Language Choice Issue

Find two articles that show differing attitudes to a ‘language choice’ issue. Analyse the language used to represent the change/issue.

What I intend to analyse is the contemporary debate that texting can influence our language massively, with either a positive or negative impact. The work of David Crystal is one that simply advocates ‘text’ speak, whereas John Humphries believes different. Clearly the language used to represent their opinions will differ, and of course the audience that it is targeted towards will also manipulate their language.

David Crystal’s article extract ‘2b or not 2b?’ on The Guardian:

“People think that the written language seen on mobile phone screens is new and alien, but all the popular beliefs about texting are wrong. Its graphic distinctiveness is not a new phenomenon, nor is its use restricted to the young. There is increasing evidence that it helps rather than hinders literacy. And only a very tiny part of it uses a distinctive orthography. A trillion text messages might seem a lot, but when we set these alongside the multi-trillion instances of standard orthography in everyday life, they appear as no more than a few ripples on the surface of the sea of language. Texting has added a new dimension to language use, but its long-term impact is negligible. It is not a disaster.

Although many texters enjoy breaking linguistic rules, they also know they need to be understood. There is no point in paying to send a message if it breaks so many rules that it ceases to be intelligible. When messages are longer, containing more information, the amount of standard orthography increases. Many texters alter just the grammatical words (such as "you" and "be"). As older and more conservative language users have begun to text, an even more standardised style has appeared. Some texters refuse to depart at all from traditional orthography. And conventional spelling and punctuation is the norm when institutions send out information messages, as in this university text to students: "Weather Alert! No classes today due to snow storm", or in the texts which radio listeners are invited to send in to programmes. These institutional messages now form the majority of texts in cyberspace - and several organisations forbid the use of abbreviations, knowing that many readers will not understand them. Bad textiquette.”

Perhaps what is most interesting about Crystal’s article is how he states that texting is only a tiny part of language use, and how it only plays a small part in the ‘multi-trillion instances of standard orthography in everyday life’. It almost implies that out of all language use, perhaps it is not reasonable to blame technology when there are so many other factors that can manipulate our language use. Within the first compound clause, Crystal’s use of the word ‘wrong’ could be considered to be quite naïve and as although it is his opinion, the use of word ‘wrong’ almost shows that the statement is factual, rather than opinion. Throughout Crystal’s books, he often refers to texting and how it can have a big impact on children’s language development, especially in ‘Texting: The Gr8 Db8’ where he counter argues the proposition of texting changing children’s development. Crystal also compares the whole nature of language as a ‘sea of language’, with texting only being a ripple on the surface. The comparison of language to the sea provides semantic connotations, almost implying that language is so gargantuan that technology does not impose much threat. Perhaps it is also intriguing how Crystal claims that texters ‘enjoy’ breaking linguistic rules, however this can be interpreted in many ways. At first it may be perceived to be absurd that one would want to go against grammatical rules, however there may be several factors as to why. The main reason could be for efficiency when texting, those who want to compose their text and wish to send it quickly. Although it is now more used by teenagers who may wish to diverge their language away from adults. The word which may impose the most confusion is the word ‘textiquette’, which is a neologism crafted to describe the behavior of an individual when texting; whether they are a fast replier, if they know how to text etc.. Obviously when Crystal implemented this slang term, he believed that there would be some cultural awareness form the audience, imposing the question as to whether Crystal wrote this piece targeting a younger audience.

John Humphries’ article extract from ‘I h8 text messages’ on the MailOnline

It is the relentless onward march of the texters, the SMS (Short Message Service) vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago.

They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped.

This, I grant you, is a tall order. The texters have many more arrows in their quiver than we who defend the old way.

Ridicule is one of them. "What! You don't text? What century are you living in then, granddad? Need me to sharpen your quill pen for you?"

You know the sort of thing; those of us who have survived for years without a mobile phone have to put up with it all the time. My old friend Amanda Platell, who graces these pages on Saturdays, has an answerphone message that says the caller may leave a message but she'd prefer a text. One feels so inadequate.

Throughout the extract, Humphries uses the neologism ‘texters’, with the purpose of being an group noun. By using this phrase, it almost implies that he is diverging himself away from the group, perhaps meaning that he is positioning himself above the reader. When crafting the article, Humphries would have had to consider that the majority of his audience often use texting, thereby meaning that he would have to be subtle in his language to not cause offence. Although, Crystal goes on to describe texters to be ‘raping our vocabulary’ and ‘savaging our sentences’. Clearly the usage of material verbs ‘raping’ and ‘savaging’ are terms that are considered to be negative and to cause controversy. Perhaps what is most intriguing within the metaphor is that the writer is actually using dynamic verbs that are producing such vulgar connotations. Contextually, the Daily Mail is an institution which is considered controversial in itself for their somewhat debatable content. For instance, within Humphries article he compares texters to Genghis Khan, a military leader.  Which of course can seem quite extravagant considering that it’s only texting. Perhaps this is what is most different between the two articles, the usage of language that Humphries uses is very direct and in some cases, offensive.