing certain words, and I was always top of the class in spelling, grammar and English in general. What I realized was that since my early school years, I may not have had use for such lessons. I do not write nearly as much as I did back then, and how often are my scribbling's read by anyone? I am actually writing a position paper on your same standpoint, and am slowly realizing I may end up on the other side of the fence by the end.Take my grandparents generation, for instance. They learned their writing skills and never stopped using them. Penmanship and "snail mail" were paramount in daily life. Now schools teach penmanship and other such lessons, and then require one to type on a computer, and utilize spell-check prior to submission. Texting isn't to blame for this evolution, but the evolution itself.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
+1
5 days ago: Texting is part of the problem, because texting has become the norm. The abbreviations in text are meant to get the message across quickly not to have conversations. But that is what kids are doing, they are having conversation through abbreviations and symbols. This is all fine, but when that is taken into the professional world and education, the student will fall back on what's easy and comfortable. That would be texting. Like I said, I see the results of it daily. Kids have no social skills in reality, only in virtual "reality". They cannot form sentences even they speak let alone in writing. I'm not trying to dismiss texting or blame texting as the number one problem. However, it is part of the problem. The big problem I see is that people now are trying to make excuses for the dumbing down of our kids and not taking accountability for failing to correct their errors. People would rather say... "oh it's OK, kids just have their way of communicating, it's fine". That's the real problem
[[@/profiles/1845174|Kari McArdle]]
0
4 days ago: In that regard, one could also blame "slang" on one's lack of ability to conduct proper verbal communication. I frequently use slang as well as curse from time to time. When the time is necessary however, I can easily transition into a more professional speech pattern. If one was unable to transition, would it be the fault of "slang"? You mentioned "The big problem I see is that "people" now are trying to make excuses for the dumbing down." Wouldn't that mean the "people" are the problem? Who will train the trainers? Why are these "people" not being holding these kids accountable at a higher level? Perhaps texting is not the problem at all, but a venue. Perhaps parenting could come more into play, my parents read my homework and "red-penned" it before I turned it in. Are parents now just expecting spell-check to catch such things?
[[@/profiles/1061705|Kimani Burton]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]
0
6 days ago: I tend to agree with his general premise, until I took into consideration people with weaker writing and speaking ability -- compared to their texting ability. Texting is highly habitual by nature and as people, we develop patterns that we sometimes get too comfortable with. A person who has grown accustomed to communicating (e.g., texting) a certain way may find it hard to revert back to standard writing, and reading conventions, especially when they are in a situation that demands it. I find it hard to foresee a future where, for example; contracts, news stories etc., are written in texting form. Proficient texting, of course, isn't a bad thing. That said, universally accepted communicating conventions should be dominant if they already aren't your strong suit or they're in your best interest.
[[@/profiles/1843995|Maxwell Kramer]]
0
6 days ago: Claiming that texting affects formal writing is an extremely strong claim to make, and needs to be backed up by evidence. I think you're going to have a hard time finding people who lack formal writing skills and be able to reliably and confidently attribute their lack of skills to overuse of texting.As Dr. McWhorter points out, texting, while it uses orthographics, is a method of speech. The connection between it and formal writing is almost non-existent. They exist as different domains in the mind. There will never be a future where contracts and news stories are written in texting form, and nobody claims that they will be. Contracts and news stories are not in the domain of casual speech, so casual speech (of which texting is a type) will never be used to express those things.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: I kid my wife when she uses speech recognition to text. I ask her why she doesn't just call. :^)Of course, there are good reasons to text rather than call. But I still find the vision of her talking into a phone to leave a text based message humorous in an ironic sense and also immensely pragmatic. But it does seem to dovetail with the speaker's point. Texting is frequently more akin to conversation than to "writing."
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
+1
Apr 29 2013: I appreciate the different perspective on texting. My concern is how it is spilling into blog posts and other writing. Writing with abbreviations and without capitalization, punctuation, grammar makes it more difficult on the recipient to "decrypt", particularly when you add the element of typos. no what i mean...
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: Actually, no. I had your final question decrypted before I finished reading it. It was probably easier to ingest and understand than the more correct, "Do you know what I mean?" - possibly because it was more conversational.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
Apr 30 2013: No, what I meant was something different. :}Seriously, I would be interested in brain research on this. Case in point, your brain either needs to store "know" and "no" as two words possibly meaning the same thing and then determine which is appropriate based on the rest of the sentence or you have to sound it out in your head to "hear" the "no" and translate it that way. Either way seems like more brain power on your part. It would be just easier on you for me to type two more letters and be clear. But, what do i no.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: What I think I did with your phrase was to read the words and hear them. I then interpreted what I heard, not what I read. And actually, I suspect the interpretation occurred in parallel with the reading."No what" is being interpreted as "I mean" is still being read. Of course, that could just be a rationalization. These things happen so fast and automatically that it is hard to observe what we are actually doing. If I heard "Know what I mean?" I don't get the aid from the spelling. I might get the clue that this was a question from the inflection in the speaker's voice. But I bet I'd have this figured out before they finished saying "mean?"Our acatul raeding pocsres is paobrbly not qtuie what we tinhk it is. It is pbroably snincigtlfaiy more coplmex. Just aoubt ervey word here is mleesilpd, but my bet is taht tihs mekas rnidaeg it olny mlnaailrgy more dlifiucft.Sometimes we are more comfortable with doing things a certain way because we've developed the habit. I think a lot of concern about grammar and spelling is just that. We like our habits and routines. Why is "color" correct in the U.S. but in England "colour" is prefered? Isn't "kulr" less ambiguous and shorter and therefor better?Anyway, interesting stuff. I prefer to keep an open mind when it comes to language because many (not all) of the reasons given for "proper" grammar seem to boil down to convention and habit. I figure there's probably room for improvement.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
0
4 days ago: Jay, I can't seem to reply directly to your reply to me. I did find it difficult to understand in the sense that there were multiple layers of meaning to the sentence and my brain was going through the different meanings as well as looking for potential ones that I missed. I think the humor was the main intended purpose of the last sentence and not meant as informational with humor being secondary. Also note that I enjoyed the "difficulty" as the effort to explore multiple meanings is very gratifying.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
0
4 days ago: I don't think the converstaional aspect of the misspelling was the point of Drew's last sentence. He meant to inject satire by creating the grammatical error. His point is that if one doesn't know the difference one doesn't get the joke, therefore missing out on something potentially enlightening.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
4 days ago: He was making the point that misspellings can introduce an ambiguity that makes interpretation more difficult. The grammatical error was supposed to illustrate that point - probably with a bit of humor. But my experience was that it didn't illustrate the point at all. I didn't perceive any difficulty in understanding that "no" was to be interpreted as "know." I think I had it "decrypted" before I even finished reading it. Did you find it at all difficult to understand?I think he overestimates the real problems that such errors create in real world situations. We are well trained in dealing with homophones in spoken language. So dealing with it with written language is no big deal.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
4 days ago: No, what I meanto show was a potential ambiguity. The difference in time and effort evaluating those words is so minute that it is probably not apparent. So, of course you "didn't perceive any difficulty". Compounded, though, it could add up into a "big deal". That is merely my unproven theory. I will leave the true findings to the scientists. I am open that I may be wrong.perhapsourgrandchildrenwillfindevenspacesawasteof... well, space.
[[@/profiles/1841319|D Howell]]
+1
Apr 29 2013: Mr. McWhorter's speech is disappointing and shortsighted. In addition to failing to cite empirical data, he uses isolated examples to back his claims. Perhaps he should look into how much time kids spend texting and the meaningful, face-to-face conversations they are missing (including other activities that it distracts from - including reading). What about the shallow and empty messages kids send each other and the amount of messages they send each day? Texting is not like a foreign language - there may be some superficial likeness, but it lacks the depth of syntax, grammar, and vocabulary that takes years to master. How about some real research to determine how texting is affecting vocabulary acquisition and writing skills in schools?
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
6 days ago: I do not agree with you. According to you, it seems that every kid spend much time texting, and that their text messages are meaningful . As a 15 year-old parisian girl, I'd like to tell you not every kid ruin their time texting. Last month, I sent 102 text messages, in order to give my parents some news while I was on a trip with my class, etc. These kids you're talking about and who spend all their time sending "empty messages" are exceptions. "Texting is not like a foreign language" : Yes indeed, Mr. McWorther didn't say it. He said language is not texting, and vice-versa. Texting is the way to write like if you're speaking to someone. And texting with abbreviations is easier, especially when you have a Nokia 1208 like me ! ;) Though my English is not perfect, I think I understand most of what McWorther said and I certainly do agree with him.
[[@/profiles/1841319|D Howell]]
0
6 days ago: Congratulations! Your total number of texts in one month is below the daily average number of texts kids your age send and receive in one day. You need to reread my post. The word "every" is no where to be found. There are lots of exceptions.
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
6 days ago: Yes i know, I just understood what you said about 'kids ' as kids in general. And thank you, but i don't think i should be proud of it, it's normal not to spend hours and hours texting to my friends :)
[[@/profiles/1843810|Sean Coker]]
0
6 days ago: First: "What about the shallow and empty messages kids send each other"The thing you fail to recognize there is that the majority of anything the majority of kids talk about is shallow and empty. Second: Even here, in this comment section, I don't type as formally as I would in say, a paper, although, perhaps, more than I would in the dialogue of a story. Third: Literacy and writing has increased over the years even in the United States, perhaps it'll harm us as compared to those from the 1980's, but hardly as those compared to the 1800's.Fourth: Quite a lot of teenagers texts don't look like a foreign language.Fifth: As long as basic literacy is maintained among the majority of the population everything will be fine. You'll still have great writers, you had them back in pre-enlightenment times for god's sake.
[[@/profiles/1841202|Mario Villalta]]
0
Apr 29 2013: I did enjoy it
[[@/profiles/1840949|Byron Mendez]]
0
Apr 29 2013: He's only in it for the Kool-Aid!!!
[[@/profiles/1813610|Alice Lin]]
0
Apr 29 2013: What an appealing speech! As we all know that "LOL" is interpretated as Laugh Out Loud, what I didn't notice is that it doesn't mean that anymore. I myself use it all the time without noticing we're not talking anything funny. An awesome idea of seeing texting a linguistic miracle as I always consider texting a decline of langauges. I guess language does change over time.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/a36ecacc69b73ccc912e68f6ed88b1b1fef12894_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1824749|Ian Thompson]]====
+3
Apr 29 2013: From a linguist's point of view, this phenomenon is fascinating. From a societal progress point of view, the decline in written language clarity is scary. I find it excellent that people can now add in empathy to their text and switch topics with the use of a word as long as my student's can still realize that "Let's eat grandma" and "Let's eat, grandma" have an important difference. Empirical data on this topic must exist... Just because people throughout history have complained about their students American-English fluency, we cannot accept the notion that texting has not made this worse. Now, college professors are complaining about improper punctuation AND texting lingo.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: Possibly because they don't understand the texting lingo?More seriously, I suppose the distinction needs to be made by the professors that conversational writing is not always appropriate.
[[@/profiles/1818536|Nathan Ivie]]
0
6 days ago: Student's. Haha.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
+1
5 days ago: Also note the improper all caps "AND." He's right that the existence of a long history of grammar complaints is insufficient support for the notion that texting is not making things worse. But that, of course, is a straw man. The speaker gave more than just the history of complaints to support his assertion. Note also that Ian did not provide one iota of support for his own assertion that the decline in written language clarity is scary. It doesn't scare me one bit. I'm more scared about the general state of critical thinking skills and the inability of people to recognize poor arguments and weak sources of information than I am about written language skills. I'll support my concern by pointing out how political speech is riddles with bad argument and people keep re-electing these politicians.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
5 days ago: Not only are "Let's eat grandma" and "Let's eat, grandma" different, but if I leave out the comma, I save the time of writing the comma, but I force the reader to devote extra energy (albeit small) to find the right meaning based on the content.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/bece7374964211cde3dc342644e7e838f4d67a2f_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1739610|Christopher Beason]]====
0
Apr 29 2013: Absolutely fantastic talk by an absolutely fantastic speaker. McWhorter speaks so eloquently and really gets the point across about the new language.I'd be interested to see studies in the coming years about if text-speak (as it evolves) affects brain activity in the same way that bilingualism does.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
Apr 29 2013: It would be interesting to see the parallels between this and bilingualism.
[[@/profiles/1026578|Dawn Jenkins]]
+2
Apr 29 2013: I'm not sure that I agree that texting is a "linguistic miracle" but I get his point. My only concern is whether expert texters can code-switch to standard written American-English. If they cannot spell in a conventional manner and create a grammatically structured sentence more than 50% of the time then, in the short term, they are at a disadvantage.
[[@/profiles/1839033|Daria Nikitina]]
+1
Apr 28 2013: There are some comments on the (mis)use of Slash in this talk, and I would like to share my version: my friends and I use /Slash when saying what you are doing at the moment, and it also fits Mr McWhorter's example perfectly (I wish he had more). It may be that you want to change the topic, but it can also be that you want your friends to know what you are doing (e.g. something you have promised to do, something exciting to make them feel happy for you etc.).
[[@/profiles/711886|Paddi ISIS AMORE]]
0
Apr 28 2013: Love youQ!!
[[@/profiles/1838631|Jeremy Velasquez]]
0
Apr 28 2013: I think it's great that he's found something positive about the manipulation of language from a younger generation. of course it's not useful in a "professional" environment (unless you are a blogger or work for some hipster demographic zine) But I'm personally all for whatever makes our language broader and more beautiful and even more complex. I even welcome slang. Learn and evolve or keep yelling out the window at kids to "stay of the lawn!" Either way it's happening whether you embrace it or not. Besides, every word in the dictionary had to start somewhere, right? Why is it any different now with new words and ways to communicate?. Should we draw the line at a certain century? I don't know maybe I just think perhaps the people that are the most upset about the technology language evolution are the ones who have worked hard at the education of themselves to make their language "proper", preening themselves on some impossible concept of perfection but in an age where technology wasn't where it's at now. *shrugs* txt launguage- I find it more creative then destructive. Plus it saves a lot of time imo. Unless you're like my mom trying to make up your own txt language- then it's a nightmare for me trying to understand you. ;)
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/eeef75a393448cb761e4267b99cdd1b714e47a5c_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1814924|Ahsen Mukhtiar]]====
0
Apr 27 2013: Killing language or creating another language .. LinguaSMS
[[@/profiles/1837769|William R]]
+2
Apr 27 2013: His best example of formal speech being antiquated was the preamble to the Gettysburg address? What an relevant example to the state of our language today. (especially considering the crux of his speech was the legitimacy of texting when it comes to communication.) Speaking to one another is, and always will be: the most effective way to communicate. Sorry young people, we don't hire people who text "omg, so excited about the interview." I'm hiring a professional, not a child.
[[@/profiles/1843279|Rick Rowan]]
+1
6 days ago: Ironically enough William, you have probably already hired someone or several someones who texted their child, parent or significant other, "omg, so excited about the interview." And at 43 years old (obviously "not a child"), I have done so myself on at least two occasions (I wasn't interviewing with you of course, lol) when I was communicating "informally" with someone other than my potential employer. I don't recall McWhorter implying that this was acceptable business practice, nor do I think it's generally accepted in the business community that an employer texts their prospective employee about scheduling an interview.
[[@/profiles/1837689|Erika Stimac]]
+3
Apr 27 2013: There's nothing wrong with the texting language protocol that is evolving, so long as it is used only in the texting environment. When that vernacular shows up outside of that situation things start to get ugly.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: One of the problems is that many people don't understand texting well. I may be one of them. It may have been another TED talk where it was shown, but a study was shown where older and younger people were asked about the appropriateness of certain forms of communication for an important message. Far fewer younger people thought that texting was appropriate for this while the older group was more inclined to think it was OK. In this case, it seemed like the younger and more expert better understood the medium's limitations.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/183794_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/576627|Piotr Misiuna]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]====
0
Apr 27 2013: Personally I couldn't stand that guy, but Ali G. is a good example of a person trying to speak one of the non articulated branches of English that is non native to him.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6ada6c7945bfa9f602751dee4935a7ae72ea7f51_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1797610|Mindy Hu]]====
0
Apr 26 2013: Very insightful! I definitely use lol way too much and yes, I am not laughing out loud half of the time - it definitely became more of a filler word lol.
[[@/profiles/1026578|Dawn Jenkins]]
0
Apr 29 2013: I use "gigl" now. ;-)
Does texting mean the death of good writing skills? John McWhorter posits that there’s much more to texting -- linguistically, culturally -- than it seems, and it’s all good news.
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.html

I only know the one with steven pinker. (above) Please comment on any of the others you might come across !
http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2011/20-terrific-ted-talks-for-language-lovers
mac whorter (joelle)13.48 Min.(joelle)
[[@/profiles/1702469|天恆 賴]]
0
11 hours ago: Written language, unlike spoken language, is limited in its formality due to the lack of more convenient instruments. But even after our writing tools have improved greatly, there are still those who believe that if you write as you speak, you are being inelegant. This is a taboo: the reason for such practices has already vanished.Thank McWhorter for telling us that using more advance tools such as txting not only doesn't deteriorate our language, but enhances it.
[[@/profiles/1036576|jinhee kim]]
+1
2 days ago: Why is my video just end up not finishing the story?Anyway txting also becomes a problem in Korea too. But as I am one of the 20s and also txting skills users, I think it is unsuitable to see that txting is bad. What i mean by that is we always change and develop in more comfortable and adaptable way to our environment. And many so-called conservatives who disagree with txting also accept the idea of changing and they have went through even they didn't know it. Becasue the proof is our bodies, languages, society strucures and educations, etc. We have experienced and known the law of nature. The things that have a power will survive. Then why we just look at the idea of txting is same. Txting now survives and even develops.That is the proof of my opinion. In addition, It makes our languages richer.What I really want to say is people who argue that the young ruin the traditional launguage should change their thought. And you know what? they have chaged the laguage too. They will know that their language is different from their parent'sThank you for reading.
[[@/profiles/1280117|Marc Watkins]]
+2
3 days ago: I do not believe that the modern texting style constitutes a "dumbing down" of language. If you get deep enough into any technical field you are surrounded by the constant use of acronyms, abbreviations and symbols. The reason why nobody complains about these forms of "dumbing down" of language is that they relate the required information to people who need to understand it quickly and efficiently. Furthermore these are not just accepted they are expected. Could the texting writing style be preparing the youth for ease of understanding and communication in technical disciplines?
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
+4
4 days ago: I find the arguments against this speaker highly amusing and somewhat frightening. The assumed Illuminati judging the base vernacular of the unenlightened. Your swollen pride for how well trained you are in the rules of an antiquated system that obviously limits human expression is more a reflection of how misanthropic you have become over any indication of a collective mental entropy. Why judge the tool before understanding why it works? The reason why people of all ages use it (not just "young people") is because it allows ideas to be shared between two people in an environment that otherwise did not exist prior. It's not a reflection of regression, it is a product of our changing environment. Perhaps you should be critical of how ineffective written language is as a tool for thoughts, emotions and ideas (how many interpretations are there of the bible?). Writing obviously doesn't contain the breadth of human thought otherwise we wouldn't be looking for other forms of expression or other tools to communicate. Remember letters are just tools that are used to archive thoughts, they are not the thoughts themselves. They grew from the technique of writing hieroglyphs. Should we have persecuted those that attempted to change to the written word back then? "Those damn young kids with all their letters and words! No respect for the symbols we worked so hard to create!" OMG...
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: Mr. McWhorter presents, with palpable favorable bias, one side of this issue. He characterizes great oration from history as, "blah blah blah blah blah!" while portraying today's 16-year old girls as the capable developers of the next generation of intelligent communication which goes something like this: "OMG LOL L8R BFF". Do we really not talk the way we write and vice-versa as McWhorter insists? I wonder if the speaker advocates the restructuring of school curriculums to purge all the BLAH BLAH BLAH and leave just the shallow banality of the texting lingo? Long live literacy!
[[@/profiles/95893|Travis Miller]]
0
4 days ago: Maybe try to understand something before commenting on it. You have clearly never texted if you think "OMG LOL L8R BFF" represents text. It is like saying, "This new French people are speaking is destroying language, 'Bonjour je ne sais quoi merde à la mode'."
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: My remarks are based upon my attempt to understand why a highly educated language expert would advocate for texting in place of "blah blah blah (meaning current writing/verbal communication methods). Perhaps I could make sense of your point if you used text lingo,because I have no idea what "This new French. . .: means. Thank you for your quick assessment of my opinion.
[[@/profiles/1847051|Andrew Sinclair]]
+1
4 days ago: Instead of wondering, you should listen. McWhorter does not advocate the restructuring of school curriculums, or purging anything at all. His point is that texting is not a replacement for formal writing, or for formal speaking, for that matter, but something else entirely. For someone so keen on oration, Mr. Long, your oral comprehension skills seem quite limited.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6b0048aa92ca036a28ce87f843e51b375b89383e_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/938536|edward long]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|100+]]====
0
4 days ago: Most of my skills are indeed limited. I simply did not get the sense that Mr. Mc Whorter views text language as something else entirely from formal writing or speaking, quite the contrary. I think he did a fine job of defending and promoting the proliferation of texting. Do you deny he portrayed texting lingo as a refreshing, more sensible alternative to "blah blah blah"? Perhaps we should talk the way we write and vice versa. I do not deny anyone's right to compose any code they like amongst themselves. What I object to is "an authority" promoting that code as superior to the zeitgeist. There are no one-sided stories.
[[@/profiles/1306682|Stew Ogilvie]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]
0
3 days ago: He definitely did not promote this as an alternative to formal writing everywhere. He said, it is beneficial to know both and use them contextually. We definitely do not talk like we write formally. Take a look at some movie scripts; they do not look like any type of formal writing. The point is that when you are using writing to communicate in the short term, Why not use the most efficient method? Nobody is advocating converting the English language as we know it to txt, he is simply defending it as a useful form of communication in the context of instant messaging like SMS.
[[@/profiles/1458275|stewart buller]]
+1
5 days ago: I like the idea of texting as a new language. Perhaps that explains why I struggle to understand a lot of it. Judging by some interesting debates on this topic, it seems we are trying to blame texting for just about everything that students or teenagers arent as good at as we might like them to be. Texting as an evolving language... now there's a real concept "to make you think". Given its basis in fairly primitive mobile communications using poorly structured keypads, is it only transient? Will video message take its place? Exciting to see how it might evolve
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
5 days ago: *"the majority of anything the majority of kids talk about is shallow and empty" But what about the adults? Why should kids talk about serious issues everytime they want to talk to somebody? Same for adults, the majority of anything the majority of adults talk about is shallow and empty... don't you think so ? The world would be sad if everyone talks about big issues at dinner, breakfast, work etc. *"Quite a lot of teenagers texts don't look like a foreign language." Most of teenages texts don't look like a foreign language. No doubt. It is obviously easier and quicker to read and understand a text without mistakes. I believe people of my age understand it. We don't need to type as formally as in a paper when talking to our friends and family. I don't have enough time to spend 2 hours writing mails I would like to send to my family.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
0
6 days ago: A lot of what he says may be true... but as a college professor, texting has destroyed students' ability to write anything correctly. All the of my students' essays and research papers have grammatical errors and they look like a giant text message. Mind you I am not an English professor and I do not have perfect grammar. But when I see students use "then" when they meant to use "than", or "ur" instead of "your", or when they think a paragraph is two sentences long, then there is a problem.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: The only thing you mentioned that I might attribute to texting is the "ur" problem. And even then, I see that as a failure of their high school education more than an artifact of texting.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
0
5 days ago: Schooling might be a problem, but more kids are texting than actually reading and not taking the time to text correctly, and that's the problem.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: More kids are talking on the phone or with friends in social gatherings than they are actually reading as well. Hasn't it always been true that most teens are far more involved in social activities than in reading?If by the time young adults are in college they do not know that it is generally inappropriate to use "ur" in place of "your" in formal writing, we pretty clearly have a schooling problem. It doesn't matter how much they text, they still have to pass their English courses. And those courses should impart that knowledge. I see no reasont to think that learning texting abbreviations should or would undo other learning.
[[@/profiles/1847051|Andrew Sinclair]]
+1
4 days ago: Kids are taking the time to text correctly. Using abbreviations in text conversations is correct. End of story. If you don't like it, don't text. Using abbreviations in an English essay, job application, or formal letter is obviously not correct. This is not a difficult concept to teach or learn. I teach the various conventions required by different kinds of communication every day, and my students have no problem whatsoever learning when it is appropriate to use text language and when it isn't. I really don't understand why people are saying that if you spend a lot of time texting it is difficult to write Standard English. There is absolutely no truth to this at all. None. Do people who speak two languages have difficulty switching from one to another? If people are using text language in their college essays it is because a) they were not taught the appropriate conventions of academic writing, b) they are stupid, c) they don't care, or d) all three.Texting is not the problem.
[[@/profiles/1845174|Kari McArdle]]
0
5 days ago: I do not associate your point with Texting. I think the evolution of our societies forms of communication are to "blame". Until 28 I did not realize I was misusing certain words, and I was always top of the class in spelling, grammar and English in general. What I realized was that since my early school years, I may not have had use for such lessons. I do not write nearly as much as I did back then, and how often are my scribbling's read by anyone? I am actually writing a position paper on your same standpoint, and am slowly realizing I may end up on the other side of the fence by the end.Take my grandparents generation, for instance. They learned their writing skills and never stopped using them. Penmanship and "snail mail" were paramount in daily life. Now schools teach penmanship and other such lessons, and then require one to type on a computer, and utilize spell-check prior to submission. Texting isn't to blame for this evolution, but the evolution itself.
[[@/profiles/1844009|John Valley]]
+1
5 days ago: Texting is part of the problem, because texting has become the norm. The abbreviations in text are meant to get the message across quickly not to have conversations. But that is what kids are doing, they are having conversation through abbreviations and symbols. This is all fine, but when that is taken into the professional world and education, the student will fall back on what's easy and comfortable. That would be texting. Like I said, I see the results of it daily. Kids have no social skills in reality, only in virtual "reality". They cannot form sentences even they speak let alone in writing. I'm not trying to dismiss texting or blame texting as the number one problem. However, it is part of the problem. The big problem I see is that people now are trying to make excuses for the dumbing down of our kids and not taking accountability for failing to correct their errors. People would rather say... "oh it's OK, kids just have their way of communicating, it's fine". That's the real problem
[[@/profiles/1845174|Kari McArdle]]
0
4 days ago: In that regard, one could also blame "slang" on one's lack of ability to conduct proper verbal communication. I frequently use slang as well as curse from time to time. When the time is necessary however, I can easily transition into a more professional speech pattern. If one was unable to transition, would it be the fault of "slang"? You mentioned "The big problem I see is that "people" now are trying to make excuses for the dumbing down." Wouldn't that mean the "people" are the problem? Who will train the trainers? Why are these "people" not being holding these kids accountable at a higher level? Perhaps texting is not the problem at all, but a venue. Perhaps parenting could come more into play, my parents read my homework and "red-penned" it before I turned it in. Are parents now just expecting spell-check to catch such things?
[[@/profiles/1061705|Kimani Burton]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]
0
6 days ago: I tend to agree with his general premise, until I took into consideration people with weaker writing and speaking ability -- compared to their texting ability. Texting is highly habitual by nature and as people, we develop patterns that we sometimes get too comfortable with. A person who has grown accustomed to communicating (e.g., texting) a certain way may find it hard to revert back to standard writing, and reading conventions, especially when they are in a situation that demands it. I find it hard to foresee a future where, for example; contracts, news stories etc., are written in texting form. Proficient texting, of course, isn't a bad thing. That said, universally accepted communicating conventions should be dominant if they already aren't your strong suit or they're in your best interest.
[[@/profiles/1843995|Maxwell Kramer]]
0
6 days ago: Claiming that texting affects formal writing is an extremely strong claim to make, and needs to be backed up by evidence. I think you're going to have a hard time finding people who lack formal writing skills and be able to reliably and confidently attribute their lack of skills to overuse of texting.As Dr. McWhorter points out, texting, while it uses orthographics, is a method of speech. The connection between it and formal writing is almost non-existent. They exist as different domains in the mind. There will never be a future where contracts and news stories are written in texting form, and nobody claims that they will be. Contracts and news stories are not in the domain of casual speech, so casual speech (of which texting is a type) will never be used to express those things.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: I kid my wife when she uses speech recognition to text. I ask her why she doesn't just call. :^)Of course, there are good reasons to text rather than call. But I still find the vision of her talking into a phone to leave a text based message humorous in an ironic sense and also immensely pragmatic. But it does seem to dovetail with the speaker's point. Texting is frequently more akin to conversation than to "writing."
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
+1
Apr 29 2013: I appreciate the different perspective on texting. My concern is how it is spilling into blog posts and other writing. Writing with abbreviations and without capitalization, punctuation, grammar makes it more difficult on the recipient to "decrypt", particularly when you add the element of typos. no what i mean...
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: Actually, no. I had your final question decrypted before I finished reading it. It was probably easier to ingest and understand than the more correct, "Do you know what I mean?" - possibly because it was more conversational.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
Apr 30 2013: No, what I meant was something different. :}Seriously, I would be interested in brain research on this. Case in point, your brain either needs to store "know" and "no" as two words possibly meaning the same thing and then determine which is appropriate based on the rest of the sentence or you have to sound it out in your head to "hear" the "no" and translate it that way. Either way seems like more brain power on your part. It would be just easier on you for me to type two more letters and be clear. But, what do i no.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
5 days ago: What I think I did with your phrase was to read the words and hear them. I then interpreted what I heard, not what I read. And actually, I suspect the interpretation occurred in parallel with the reading."No what" is being interpreted as "I mean" is still being read. Of course, that could just be a rationalization. These things happen so fast and automatically that it is hard to observe what we are actually doing. If I heard "Know what I mean?" I don't get the aid from the spelling. I might get the clue that this was a question from the inflection in the speaker's voice. But I bet I'd have this figured out before they finished saying "mean?"Our acatul raeding pocsres is paobrbly not qtuie what we tinhk it is. It is pbroably snincigtlfaiy more coplmex. Just aoubt ervey word here is mleesilpd, but my bet is taht tihs mekas rnidaeg it olny mlnaailrgy more dlifiucft.Sometimes we are more comfortable with doing things a certain way because we've developed the habit. I think a lot of concern about grammar and spelling is just that. We like our habits and routines. Why is "color" correct in the U.S. but in England "colour" is prefered? Isn't "kulr" less ambiguous and shorter and therefor better?Anyway, interesting stuff. I prefer to keep an open mind when it comes to language because many (not all) of the reasons given for "proper" grammar seem to boil down to convention and habit. I figure there's probably room for improvement.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
0
4 days ago: Jay, I can't seem to reply directly to your reply to me. I did find it difficult to understand in the sense that there were multiple layers of meaning to the sentence and my brain was going through the different meanings as well as looking for potential ones that I missed. I think the humor was the main intended purpose of the last sentence and not meant as informational with humor being secondary. Also note that I enjoyed the "difficulty" as the effort to explore multiple meanings is very gratifying.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/9a6285f004832f1caba53c91adc9728384fe3657_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1002337|Antonio Di Gregorio]]====
0
4 days ago: I don't think the converstaional aspect of the misspelling was the point of Drew's last sentence. He meant to inject satire by creating the grammatical error. His point is that if one doesn't know the difference one doesn't get the joke, therefore missing out on something potentially enlightening.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
4 days ago: He was making the point that misspellings can introduce an ambiguity that makes interpretation more difficult. The grammatical error was supposed to illustrate that point - probably with a bit of humor. But my experience was that it didn't illustrate the point at all. I didn't perceive any difficulty in understanding that "no" was to be interpreted as "know." I think I had it "decrypted" before I even finished reading it. Did you find it at all difficult to understand?I think he overestimates the real problems that such errors create in real world situations. We are well trained in dealing with homophones in spoken language. So dealing with it with written language is no big deal.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
4 days ago: No, what I meanto show was a potential ambiguity. The difference in time and effort evaluating those words is so minute that it is probably not apparent. So, of course you "didn't perceive any difficulty". Compounded, though, it could add up into a "big deal". That is merely my unproven theory. I will leave the true findings to the scientists. I am open that I may be wrong.perhapsourgrandchildrenwillfindevenspacesawasteof... well, space.
[[@/profiles/1841319|D Howell]]
+1
Apr 29 2013: Mr. McWhorter's speech is disappointing and shortsighted. In addition to failing to cite empirical data, he uses isolated examples to back his claims. Perhaps he should look into how much time kids spend texting and the meaningful, face-to-face conversations they are missing (including other activities that it distracts from - including reading). What about the shallow and empty messages kids send each other and the amount of messages they send each day? Texting is not like a foreign language - there may be some superficial likeness, but it lacks the depth of syntax, grammar, and vocabulary that takes years to master. How about some real research to determine how texting is affecting vocabulary acquisition and writing skills in schools?
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
6 days ago: I do not agree with you. According to you, it seems that every kid spend much time texting, and that their text messages are meaningful . As a 15 year-old parisian girl, I'd like to tell you not every kid ruin their time texting. Last month, I sent 102 text messages, in order to give my parents some news while I was on a trip with my class, etc. These kids you're talking about and who spend all their time sending "empty messages" are exceptions. "Texting is not like a foreign language" : Yes indeed, Mr. McWorther didn't say it. He said language is not texting, and vice-versa. Texting is the way to write like if you're speaking to someone. And texting with abbreviations is easier, especially when you have a Nokia 1208 like me ! ;) Though my English is not perfect, I think I understand most of what McWorther said and I certainly do agree with him.
[[@/profiles/1841319|D Howell]]
0
6 days ago: Congratulations! Your total number of texts in one month is below the daily average number of texts kids your age send and receive in one day. You need to reread my post. The word "every" is no where to be found. There are lots of exceptions.
[[@/profiles/1843232|Lydie CH]]
0
6 days ago: Yes i know, I just understood what you said about 'kids ' as kids in general. And thank you, but i don't think i should be proud of it, it's normal not to spend hours and hours texting to my friends :)
[[@/profiles/1843810|Sean Coker]]
0
6 days ago: First: "What about the shallow and empty messages kids send each other"The thing you fail to recognize there is that the majority of anything the majority of kids talk about is shallow and empty. Second: Even here, in this comment section, I don't type as formally as I would in say, a paper, although, perhaps, more than I would in the dialogue of a story. Third: Literacy and writing has increased over the years even in the United States, perhaps it'll harm us as compared to those from the 1980's, but hardly as those compared to the 1800's.Fourth: Quite a lot of teenagers texts don't look like a foreign language.Fifth: As long as basic literacy is maintained among the majority of the population everything will be fine. You'll still have great writers, you had them back in pre-enlightenment times for god's sake.
[[@/profiles/1841202|Mario Villalta]]
0
Apr 29 2013: I did enjoy it
[[@/profiles/1840949|Byron Mendez]]
0
Apr 29 2013: He's only in it for the Kool-Aid!!!
[[@/profiles/1813610|Alice Lin]]
0
Apr 29 2013: What an appealing speech! As we all know that "LOL" is interpretated as Laugh Out Loud, what I didn't notice is that it doesn't mean that anymore. I myself use it all the time without noticing we're not talking anything funny. An awesome idea of seeing texting a linguistic miracle as I always consider texting a decline of langauges. I guess language does change over time.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/a36ecacc69b73ccc912e68f6ed88b1b1fef12894_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1824749|Ian Thompson]]====
+3
Apr 29 2013: From a linguist's point of view, this phenomenon is fascinating. From a societal progress point of view, the decline in written language clarity is scary. I find it excellent that people can now add in empathy to their text and switch topics with the use of a word as long as my student's can still realize that "Let's eat grandma" and "Let's eat, grandma" have an important difference. Empirical data on this topic must exist... Just because people throughout history have complained about their students American-English fluency, we cannot accept the notion that texting has not made this worse. Now, college professors are complaining about improper punctuation AND texting lingo.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: Possibly because they don't understand the texting lingo?More seriously, I suppose the distinction needs to be made by the professors that conversational writing is not always appropriate.
[[@/profiles/1818536|Nathan Ivie]]
0
6 days ago: Student's. Haha.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
+1
5 days ago: Also note the improper all caps "AND." He's right that the existence of a long history of grammar complaints is insufficient support for the notion that texting is not making things worse. But that, of course, is a straw man. The speaker gave more than just the history of complaints to support his assertion. Note also that Ian did not provide one iota of support for his own assertion that the decline in written language clarity is scary. It doesn't scare me one bit. I'm more scared about the general state of critical thinking skills and the inability of people to recognize poor arguments and weak sources of information than I am about written language skills. I'll support my concern by pointing out how political speech is riddles with bad argument and people keep re-electing these politicians.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
5 days ago: Not only are "Let's eat grandma" and "Let's eat, grandma" different, but if I leave out the comma, I save the time of writing the comma, but I force the reader to devote extra energy (albeit small) to find the right meaning based on the content.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/bece7374964211cde3dc342644e7e838f4d67a2f_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1739610|Christopher Beason]]====
0
Apr 29 2013: Absolutely fantastic talk by an absolutely fantastic speaker. McWhorter speaks so eloquently and really gets the point across about the new language.I'd be interested to see studies in the coming years about if text-speak (as it evolves) affects brain activity in the same way that bilingualism does.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/3c202b3fb933b15a5ac1ecf307ed04fc806eaa1b_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/809199|Drew Bixby]]====
0
Apr 29 2013: It would be interesting to see the parallels between this and bilingualism.
[[@/profiles/1026578|Dawn Jenkins]]
+2
Apr 29 2013: I'm not sure that I agree that texting is a "linguistic miracle" but I get his point. My only concern is whether expert texters can code-switch to standard written American-English. If they cannot spell in a conventional manner and create a grammatically structured sentence more than 50% of the time then, in the short term, they are at a disadvantage.
[[@/profiles/1839033|Daria Nikitina]]
+1
Apr 28 2013: There are some comments on the (mis)use of Slash in this talk, and I would like to share my version: my friends and I use /Slash when saying what you are doing at the moment, and it also fits Mr McWhorter's example perfectly (I wish he had more). It may be that you want to change the topic, but it can also be that you want your friends to know what you are doing (e.g. something you have promised to do, something exciting to make them feel happy for you etc.).
[[@/profiles/711886|Paddi ISIS AMORE]]
0
Apr 28 2013: Love youQ!!
[[@/profiles/1838631|Jeremy Velasquez]]
0
Apr 28 2013: I think it's great that he's found something positive about the manipulation of language from a younger generation. of course it's not useful in a "professional" environment (unless you are a blogger or work for some hipster demographic zine) But I'm personally all for whatever makes our language broader and more beautiful and even more complex. I even welcome slang. Learn and evolve or keep yelling out the window at kids to "stay of the lawn!" Either way it's happening whether you embrace it or not. Besides, every word in the dictionary had to start somewhere, right? Why is it any different now with new words and ways to communicate?. Should we draw the line at a certain century? I don't know maybe I just think perhaps the people that are the most upset about the technology language evolution are the ones who have worked hard at the education of themselves to make their language "proper", preening themselves on some impossible concept of perfection but in an age where technology wasn't where it's at now. *shrugs* txt launguage- I find it more creative then destructive. Plus it saves a lot of time imo. Unless you're like my mom trying to make up your own txt language- then it's a nightmare for me trying to understand you. ;)
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/eeef75a393448cb761e4267b99cdd1b714e47a5c_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1814924|Ahsen Mukhtiar]]====
0
Apr 27 2013: Killing language or creating another language .. LinguaSMS
[[@/profiles/1837769|William R]]
+2
Apr 27 2013: His best example of formal speech being antiquated was the preamble to the Gettysburg address? What an relevant example to the state of our language today. (especially considering the crux of his speech was the legitimacy of texting when it comes to communication.) Speaking to one another is, and always will be: the most effective way to communicate. Sorry young people, we don't hire people who text "omg, so excited about the interview." I'm hiring a professional, not a child.
[[@/profiles/1843279|Rick Rowan]]
+1
6 days ago: Ironically enough William, you have probably already hired someone or several someones who texted their child, parent or significant other, "omg, so excited about the interview." And at 43 years old (obviously "not a child"), I have done so myself on at least two occasions (I wasn't interviewing with you of course, lol) when I was communicating "informally" with someone other than my potential employer. I don't recall McWhorter implying that this was acceptable business practice, nor do I think it's generally accepted in the business community that an employer texts their prospective employee about scheduling an interview.
[[@/profiles/1837689|Erika Stimac]]
+3
Apr 27 2013: There's nothing wrong with the texting language protocol that is evolving, so long as it is used only in the texting environment. When that vernacular shows up outside of that situation things start to get ugly.
[[@/profiles/1795959|Jay Turberville]]
0
Apr 30 2013: One of the problems is that many people don't understand texting well. I may be one of them. It may have been another TED talk where it was shown, but a study was shown where older and younger people were asked about the appropriateness of certain forms of communication for an important message. Far fewer younger people thought that texting was appropriate for this while the older group was more inclined to think it was OK. In this case, it seemed like the younger and more expert better understood the medium's limitations.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/183794_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/576627|Piotr Misiuna]][[/pages/conversations_tedcred|10+]]====
0
Apr 27 2013: Personally I couldn't stand that guy, but Ali G. is a good example of a person trying to speak one of the non articulated branches of English that is non native to him.
{http://images.ted.com/images/ted/6ada6c7945bfa9f602751dee4935a7ae72ea7f51_50x50.jpg} thumb====[[@/profiles/1797610|Mindy Hu]]====
0
Apr 26 2013: Very insightful! I definitely use lol way too much and yes, I am not laughing out loud half of the time - it definitely became more of a filler word lol.
[[@/profiles/1026578|Dawn Jenkins]]
0
Apr 29 2013: I use "gigl" now. ;-)
Does texting mean the death of good writing skills? John McWhorter posits that there’s much more to texting -- linguistically, culturally -- than it seems, and it’s all good news.
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.html

I only know the one with steven pinker. (above) Please comment on any of the others you might come across !
http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2011/20-terrific-ted-talks-for-language-lovers
texting is killing language (?) / John mac whorter (joelle)
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.html