The digital evolution and its advent to our shores have not only been celebrated, but bemoaned as well by many, including teachers for numerous reasons.
Technological gadgets of various forms and purposes are now accessible to anyone who can afford it, but mobile phones seem to be the most popular choice.
Obviously, it is now common knowledge and supported by research that mobile phone users are more prone to text messaging as opposed to making calls.
They prefer to text what they would normally say if they were talking on the phone.
This is one reason text messages are quite similar to spoken language because it is in fact spontaneous and unplanned utterances unfolding as texts.
Although the genesis of texting can be traced back to about 15 years ago, it has definitely become one of the most popular modes of communication, cutting across the various sections and levels of our communities and societies.
An observer would notice that people spend more of their time interacting with their mobile phones instead of talking to people around them.
It is clear as the light of day that the mobile phone culture has infiltrated and invaded the very fabric and core of our communities, trickling right down to our respective households.
At times people are seated to have a meal but there is no conversation going on since everyone is busy receiving or sending texts.
Although mobile phones have come with a plethora of advantages, these are but a few of the associated social ills of the gadget.
Nevertheless, my purpose here is to respond to the claim raised during conversations with fellow teachers in secondary and primary schools “… that texting is the culprit contributing to the decline in students’ English language proficiency”.
Texting as a mode of communication is defined by the linguist McWhorter, as not writing but it is talking with one’s fingers or finger talking; a register that is getting complex by the year.
As a matter of fact, texting has developed a unique register or text type which largely employs newfangled abbreviations or acronyms such as: TXT, OMG, LOL, TGIF, BFF, PLS, BTW and many more.
Another defining feature of text messaging which resonates with a virtual cult of concision is its exclusion of punctuations and language mechanics.
This again is a norm of the text messaging register. Other related textese features include emoticons (facial expressions) and emojis (pictures) embraced as economical means of including as much information as possible, but not exceeding text messaging’s maximum 160 character count.
In the very early times, our ancestors communicated through talking by using culture specific signs and symbols.
To put the history of “talking and writing” in perspective, McWhorter compares them against a 24-hour period.
While he positions talking at the first hour, writing is at the 11th to indicate that writing came much later.
The first writing was basically similar to what we define today as text messaging — writing as we speak.
In the olden days, there were no mechanisms to reproduce the speed of conversations but the introduction of texting and instant messaging have revolutionised the process.
Although texting as a register engages the brute mechanics of writing, its economy, spontaneity and at times vulgarity, indicates texting to be actually a new kind of talking.
What does this entail in terms of writing tasks in school?
It must be understood that texting is a register, although written it embodies linguistic features typical of spoken discourse.
Similarly, in terms of text organisation, it unfolds as how any typical conversation would unfold.
David Crystal, a renowned linguist disproves of the claim that text messaging contributes to a decline in students’ English language proficiency.
In his research, Crystal identifies a number of benefits brought about through text messaging, for instance, it improves mobile users’ literacy, reading fluency and language proficiency.
He argues in order to respond to a text message, users should have the skill to be able to instantly decode and encode a message.
He adds texting improves users’ ability to spell and not the other way round as claimed by some teachers.
To understand what acronyms to use, mobile users should first be able to know what letters to leave out. On the claim regarding overuse of acronyms in students’ writing tasks, Crystal found only 5-10 per cent despite teachers’ claim on the contrary.
Apparently, from what literature has informed us, texting is far from being the culprit it is claimed to be but a register in the making.
We cannot deny its existence and the fact that most if not all students are text savvy. As educators and language teachers, it is our responsibilities to include this register in our syllabi and to assist students realise that texting although written is part of the spoken discourse.
* Dr Vasemaca Alifereti is a lecturer at FNU’s department of language and literature in Lautoka. Views expressed are hers and not of this newspaper.
