It's OK to keep AIMing

fooby12 writes "According to the Univeristy of Toronto instant messaging does not hurt the grammar of the people who use it. From the article: "With 80% of Canadian teenagers using instant messaging and adopting its unique linguistic shorthand, many teachers and parents are concerned about the medium's potential to corrupt kids' grammar. But instant messaging doesn't deserve its bad reputation as a spoiler of syntax, suggests a new study from the University of Toronto.""

NO WAI!

My first thought, of course, was:

  {o,o}
  |)__)
  -"-"-
O RLY?

{o.o}
|)_(|
-"-"-
YA RLY

  {o,o}
  (__(|
  -"-"-
NO WAI!

(Courtesy of the usual suspects [wikipedia.org])

Re:NO WAI!

I never thought the grammar and spelling quality of the 'average' person was declining due to AIM'ng, SMS, etc. What I have belived is that the smart people are already on the 'net. In a pervese variation of Metcalf's Law, each new person that gets on is much more likely to be an idiot that detracts from the 'net than benefit it. With nearly every US teenager on, everybody gets to see what mass produced education has done to your mass produced USA 'citizen.' It's not that the average product of the US public education system's skills declined, they just always sucked. Nobody knew it because those poor at writing either hid it well or stayed away from situations that required it.

Fortunately we have the Internet with places like slashdot, where everybody's bad grammar and spelling can shine.

(And when I starting talking in l33t3, just do what a guy I knew does: go to the mall. Being around all the Valley-speak tends to normalize the speech centers somewhat.)

Bad terminology

What changes when people write on Messenger is mainly spelling. Spelling is part of the lexicon, and the lexicon is not "grammar". Grammar consists of phonology, morphology, and syntax, and I've never seen any of those parts of the English language being butchered by netspeak.

Re:ROFLMAO.

The attribution of that quotation to Churchill is apocryphal. Furthermore, Churchill had no training in linguistics. If he did, he would have known that English has been placing prepositions at the end of sentences for centuries, for they are no longer strict prepositions but really coverbs much as like in, say, Hungarian. Also, it is the point of linguistics to be descriptive (explaining what's heard on the street without judgement), not prescriptive (telling people how to speak). You should really pick up Trudgill & Bauer's Language Myths [amazon.com] (New York: Penguin, 1999) and you'll see just how naive your comment was.

In truth, it seems like a non-issue to me.

Our use of grammer, syntax, even sentence construction has changed radically over the last two centuries - so much so that it is unlikely at best that a contemporary US citizen would even be able to have a conversation with one of our founding fathers (assume that there are no temporal issues to interfere).

One of the points a teacher once impressed on me is that the English language is a "living" language - new words and new usage are central to that definition as "living". The English language is a language of usage. If enough people use the language in a certain way, then that way of speaking or writing becomes acceptable. For example, I can google on a subject if I need more information. Erm, how do I AltaVista something? Oh, wait; AltaVista isn't defined as a verb nowadays, but Google is, or at least google is (Google is a proper name, of course).

Now, Latin and Hebrew are good examples of dead languages. One Rabbi I studied under told me that the closest you could come in Hebrew to saying "Jumbo Jet" might literally be translated as "big silver bird that flies fast". Those are dead languages; any unacceptable use of grammar or syntax is incorrect.

English, however, adapts and grows to accomodate the concepts and lifestyle of its users - hence, googling, IM'ing, and a whole host of other newfound verbs and nouns which weren't in the lexicon a decade ago. If online chat clients encourage people to find briefer ways to express themselves, perhaps this is simply English evolving into a more compact, precise form.

Re:Bad terminology

And even if it does change the language a little bit, thats to be expected. Languages (esp English isnt static) so this is just part of the normal evolution process of the language(albeit a little quicker than the past). Personally I do have a hard time reading netspeak but then it does remind me of Chaucer sometimes :)

eg.
That it was May thus dremed me
In time of love and jollite
That al thyng gynneth waxen gay
For there is neither busk nor hay
In May that it nyl shrouded ben,
And it with new leves wryen.
These greves eke recoveren grene,
That dry in wynter ben to sen,
And the erthe waxeth proude withal
For swete dewes that on it falle . . .

Maybe thats why the can still do well in their English classes.

Instant msg-ing messes with grammar? As if! lol!

The title of the story has it all wrong. 'lol' does not require an exclamation mark. It is implied. These lingusts should learn how to IM. lol

that is gd

i wuz wurried that im'n 2 much wuz m/king me 4get gd gremmer.

To the Contrary!

I've used AIM and IRC excessively in the past few years, and it has led me to getting a nearly perfect score on my English SAT exams. Just because some p30p3l tlk lik this dosnt meen that omg all of u r going 2 be liek th1s. Some people may actually improve based on the widespread use of IMs, just like emails or passing notes in class...

- dshaw

Re:To the Contrary!

I've used AIM and IRC excessively in the past few years, and it has led me to getting a nearly perfect score on my English SAT exams.

I'm pretty sure that "it has led me to getting" is grammatically incorrect. You might want to try "it has led to me getting" instead; while it involves splitting an infinitive, a practice frowned upon by some, I believe it to be far more correct than your version.

Some people may actually improve based on the widespread use of IMs, just like emails or passing notes in class...

Furthermore, "just like emails or passing notes in class" is not a complete clause, so I don't believe your other sentence to be grammatically correct either. I intend no offense; however, you attaining a near perfect sore on your "SAT exam" may say more about the aptitude of the SAT to measure your proficiency with the English language than it does about your own aptitude.

P.S. English is my third language. If I have made any grammatical mistakes in my post, feel free to correct them; however, if you do happen to come across such mistakes, please keep my ameliorating circumstance in mind.

Word Processor Autocorrect

Is much worse for spelling than instant messaging ever was. If I spell a word wrong and it gets fixed then I never know I spelled it wrong. I doubt there are many people out there who think they are typing correcting when really they are using net speak.

Hand Writing has suffered

My mom always complained, and I've finally matured enough to see why. I used to have decent hand writing. But now that I've gone thru comps sci in college and site 8 hours a day at work on a pc, my hand writing sucks. I find myself printing always, no cursive. I find myself abbreviating and using those stupid instant messaging shorthand. It's terrible. The most annoying part is I can type 100+ wpm, and can't write anywhere near that, so I am thinking about the next sentence before I've even handwritten the first ... and thus a lot of times I loose my thoughts. Good news for me though is that I don't think the art of good hand-writing is coming back anytime soon, so I think I'll be ok.

Re:Hand Writing has suffered

Cursive isn't really a necessity, just another preference of some people. The idea that cursive is more or less elegant is simply a passing fad. As for hand-writing versus typing, of course typing is much faster. It's sensible to do so, and is reasonable to type rather than write in many cases. The only reason people get in a tizzy over things like this is that they believe their language should be "pure". In reality, the only pure languages are dead languages. Any evolving language is subject to large tranformations, and just because the previous generation of linguists or literature majors doesn't agree with something doesn't mean it is wrong. After all, english is quite a different language today than it once was. Who's to say it will even be recognizable in years to come as such?

Canadian teens?

Well now I know this is BS, because whenever I am speaking to a Canadian they mispell common words like color and flavor! For some reason they put a u in between the o and the r. It must be some new l33t speak or something...

Maybe it's just me

But my brain is 'asploding' from the posts so far in this thread with their 'lolz' and their 'plz' and their 'orly'. Get off my lawn, yada yada.

From a business perspective, I've seen college graduates emailing using the typical IM abbreviations -- but typically, when reminded that it's not appropriate, I'd say that the grammar of these new hires tends to be as good or better than some of what I see elsewhere. At least they've been communicating in a non-verbal format.

If anything, I find that those who have IM'd a lot tend to have an easier time of getting their message across clearly in emails -- maybe it's due to their understanding of the shortfalls of text communication.

NO, it's NOT!

BAD headline! BAD!

NOT AIM! [jabber.org]

I'm reminded

I'm reminded of this letter I saw in the NY Times in 1999 likening the coming of the internet to the downfall of the english language:

To the Editor:

A Feb. 20 Arts & Ideas pages article on the Internet's effect on language failed to bring the potential negative and positive consequences to their logical conclusion: the widespread acceptance of informal dialogue on the Internet is creating a generation of Americans fluent in unrefined, inexpressive and immature English.

Much as certain dialects of English have helped create subclasses of second-class citizens, frequent Internet users are becoming easier to pick out every day; they blurt out thoughts in staccato, almost barbarian fragments. Elegant grammar is beside the point; complete sentences are rare enough.

Fun with Punctuation

Blatently ripped from Eats, Shoots & Leaves :) Dear Jack, I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours? Jill Dear Jack, I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Jill

Telegraph didn't hurt anybody's grammar

People used to write telegrams in short, incomplete sentences in order to save money on the transmission by reducing the length of the message, and as far as I know it didn't hurt anybody's grammar.

Re:Telegraph didn't hurt anybody's grammar

To be fair, there's a difference in quantity that could reasonably be expected to be relevant...

Also, most kids these days spend a fair bit of time on IM / SMS / etc, whereas kids almost never sent telegraphs. It is plausible that using bad grammar and syntax would hurt more when you're young and still learning.

I don't think telegraphs are a particularly relevant comparison.

I agree....

I've been AIMing for years, and I can write a coherent sentance. In fact, with the latest speech-to-text programs, I don't even have to use AIM shorthand...i can just speak and dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

I think it helps

Actually, I think using chat rooms when I was younger and ultimately IM-ing has made me a much better typist. It improved my skills so that I am able to type quickly and accurately. Poor grammar and writing skills exist whether you are using pen, pencils, paper, or computers. It is a sign of not caring, not of the medium. You can write shorthand, scribble on a scrap piece of paper, etc. just as easy as you can type gibberish.

Re:Is grammar taught anymore...

Children don't have to formally learn grammar. A child learning a language natively will by definition speak with perfect grammar even without schooling, because in the science of linguistics rules of grammar are based on what is heard in the vernacular of the language in question, not what some pundit sets down by fiat.

If you're asking whether children are still taught prescriptivist rules, that's a whole 'nother matter.