Letter to the Editor
"Thx for the IView! I Wud ♥ to Work 4 U!! ;)" has a lot of valid arguments of which I agree with. The impact of the article on me was the realization of how and when text talk is used. For example, "Then she received the candidate's thank-you note, laced with words like "hiya" and "thanx," along with three exclamation points and a smiley-face emoticon," I reacted negatively to the situation, by thinking that this use of language should not be occurring. Why are students not taught that language should be proper, formal, and professional in places of work and education? This statement, "These incidents typically involve college students and recent graduates, and recruiters say such faux pas can be instant candidacy killers because they hint at immaturity and questionable judgment," reflects my own opinion. Adults using this type of language, from my perspective, does hint at immaturity and questionable judgment due to lack of formality and maturity that adults are expected to obtain in a formal working environment. I believe that use of language shapes a person's identity in the perspective of others. Therefore, if somebody uses textspeak in a formal email to an employer, they may be depicted as an immature, careless, and irresponsible adult. However, the statement made by Chris Brubaker, "predicts that "textspeak" will soon become accepted in the workplace", I am not in agreement with. If people begin to slack-off with language, workplaces will become careless and disrespected environments. "If I'm going to give you a job, do I really want you communicating to our clients in this fashion? No," as said by Ms. Chin, supports my argument. Employers are looking for mature, reliable workers, and language can be a clear indicator of whether somebody is or isn't. Textspeak in such situations supposedly suggest lack of education, and this article really captures the reason why people should be taught when not to use text talk. I like that comments made by employers and people of importance in education and workplaces are included in the article, however specific examples of people who purposely use textspeak in formal situations would give a clear view of both cases.
You assert that 'txtpseak' suggests a "lack of education," but many well educated college graduates enjoy the use of 'txtspeak' due to the efficiency it provides. Do you think perhaps 'txtspeak' is not necessarily unsophisticated but rather an intricate form of language created by this generations youth?
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with your comment, however in some cases, for example, an employer may consider 'txtspeak' as showing lack of education due to informal use of language. I think that 'txtspeak' is unsophisticated in situations like so. In a different situation such as communicating with friends or people who you know is appropriate to talk in txtspeak, it is an acceptable intricate from of language created by this generations youth, as you described.
DeleteYou keep mentioning that "text speak" would allow for misjudgment of the adult's intelligence, however, doesn't it all depend on the context? What if, someone that is constantly writing their messages in "text speak" to their colleagues, is actually sending much more concise, straight to the point, messages that could lead to progress, as opposed to someone that is writing in "formal" that could be writing messages that are full of wonderful phrases but do not have a clear message as to what is being requested.... does the way someone choose to write certain syntax and/or jargon really a good measure of their intelligence, or a perfect telling of their interactional and personal identity?
ReplyDeleteThis is a fair comment and I can see where you're coming from. Does it all depend on the context? I think so. In the workplace I personally believe that language should be used in a formal manner. This is due to employers looking for the best person for the job, and somebody who is communicating formally may get the job over somebody who is communicating informally because they come across as being more sophisticated and educated in their area of work. Although, in a different situation such as texting your friend saying "wuu2?" would not allow for misjudgment of the adults intelligence because a friend has no reason to question it. The way language is used does not necessarily measure their intelligence, however it can change how other people perceive them. I hope this makes sense.
DeleteYou've done a lot of good thinking and referenced the article thoroughly. In fact, this level of direct quoting isn't typical of a letter to the editor. You can reference what has been said, but to have too many quotes doesn't allow you to provide more evidence of what you believe and feels too much like reading a summary of the article. Where possible, try to link this to what we are learning in the course. For example, John McWhorter praised text speak as being the first real form of communication that captures the way we speak as opposed to the editing that is inherent in other forms of communication. While he celebrates this, perhaps this is also its downside? Professional and academic worlds may understandably prefer edited thought rather. Just an idea on how you might connect your personal feelings to course materials.
ReplyDeleteyou have used many quotes to back up your claims in the blog post, however there have been other credible sources - namely David Crystal and John Mcwhorter - that support "text speak" and consider it a completely different means of communication other than writing and is more of an emulation of speech, they also claim that it can be beneficial to learning development in certain contexts. How do you feel about those opinions?
ReplyDelete