In the novel 1984, Syme explains to Winston that the purpose of
Newspeak in the novel is to "narrow the range of thought." Syme becomes
excited when he explains to Winston how "we're destroying words-- scores
of them, hundreds of them, every day." After viewing the TED talk on
"Texting is Killing Language" by John McWhorter, write a response to the
following question:
Is texting the Newspeak of the
21st century? Is using this texting language harmful for society's
ability to communicate (written/oral)? Does it affect students in a
negative way? Or, is texting the just a new form of language used today
separate from formal written/oral expression? Think about the
presentation you just viewed from the TED talk with McWhorter.
11 comments:
I do not think that it is a problem because i feel as though it encourages people to exersize using new and old languages while deciding when the appropriate time is to use them.
I do not think it is a problem, in fact it has allowed our generation to use language more now than ever before. Like said in class, even when simply writing a quick text we are thinking about putting together coherent sentences and we analyze the deeper meaning behind words, phrases, etc. because of it. I do think texting is similar to a language, however it is harder for us to realize this because we are so accustomed to knowing what every acronym means. However from the viewpoint of an adult/grandparent, this is complete nonsense and is what they would consider another "language". We simply do not view it this way because we already understand it, and take for granted that we do.
i think texting is ok. i see it as another form of communication. as long as the receiver understands what your saying theres nothing wrong with shortening words or phrases.
Texting has its own structure and is not the Newspeak of today. Newspeak is very limiting and restricts the writer while texting allows for any transfer of information or thought conceivable. Texting also has its own context based on certain words or now visual clues, such as emoji's. While texting may use a certain set of words not used in normal speech or writing, speech uses things not involved in texting, such as body language and tone.
Texting is definitely the Newspeak of the 21st century. It is not doing any harm however, because there is structure to the "language." I don't consider it a new language altogether, but simply an alteration of an already existing one. There can be a negative effect when it is used in the wrong situations, however. Like McWhorter stated, we can speak like writing, which typically occurs in formal situations such as a speech or announcement. The same is true for texting; it should be used when appropriate but it is not ideal for all situations.
I think that texting is completely different from Newspeak in 1984. The words that we use while texting have been around for quite some time, but we manage to shorten the words or phrases due to the fact that other people understand what we are saying. Texting has some thought in it while speaking necessarily does not. Speaking in unconscious while texting is very conscious. In my opinion texting is not harmful to youth or society, it just makes everything more convenient and it takes up less time than it would before. There will always be the people that use texting language while speaking, or writing in a formal way, but it has and always be like that.
I think that texting is allowing us to either improve upon out speaking skills as well as our vocabulary and language skills. That being said I do not think we are destroying words with "text language", in fact I believe the opposite. I think in text language we are giving words different meanings than what they perviously had. For example the letter K now means ok which technically it never did before texting came about. The purpose of newspeak is to destroy language, and I believe texting is only enhancing our language and getting a new generation to think about writing in a new light.
I don't think texting is destroying language or writing. Unlike newspeak which limits the range of thought, texting is just another way to express it. It is a form of self-expression, and it isn't made up completely of acronyms. Texting often has a certain amount of thought put into it and more often than not resembles ordinary writing. It has become an effective form of communication.
Texting does not carry the same amount of impact that Newspeak does in that society. Newspeak is the complete transformation of their old language into a newer, more efficient one. This has much more meaning than just abbreviating a few words in order to save a few seconds of your day. It is not overtaking our everyday speech or formal writing, which is why it is not very comparable to 1984's Newspeak. Using this texting language is not harmful to society's ability to communicate, since we can still understand when it is appropriate to use these abbreviations. Most people I know have not been effected in a bad way by these shorter words, since it is just a separate language from most casual and all formal written and oral expression.
I don't think that texting is the Newspeak of the 21st century. I don't think that texting is harmful for society's ability to communicate. Texting is something that is used separately from our normal spoken/written language that is just another way to communicate using the means that we have with 21st century technology. Texting isn't taking over our normal talking/writing language, because for the most part, we only use it when we are texting, not with normal, everyday conversations.
No, texting is not the newspeak of the 21st century. I agree that it is simply an extension of the english language, and not an extension that will be used in place of basic english. Text talk is actually improving our communication. Because we now have arrangements of letters that convey a new emotion or idea. Like the guy said, The placement of LOL in a text defines the emotion attached to it. LOL at the start is a way of saying "You understand, you know what I mean". While the placement of LOL at the end of a text will imply that what ever you have texted can be taken offensively but was not meant as such and is a preemptive "sorry if this offended you, I did not mean to offend but I had to communicate this." Before you just never said or wrote anything that could offend because you had no way of apologizing unless you outright said sorry in advance. This advance in communication is actually positively impacting students. The Youth of today can communicate on several more levels then ever before. Now a text communicates not just on the verbal level, but also on the emotional level, and even on a bonding level because you are connecting to a person not in front of you.
Post a Comment