It has taken many centuries for English to evolve into what it is today. It should also be no exception that English will continue to change; the problem is whether the change shall continue this history of evolution. And in modern day, many have, with valid arguments, began to debate whether or not the change into textism or "text talk" will be beneficial. I agree with some of the points argued from both sides, but, logically speaking, textism is not yet at the point at which it can overtake formal English.
There are both ups and downs when considering the benefits of text talk. It is a very efficient and fast method of communication that is partnered well with the rapid pace that is created by the tier of technology that we have today. In these days, formal English is slow and lags behind--textism is much more practical. In terms of efficiency, text talk by far defeats formal English.
The real problem, however, is whether or not text talk should invade our education and work. It is obvious that, if one can capture all the elements of an English sentence and shorten it into text talk, then textism is superior. The problem is that it cannot. Textism is merely a form of colloquialism, it was never meant to be compared with formal English. Unless textism can somehow evolve into a much more advanced yet still compact form of language, I do not see how it can compete with formal English, which has many subtle literary devices, great use of vocabulary, and strong imagery. Also, because of the practices that many of us have endured for years, we see textism as a form of casual talk. When seen in an essay or an informative piece of work, we instantly feel disrespect towards us and lose interest. At this point of time, it would be too inconvenient and not worth the effort for us to move into textism.
From what I see, textism is definitely a sign of an evolution of the modern day English. However, at our current age, a new form of English is not yet necessary, and the alternative with which we're given, textism, is not quite up to par yet as well.
Hey Francis :)
ReplyDeleteI think your essay is very well-written in that you show both the benefits and the disadvantages of incorporating textism or allowing it to overtake formal English. I like the idea that textism is a much more efficient form of communication. Nevertheless, I think it would be far too extreme to say that textism should enter formal situations, such as in school or in business. I agree with you that textism, at this stage, cannot compete with formal English that has "subtle literary devices, great use of vocabulary, and strong imagery". I think this could possibly be the reason why some people, including myself, protest aganist the use of textism in education and work, because literature should be an educational experience, not just to make our lives more convenient.
Hey Francis,
ReplyDeleteI strong agree with your points – textism is a very convenient way to communicate and it matches well with the quick modernization of our society. On the other hand, you also mentioned that textism is a form of colloquialism and that it could never be compared with formal English.
I too, believe that textism is in no place to compete with formal English, whether when comparing the style, appearance, or depth. Formal English had been passed down from century to century, generation to generation, as if it was a type of legacy or tradition. Textism, on the other hand, had only emerged into existence recently, and although gained the interest of many, obtained the disapproval of many others. Like you acknowledged, textism can truly become a much more convenient method of communicating. However, the right to proper knowledge and efficient education should not be dismissed; neither should this right be hindered by the development of textism in school works, such as replacing Shakespeare’s English into this way of informal writing.
Hey Francis, this is a really deep quality opinion that I cannot respect more. Anyone who is a little open minded would agree with you on this topic because you stated both sides of the argument and backed it up. I agree that texting is a simpler and more efficient form of formal English,however, it cannot compete with the potential depth of formal English.
ReplyDelete