The introduction of texting language into formal environments, although not despicable, has a general negative impact upon the nature of language. Acceptability of these forms of speech is dependent upon domain and area of deployment. Limited usages intended for complimenting or abbreviation of regular language for functions of speed, as in note-taking or retention techniques is indeed beneficial. However, infiltration of this means of expression into every aspect of communication is laughable.
Formal environments themselves subdivide into more specialized categories – those based on comprehension and those not based solely on comprehension, requiring additional interpretation. Fields in the sciences use words purely for their denotative power of distributing and explaining information, in which a general understanding of concepts is the primary matter of importance. Replacement of text with textisms in this case could be a distinct possibility. However, in linguistic fields, where the keys are in the words themselves, comprehension alone is not sufficient. Meanings and interpretations are in an interdependent relationship, meanings often being functions of the words themselves. A close attention to the textual elements, and thus, an intrinsic sense of authenticity of the work is necessary for a successful interpretation process. Since translations and variations themselves already offer reduced meaning or sense-impression in comparison to originals, textisms would render obsolete the entire purpose of literature.
Unless textisms are forcefully assimilated into formal language, I am of the opinion that this debate will ultimately be deprived of purpose, as textisms will simply be unable to penetrate the impermeable barrier of formal language. Textisms, at its heart, is a form of slang, being extremely personalized, non-standardized and thus, hard to comprehend. In addition, usage of this slang seems to be entirely derivative of a basis language, again challenging its ability to take on an alternative role. What was at first the reason driving the creation of textisms will also be the source of its demise. Even though textisms may speed up writing, they dramatically lower the rate of comprehension in interpersonal communication. Since textisms are too personalized to the author, recognition becomes tedious to the point of sacrificing read efficiency. Nevertheless, computer language can be a useful educational aid, provided usage in a complimentary and not replacement role.
Hi Vincent!
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great point how abbreviations can be used in scientific areas but not in linguistic texts. There are indeed many hidden meanings in poems and plays, that if we strip words to sounds only, the overall message will be lost. In scientific fields, I agree words can be shortened. A great example is in chemistry. Instead of writing 'calcium', chemists now write 'Ca' for ease and speed. As well, since I follow baseball as if it were a job, I notice that play-by-play score keeping also shortens position names, and that those terms have merged into baseball language. For instance, when a batter grounds out to third, commentators say 'ground-out 5 to 3'. 5 stands for the third baseman's position and 3 for the first baseman's. The '5 to 3' means that the third baseman threw the ball to the first baseman to retire the batter. Not only is this kind of language faster, it is now more accepted. In fact, nobody says 'the batter hits the ball to third and the ball is thrown to first base. The umpire raises his arm up so the batter is out'. That would be too redundant, especially considering the speed at which plays happen: it takes less than a second for the pitcher to deliver the ball to home plate. Abbreviations in this case help commentating to update information faster.