Txt msg?

For many of us, the title of this blog harkens back to a period of digital communication where each character we typed matterd (see what I did there?). Much like Twitter posts, each text message we sent was limited to a specific number of characters, including spaces, and we had to cram as much as we could into that space. During an age where each text message cost a portion of our precious airtime (especially if it was sent in peak time), we had to make sure we got as much bang from each keystroke as we could. Thus, the language of text messaging or sms-language was born. Whole new lexicons were developed to figure out how to maximise the communication power of our 160 characters and we still adopt many of them today: “LOL” has become so commonplace that many people use it in ordinary speech, and “brb” is still an expression that many of us will hurriedly type into a chat bubble when we run to make a cup of tea, or answer a phone call. Apart from that, though, with the coming of messaging becoming almost exclusively over the internet (as opposed to via direct cellular), message length is no longer an issue with which we need to concern ourselves, nor is the number of messages we send. As a result, there has been a steady dying out of text language, because it is an unnecessary shortcut most of the time. Instead of worrying about how to make “Please can you come to see me tomorrow” as short as possible, (Pls cm c me 2mrw) we can just type the whole thing. Predictive text has made the process even easier, and even it may be on the decline as sending voice notes and using speech-to-text software is becoming increasingly easier and popular. 

Why am I bringing this up here and now, though? After all, this is meant to be an educational blog, and not simply a nostalgic look at where we’ve been. What point is there looking at an almost outdated method of communication when so many more exciting possibilities exist? 

The reason for my exploring this has to do with the hysteria that surrounded txt msgin. Parents, teachers and academics all over the world deplored the phenomenon saying that it meant people were not going to be able to spell anymore, that language sophistication was slipping and that people weren’t going to know how to communicate anymore. Well, none of that happened really, did it? As far as I can tell, there has been no catastrophic consequence of a generation of people who are unable to communicate with one another any more than there has been in the past. In fact, I would like to argue that precisely the opposite has happened: we are more in contact with each other than we have ever been. And the next generation is even more connected. This is a trend that I do not see changing.

As technology allows us to merge more and more services into one place (currently I have two text messages, an iMessage, three Whatsapps and something on Facebook messenger all waiting on my phone and on my Mac at the same time, oh and I’ve taken three calls this morning and answered a few emails while still having several face-to-face conversations with colleagues and students… and it’s 10AM), connectedness is inescapable. It has become such a part of our everyday lives that we barely register the extent to which we are communicating. If you were to imagine each conversation as a ball to be juggled, I imagine most of us would be walking around with our arms whirling around in a blur. 

Text messaging did not kill communication. Nor has it killed language. It has evolved it certainly, but that’s what’s meant to happen with a living language. Were it not for this phenomenon, then verily, I say unto thee that we would still be speaking like Chaucer did, and wherefore wouldst we wish to make that commonplace occurrence? 

The reaction of people to text messaging is akin to many reactions to any innovation that alters the way we approach things. I remember Facebook being dismissed as a fad, and I know many people did not see the point of the first iPad. This trend of resisting the new is something that is seemingly endemic and it is a huge problem. I do not propose that we all naively accept or welcome every shiny new thing that emerges from Silicon Valley or any associated philosophy, but I think we would all benefit from an attitude that says, “Let’s take a look at this thing and see what it can do.” rather than, “This challenges how I look at [insert variable here]. I don’t want anything to do with it.” Being open to new and potentially revolutionary ways of doing things presents a wonderful opportunity to reflect and consider if what we’re doing really is best practice and, even if we ultimately conclude that tried and tested is the best route, at least we’ve given it some thought, which is always helpful.

Cmnts r wlcm ;)