# New Zealand 2 uze txt spk n xams?



## Alxmrphi

Article : 
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/10/2003335577

Argh! 
What are everyone's views about this? to pass an exam to show how to express yourself, but allowing text speak?
What is going on in the world, maybe Victoria can enlighten us to the NZ way of thought?

What does everyone else here think about this?


----------



## Blehh.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Text-speak should NOT be allowed on exams! Proper use of English on exams is absolutely critical, and text-speak should be limited to TEXTING.


----------



## invictaspirit

Well...speaking as a high school teacher of English...I would quite like to declare war on New Zealand.   

This is almost certainly the stupidest education initiative I have heard of in around 5 years (and I say that as someone who absolutely loves New Zealand and who lives in a country that has stupid education initiatives...just none quite as stupid as that).


----------



## emma42

I abhor textspeak when it is used as if it were standard language.  I love words and usually like to see them written out in full.

However, I actually used something close to textspeak for years when I was a paralegal.  Before the days of taperecorded interviews of suspects by police, contemporaneous notes were taken.  I developed such an efficient shorthand that I could record an interview faster than any police officer in town.  This shorthand consisted of abbreviations similar to textspeak, bits of French and Latin (for example, I would often write "reçu" instead of "received") etc.  So, textspeak has its place, and in any event, should not be ignored or derided by linguists.  It exists.

If it is to be used in examinations of "understanding", I can see the argument.  If it is not explained to students that textspeak is not the same as standard English, will not be accepted as "legitimate" by many, and that learning standard English is extremely important, then those students are not being taught properly and are being done an extreme disservice.


----------



## invictaspirit

Call me a traditionalist old bastard by all means, but is there any particular problem or disadvantage with insisting that text speak be confined to MSN, emails and our phones?  I use text speak on my phone, where it is useful and efficient.  I have not yet reached the stage of seeing it as useful or efficient in any situation where I am being tested and/or am supposed to appear forthcoming, explanatory, expansive and intelligent.  I am rather worried that some other educators do see it as such.


----------



## emma42

Invictaspirit, you are a traditionalist old bastard.

I felt all "Daily Mail" when I first read the report, but isn't the thinking behind it that students who write in textspeak, perhaps because they are to some extent unable to write in any other way (or they have forgotton that this is not standard English) should not be penalised if they are being examined on comprehension, for example, rather than their ability to write standard English?  In much the same way as incorrect spelling is sometimes ignored if something other than spelling/use of standard English is being tested?

The idea does, indeed, at first sight, appear somewhat "Loony Lefty" (Oh, god, I _am _going all Daily Mail...), but deserves thought, if not examination (pardon the pun).


----------



## invictaspirit

> Invictaspirit, you are a traditionalist old bastard.


 
Ta. 



> I use text speak on my phone, where it is useful and efficient. I have not yet reached the stage of seeing it as useful or efficient in any situation where I am being tested and/or am supposed to appear forthcoming, explanatory, expansive and intelligent. I am rather worried that some other educators do see it as such.


 
Sorry to quote myself. But I can't really add to this because it is so right.  I'll try to say it again in another way instead.  Mis-spelled standard English is still an attempt at using standard English. In a situation as formal and demanding as an examinination, where in every subject and every skill you are supposed to be informative, analytical and to account for yourself at your best, someone writing like a slack-jawed chav is trying to tell someone something.

You are right in the sense that some slack should be given for a correct but ungrammatical or mis-spelled answer in situations that call for understanding or identification...but we should insist that kids try to write in standard English in every exam. What are we saying here? That they *can't* do that? If they genuinely can't...they should not have the qualification in which they are being tested. It's OK...it's not like we don't need grease-monkeys and stuff.


----------



## cuchuflete

The manual is an English grammar book.
RTFMA is my only textspeak contribution to that educational system.

Yet another tradionalist old bastard.


PS-Who is supposed to read, comprehend, and correct the examinations?  This may be a case of severe discrimination against those who don't know text abbreviations!  Should that void their knowledge of such arcane matters as history or foreign languages?


----------



## emma42

*"You are right in the sense that some slack should be given for a correct but ungrammatical or mis-spelled answer in situations that call for understanding or identification.."
* 
Ta.

Yes, students should be taught to write standard English.  I wasn't agreeing with the NZ idea, I just wanted to think about it before diving in.

"Slack-jawed chavs" and "grease-monkeys"??!!  You are a bad man, invictaspirit.

And so are you, cuchuflete.

Now, off to your Daily Mails, the pair of you.


----------



## ElaineG

> You are right in the sense that some slack should be given for a correct but ungrammatical or mis-spelled answer in situations that call for understanding or identification...but we should insist that kids try to write in standard English in every exam. What are we saying here? That they *can't* do that? If they genuinely can't...they should not have the qualification in which they are being tested.


 
Amen! I will tell you a true American horror story to go along with this story.

My best friend teaches English at a small liberal arts college of the middling rank here in the U.S. The students that they get are not illiterate, economically underprivileged or, for the most part, ESL students. They are not considered especially dumb, or especially troubled. They are just average (mostly white, mostly Southern) middle-class kids.

The school requires teachers to make accomodations for any _diagnosed learning disorder_. This policy, which is the latest PC elaboration of the valuable policies that recognized that blind/deaf/physically handicapped students could excel if accomodated, leads to some fascinating results:

@ He has two students who have obtained diagnoses saying that, due to cognitive disorders, they cannot process information or instructions aurally. This means that, upon request, my friend must provide written instructions replicating whatever was told the other students in class.

@Another student cannot express herself in writing. Under school rules, she must be permitted to supplement any written exams or essays with an oral explanation to the teacher of what she "meant to say".

@Our favorite, however, is the student this semester who has an "inference disorder", which apparently means that she is incaple of making inferences. We still don't know what the accomodation for that one should be, but one concrete result is that she gets to take all exams on an un-timed basis.

Once upon a time, all these kids would simply have been called dumb or lazy, and the value of their obtaining a $120,000 liberal arts degree would have been severely questionable. Now, however, it's all about "evening the playing field" at the expense of learning.

I don't mean to say that I think _all _of this is crap. I have an ex, and a dear cousin, who suffer from dyslexia and special support through out high school really helped them develop their reading and writing skills.

But at some point (the university level?), you have to say enough is enough.

No one is going to deal with you if you announce at a job interview that you cannot "absorb information aurally" or that you have "inference disorder".


----------



## invictaspirit

> "Slack-jawed chavs" and "grease-monkeys"??!! You are a bad man, invictaspirit


 
No, I'm not! They really exist. Honest! 

Look...I think people that write "I fink my m8s r kool" or "x=y+8.92, innit" in exams should be listened to. What they are saying is: "Please give me quality training so that I can fix Audis and earn a decent salary." What they are absolutely not saying is: "I am the same as everyone else, so please give me a B-grade, thus rendering my needs indistinguishable from everyone else's."

There's a reason we have exams and graded qualifications. It is so we can place people, according to their needs, in the further education and labour markets.


----------



## invictaspirit

ElaineG said:


> Amen! I will tell you a true American horror story to go along with this story.
> 
> My best friend teaches English at a small liberal arts college of the middling rank here in the U.S. The students that they get are not illiterate, economically underprivileged or, for the most part, ESL students. They are not considered especially dumb, or especially troubled. They are just average (mostly white, mostly Southern) middle-class kids.
> 
> The school requires teachers to make accomodations for any _diagnosed learning disorder_. This policy, which is the latest PC elaboration of the valuable policies that recognized that blind/deaf/physically handicapped students could excel if accomodated, leads to some fascinating results:
> 
> @ He has two students who have obtained diagnoses saying that, due to cognitive disorders, they cannot process information or instructions aurally. This means that, upon request, my friend must provide written instructions replicating whatever was told the other students in class.
> 
> @Another student cannot express herself in writing. Under school rules, she must be permitted to supplement any written exams or essays with an oral explanation to the teacher of what she "meant to say".
> 
> @Our favorite, however, is the student this semester who has an "inference disorder", which apparently means that she is incaple of making inferences. We still don't know what the accomodation for that one should be, but one concrete result is that she gets to take all exams on an un-timed basis.
> 
> Once upon a time, all these kids would simply have been called dumb or lazy, and the value of their obtaining a $120,000 liberal arts degree would have been severely questionable. Now, however, it's all about "evening the playing field" at the expense of learning.
> 
> I don't mean to say that I think _all _of this is crap. I have an ex, and a dear cousin, who suffer from dyslexia and special support through out high school really helped them develop their reading and writing skills.
> 
> But at some point (the university level?), you have to say enough is enough.
> 
> No one is going to deal with you if you announce at a job interview that you cannot "absorb information aurally" or that you have "inference disorder".


 
ROFL.  You guys always have to go one step further in everything, don't you!  

Yep...I can quote mini versions of what you say from experience in the UK system.  It's all hilarious nonsense.

As you say, the world of work usually seperates truly able and talented people with genuine disabilities from the malingering who are only ever able or innovative when making excuses for their shortcomings.


----------



## emma42

Thank you so much, invictaspirit, for explaining why we have exams and graded qualifications.  I had not realised.

And it's "sep*a*rates", sir.

Elaine, really!  People with dyslexia should not be offered support at university level?


----------



## cuchuflete

invitimspirit said:
			
		

> "Please give me quality training so that I can fix Audis and earn a decent salary."



Audi repair techs, aka grease monkeys, earn a damned fine salary over here, and some of them deal with extremely complex machinery that would leave the average English teacher muttering and throwing spanners at the wall.  A few, perhaps graduates of Texty Acadumee, used to do horrible things to my old 2.7 t midlife crisis A-6.


----------



## invictaspirit

cuchuflete said:


> Audi repair techs, aka grease monkeys, earn a damned fine salary over here, and some of them deal with extremely complex machinery that would leave the average English teacher muttering and throwing spanners at the wall. A few, perhaps graduates of Texty Acadumee, used to do horrible things to my old 2.7 t midlife crisis A-6.


 
Here too. And I've got an A-6. But it's a station wagon. I'm very fond of Darren and the lads at the local Audi dealer. None of them can write properly but they can run a 28-point diagnostics check and replace your transmission fluid as soon as look at you. Fair play to them.

Eskuze my tye-poes everywun! I'm nott on dyootie and am aloud too maik them at weekendz.


----------



## emma42

I intend to grass you up to the whole skool at the earliest oppachunutee.


----------



## beclija

Well, it does depend. If it is an exam in language and literature, they are obviously crazy. But if the purpose is to see whether a student grasps the concepts of, say, molecular biology - why not? All that should count in this case is that both the student and the examiner understand the code used in the test. As long as that is the case, it can be textspeech, or Martian as far as I am concerned. Over here, at least at my faculty, students who are not very fluent in German are usually given the opportunity to write exams in English if that is easier for them. And English is surely further from Standard German than German-based txting is.

Writing term papers is an entirely different issue, here I would require formal language despite my doubts in prescriptivism.


----------



## roxcyn

I can see both sides of the issue, while I don't know if the students would write entirely in short hand (text language), I think sometimes it makes the writing process go faster.  It depends on what they are doing, for example are they answer a question in a few sentences?  For that I wouldn't say that it would be bad, but in an essay question I think it would be quite informal.  

I think as people we see that text as informal so if they are doing something that is formal such as essays they should try to have good spelling and write words out fully.


----------



## ireney

beclija said:


> Well, it does depend. If it is an exam in language and literature, they are obviously crazy. But if the purpose is to see whether a student grasps the concepts of, say, molecular biology - why not? All that should count in this case is that both the student and the examiner understand the code used in the test. As long as that is the case, it can be textspeech, or Martian as far as I am concerned. Over here, at least at my faculty, students who are not very fluent in German are usually given the opportunity to write exams in English if that is easier for them. And English is surely further from Standard German than German-based txting is.




In what language did they read about these concepts? How was that language written? 

If you can understand " The ribosome is able to discriminate between an AUG within an RNA sequence and at the beginning of mRNA. When this codon appears in the middle of messenger RNA, a normal methionine is incorporated." (Found here)why can't you write what you understood using standard english?

When I write messages on my mobile, I too use text spelling in both Greek and English. "SMS" takes less space than "message" and "μνμ" less space than "μήνυμα". I need the space, I abbreviate.  

It was considered a great step in the development of (western) alphabets when we went from one symbol representing one word to one symbol representing one sound, and another big step was making symbols for noting the vowels.

You can call me a traditionalist bastard (not old though; I draw the line on "old") but I can't see why it is too much to ask students to write with  standard (depending on the country) English spelling. Is it harder to write "The text says" than "The txt says"?


Oh and "grease-monkeys and stuff" once upon a time had to "fight" for the right to proper education which was, once upon a time, the priviledge of the rich.  I'm thankful for that or, at least my mom, having a factory worker dad wouldn't have had one. I can't see why any one working in such a job shouldn't learn how to spell properly.
They might not needed and I certainly never found a practical use for most of the things I learnt in physics, chemistry and maths during at least the last years of my highschool education but I still cherish the fact that I know what I have been thought and I still try to learn more.


----------



## beclija

Maybe, because there are 12 quite complex question to be answered within an hour? Maybe because both you and your teacher use the same abbreviations? (By the way, your example uses a lot of abbreviations as well...) Maybe because Standard English is capitalized? (Don't take that last one too serious...)

I am not saying it is harder to write Standard {English, whatever else}, but it does take more time. This may be a crucial factor in written exams, which is why I tend to be more "liberal" here. I have myself had the joyful experience, in my university career, of getting a bad grade because time forbid me to write down most of what I knew on the subject of the question. It isn't in term papers, so there I would require "proper" language. Call me a traditionalist bastard...

I do agree that students should get the opportunity to learn, and show/proove their skills in proper English, e.g. in writing essays or term papers. But I don't think it is necessary in an exam.


----------



## panjandrum

I find it very much quicker to spell out words in full when I send SMS messages. I also use punctuation and capital letters.

I heard one of the NZ proponents of this system interviewed on radio. She explained that of course the examiners would be trained. She also explained that this would only apply in exams where knowledge was being tested, not for English Language.

I can see her point.

I assume that they also allow for students submitting their exams in Maori, !Hosa, Vietnamese, Arabic, Irish and Ulster Scots.


----------



## beclija

panjandrum said:


> I find it very much quicker to spell out words in full when I send SMS messages. I also use punctuation and capital letters.


So do I (unless that would make me exceed the 1xx character limit). Same thing in emails: I tend to be the only person in my circle to use, more or less consequently, punctuation and capitalization. But in taking notes I use a lot of very personal shorthands. Of course I cannot use these in exams, no one except myself understands them (and sometimes I don't). But whatever will be understood by all people concerned, I don't see a reason why it should not  be used in a situation where knowledge is to be tested with a strict time limit, by anyone who finds it more convenient.


----------



## ireney

Thank you for the corrections beclija. They should be corrected. I should pay more attention to how and what I type. 

Standardised abbreviations are OK . We have discussed this before but I think that an abbreviation should become standardised (not within a particular group of people but accepted as such by the majority of the people) before used in any paper.


Exams that are not designed in a way that a student can fully answer within the alloted time are poorly prepared tests. 
If there was a qualification in the acceptance of text spelling saying that it will be allowed only if after examination it is proved that the test needed more time to be answered that the time available to the students I would agree with you .  I would even regard text spelling as a way of protesting for the poorly prepared test.

P.S. So, if I was to sit down on these exams, would it be OK, since English is not my native language to make all sorts of mistakes such as i.e. refer to languages in the plural and/or talking about opening/closing lights, PCs and such  just because it's quicker for me to think in Greek? It's not Standard English but everyone understands what I'm talking about if I say that "The English are the default language when I open my computer"


----------



## beclija

ireney said:


> We have discussed this before but I think that an abbreviation should become standardised (not within a particular group of people but accepted as such by the majority of the people) before used in any paper.


A paper (as in: something that intends to be published, at least potentially): yes. But when you sit an exam, you know beforehand that noone except your teacher will read it, so I don't see the need to formulate it in a way that anyone except you and your teacher understands.



ireney said:


> Exams that are not designed in a way that a student can fully answer within the alloted time are poorly prepared tests.


True, but this quite commonly occurs in many schools and universities.


----------



## ireney

beclija said:


> A paper (as in: something that intends to be published, at least potentially): yes. But when you sit an exam, you know beforehand that noone except your teacher will read it, so I don't see the need to formulate it in a way that anyone except you and your teacher understands.



Why not on a paper? If it's a paper on molecular biology for instance? If your teacher can understand it after taking special courses why not everyone else?



> True, but this quite commonly occurs in many schools and universities.



The cure for that isn't allowing text spelling, is making sure that this is no longer a common occurence. As I see it, it is compensating for something which is wrong by allowing something else which is wrong


----------



## emma42

Is there a misunderstanding with the word "paper" here?  As far as I know, it is common AE usage for "examination paper".  

*I took two biology papers yesterday*


----------



## ireney

emma I used "paper" in an AE manner if you wish the first time around but on my second post, replying to beclija, I used it with the same meaning as he did. Mea culpa but I was fooling around with the English language.


----------



## beclija

Well, to make sure, what I mean is something like a "take home" exam, as opposed to a "Klausur" (as we call it in German), where you have to write down what you have to say in class within a very limited time frame.


----------



## emma42

No "culpa", Ireney.  Fool around as much as you like!  I was merely trying to facilitate communication.


----------



## .   1

Now that it has been established that this initiative will not involve English Language examinations I can no't see the problem. I do no't even think that it i's a problem in all tests or examinations. The English Language is contracting all the time.
The aim is to establish knowledge.
My daughter did her H.S.C. [Higher School Certificate but no one articulates the entire thing it's always abreviated] just last year and I was stunned by the sheer amount of writing she was required to do. I had to massage her hand and wrist as well as her shoulders after each exam. She would have been delighted to reduce her writing requirement by 15 or 20%. 
We currently happily use contractions in our written and spoken language and I applaud the decision to recognize and validate this new and evolving Text Language. I predict that Text Language is the fastest growing language in the history of our planet and that due to the telecommunications boom within a decade it will be a second language to more than half of the population under the age of 40.

.,,


----------



## roxcyn

Thanks for you all for providing more information about the exams.  Of course, then if the students do not get enough time to write an essay, then they should be able to a) get more time, or b) use abbreviations such as in text messaging.  I am not sure what you all think about giving more time, but it sounds okay to me if they write in short hand, or hey, why not let them type their exams on the computer, like electronic exams?  Wouldn't that be easier for a lot of people because many people can type faster than they can write?


----------



## .   1

roxcyn said:


> why not let them type their exams on the computer, like electronic exams? Wouldn't that be easier for a lot of people because many people can type faster than they can write?


It won't be long.  Pen and paper will join the crayon and slate.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

Alex_Murphy said:


> Article :
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/10/2003335577
> 
> Argh!
> What are everyone's views about this? to pass an exam to show how to express yourself, but allowing text speak?
> What is going on in the world, maybe Victoria can enlighten us to the NZ way of thought?
> 
> What does everyone else here think about this?


Thank you Alex, I had missed this news... I am a traditionalist old bastard myself.._. I think that's a dreadful idea! _(Text speak. Next thing you know they'll allow l33t! Aaarrrgggghhh! ) I stand by allowing reader/writers for dyslexia, hearing-and-vision-impaired people, but for the lazy, no way! 



emma42 said:


> If it is to be used in examinations of "understanding", I can see the argument.  If it is not explained to students that textspeak is not the same as standard English, will not be accepted as "legitimate" by many, and that learning standard English is extremely important, then those students are not being taught properly and are being done an extreme disservice.


Absolutely sound, Emma... It is vital that students understand the appropriate register for situations they will encounter. 


panjandrum said:


> I find it very much quicker to spell out words in full when I send SMS messages. I also use punctuation and capital letters.
> 
> I heard one of the NZ proponents of this system interviewed on radio. She explained that of course the examiners would be trained. She also explained that this would only apply in exams where knowledge was being tested, not for English Language.
> 
> I can see her point.
> 
> I assume that they also allow for students submitting their exams in Maori, !Hosa, Vietnamese, Arabic, Irish and Ulster Scots.


Maori is an examinable subject, but the Public service allows letters to be written in Maori, which is a dis-service when it is done (as it has been at least once) to annoy the intended recipient, whohad to find an interpreter... Bad.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Well...speaking as a high school teacher of English...I would quite like to declare war on New Zealand.



I absolutely love this quote, and I do agree.
As for using it for shorthand, why not just write in the standard shorthand? It's there for a reason.

I am struggling to understand why others are thinking it would be good for, let's say people with dyslexia etc, although it might be easier, why encourage them to write differently, to stick out like a sore thumb.

Although thanks to pongomod we know it's for only knowledge based exams and not the English language (just imagine:O) it's still a shame, and I really do hope it doesn't spread to let's say Oz, and then all around the world.


----------



## emma42

Alex, I didn't use standard shorthand because I didn't know it. I thought that would have been obvious!

I would transcribe my notes into standard English on return to the office.


----------



## maxiogee

If the pupils are to be allowed to answer in txtspk, will they be abole to request that the questions be set in the same 'language'?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Nope......


----------



## emma42

I think the word is "No".


----------



## .   1

I detect a faint whiff of Canute in this thread.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> I detect a faint whiff of Canute in this thread.
> 
> .,,


In what way? You do know that Canute did not try to turn back the tide, but the opposite?  

However, the idea of allowing txt spk on the grounds that the poor dears can't manage any better, is purely an abdication of responsibility. The poor dears should be _taught_ better!


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> In what way? You do know that Canute did not try to turn back the tide, but the opposite?


What? He was trying to make it come in?


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> In what way? You do know that Canute did not try to turn back the tide, but the opposite?


As far as I am aware King Canute was the only Viking King of England who in an act of abject piety did something unique.  I do not know of any other Monarch who demonstrated a lack of power in such a public manner.
It is said that Canute did this to show his subjects that he was a pious Christian but I doubt that this was the only reason.  The effect was that he was accepted as a very pious man but he also gained enormous intelligence about the reactions of those around him at the time of the incoming tide.
My suggestion is that there is one or more posters in this thread who appear to be be criticising text speak but are in fact making statements that support the concept.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> What? He was trying to make it come in?


Oh, no! He was demonstrating that he could not do any such thing! Sorry if I was unclear.. Yes, .,, I take your point, and agree with you.

VL


----------



## emma42

.,, please do not be so cryptic.  Who is making statements which "appear to support" textspeak whilst "appear[ing]" to criticise it?


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> .,, please do not be so cryptic. Who is making statements which "appear to support" textspeak whilst "appear[ing]" to criticise it?


Sorry emma, I enjoy cryptic.
I am of the belief that some of the posters on this thread, as in other threads, make statements that appear to support the contention while at the same time virtually demonstrating the lack of validity of their own statement.
I will not identify which ones I think are doing it here for the standard reason that by idnetifying them I will diminish their efficacy but there is no assurance that I am not wrong and in that case I would be just plain insulting.

.,,


----------



## LouisaB

. said:


> I predict that Text Language is the fastest growing language in the history of our planet and that due to the telecommunications boom within a decade it will be a second language to more than half of the population under the age of 40.
> 
> .,,


 
I suspect you're right. After all, several people on this thread have testified to the advantages text-speak gives in terms of speed. This already means that those students who _don't_ use it will be at a disadvantage, as they will be able to say less in the time. So how long before they're _all_ doing it?

Being of the T.O.B. school myself, I think this is very sad. Even if it is being used in exams where comprehension rather than expression is being tested, there is surely going to be a significant loss of subtlety and nuance? I know languages change and develop over time. Usually, however, this seems to be a process of enrichment. To me, this looks as if we're doing the opposite here, and language will end up impoverished. 

The compression of language could well lead to the compression of thought. That's certainly what Orwell is pointing out in 1984.... OK, so he was a little premature... 

Louisa


----------



## beclija

I'm a T.O.B. in many respects as well, but I do not believe that students would be as stupid as to not know the difference between a rich and subtle language and a shorthand, and I believe that most will still see it as imperative to command the first, although the second may suffice in particular contexts. 

In the olde days we used to have stenography, recall? It also left out half of the letters, didn't it? Did it make literary English look like stenographic protocols? I wouldn't have said so.


----------



## LouisaB

beclija said:


> I'm a T.O.B. in many respects as well, but I do not believe that students would be as stupid as to not know the difference between a rich and subtle language and a shorthand, and I believe that most will still see it as imperative to command the first, although the second may suffice in particular contexts.
> 
> In the olde days we used to have stenography, recall? It also left out half of the letters, didn't it? Did it make literary English look like stenographic protocols? I wouldn't have said so.


 
I hope you're right. But (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) stenography was not used by children in exams. When a language is considered sufficiently acceptable to be used in an academic setting such as an exam, are we not perhaps sending out a message that it's good enough for anything? That's my worry, anyway.

Louisa


----------



## emma42

In fact, some children do confuse textspeak with standard English.  I have seen it in primary schools.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:


> In fact, some children do confuse textspeak with standard English. I have seen it in primary schools.


 

Speaks volumes for our education system, doesn't it?






LRV


----------



## Trina

Can't text speak be misleading?
lol = laugh out loud / lots of love
(When I first joined WR Forums , I didn't have a clue what lol meant and had to google it. I must admit I am always happy when a moderator asks people to write in English as it saves me the time  looking up the meaning of text speak) 



Alex_Murphy said:


> [...]
> Although thanks to pongomod we know it's for only knowledge based exams and not the English language (just imagine:O) it's still a shame, and I really do hope it doesn't spread to let's say Oz, and then all around the world.


If it spreads to Oz ... I'm moving!
("Oz"- a perfectly acceptable shortening of Australia)

How many of us manged to sit for the Higher School Certificate / Leaving Certificate without expiring or having our hands drop off from overuse?

How long will it be before there will be exam essays written on the sllqy from Shksps Hmlt: 2b or not 2b.

I'm glad to hear that there are others out there who have to write in English when emailing or texting. I just cannot bring myself to write : hi how R U 2-day  i'm fine 
(excuse me a moment while I reach for a valium. Ah! That's better!)
Edit: sorry about the use of the apostrophe above - it should read_ im fine_

What concerns me is that if this is allowed to occur, it will spread until one day, we will find that there is a whole generation who never knew "I" was written with a capital letter or that there were little pictures (such as , or ; or ?) called punctuation. 

Not that it is quite the same thing, but look at what calculators have done for mathematics. Apologies for generalising here, but many young people cannot even do simple calculations. If there is a power failure and the till doesn't tell the shop assistant what the correct change is, many have problems calculating it on paper, let alone in their heads.

So ... if anyone out there is forming an army, my pen and I are at the ready.


----------



## invictaspirit

emma42 said:


> In fact, some children do confuse textspeak with standard English. I have seen it in primary schools.


 
I've seen it in secondary schools.  

Educational researchers are now coming across kids from a small section of the community who reach the age of about 7 or 8 without being able to speak in proper sentences.  More anecdotally, I have known primary teachers who claim that they have taught 5 and 6 year olds who come from homes where the only full sentences are heard on TV, and all other conversation is reduced to grunts, cliches, swear-words.  These kids can't have conversations.  They can say things, of course, but can't actually converse.  Their parents or carers don't have conversations, but communicate through a series of put-downs, exhortations and complaints.  It's chilling.


----------



## emma42

It is, indeed, horrible.  There's a big emphasis on oracy in primary schools, so let's hope that will help.


----------



## cuchuflete

Oracy?  What an ugly neologism!  How does it differ from speech?


----------



## xarruc

As most people here are learners of a foreign language they will understand one of the best reasons for correct spelling – it is understandable. How many of us have searched for a word that wasn’t in our dictionary only to find out later that it was misspelled?
 
Last time I went back to the UK someone told me that something was really boom. I asked what this meant and they said: “when something’s really wick it’s boom". It has got to be an essential skill for all that when they write formally (applications, exams, reports, scientific papers. etc.), they write to a universally accepted, and universally comprehensible format. Slang and txt-speak evolve far too fast for them to be universally acceptable or known.


----------



## emma42

Cuchuflete, oracy is about listening, understanding and responding to speech, as well as speech itself.  I, too, recoiled a little when I first heard it, but it is a useful word, in fact.  This is off-topic.


----------



## xarruc

*oracy* 
The term *oracy* was coined by Andrew Wilkinson, a British researcher and educator, in the 1960s. This word is formed by analogy from literacy and numeracy. The purpose is to draw attention to the neglect of oral skills in education.


----------



## ireney

Something my boyfriend told me when I told him about what we're discussing here made me really wonder: Since the teachers are going to go through seminars and all, is the allowed text spelling/speak to be sort of formalised? As in "2" is allowed for "to" but a spelling error if it stands for "too"? 

Is it OK to right CU later or should it be CU L8R (I am not quite sure about the last one. Did I get it right?). If there's a number involved in sentences like "for every four litres you can add up to two grams" will "4 4  ltrs u can add up 2 2 grams"? 

Obviously I _am_ teasing with the last example (though I do wonder) but the question is valid.
Are there going to be any rules or is it an "as you please, Heaven help the teacher and let's see how many times students are going to complain (s)he just didn't understand what they wrote [I mean mine did it even without the textspeak getting in the way of communication])" ?


----------



## emma42

Ireney, I think most people who have at least considered the idea as being capable of having some/a tiny bit of merit have said that it might be acceptable only when being tested on ideas/understanding - not standard language.

Nice examples, though!


----------



## cuchuflete

Once the foggy-headed old teachers have mastered txting n
all its gr8 variety, students should take exams with i-pods or mobile/cell phones, and submit MP3 files instead of written work.  For the few die-hards who still like the written word, machine translators can do a conversion, and even prnt the rzultz on peeeces of paypur.


----------



## ireney

emma42 said:


> Ireney, I think most people who have at least considered the idea as being capable of having some/a tiny bit of merit have said that it might be acceptable only when being tested on ideas/understanding - not standard language.
> 
> Nice examples, though!



I must have missed something because I don't understand your point (probably being dense again; being dense is becoming the norm for me I'm afraid)


----------



## beclija

LouisaB said:


> I hope you're right. But (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) stenography was not used by children in exams. When a language is considered sufficiently acceptable to be used in an academic setting such as an exam, are we not perhaps sending out a message that it's good enough for anything? That's my worry, anyway.
> 
> Louisa


I consider any language sufficiently acceptable to be used in every kind of setting, be it Navajo or Ulster Scots, or whatever else, limited only by the demand that the recipient understand it. But I don't consider txtspk a language - it's a shorthand, no more and no less, at least when English is concerned. (It does get more complicated when based on other languages, as we use, in German for example, a lot of the English abbreviations along with our own.)


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Once the foggy-headed old teachers have mastered txting n
> all its gr8 variety, students should take exams with i-pods or mobile/cell phones, and submit MP3 files instead of written work. For the few die-hards who still like the written word, machine translators can do a conversion, and even prnt the rzultz on peeeces of paypur.


G'day cuchu,
I guess my position on txting is made clear to the observant each time I sign in with g'day which is a form of txting.
We will not be able to afford to continue to use paper at the rate that we currently chop down forests so it is obvious that the communication gap will be filled by texting in one form or another and bandwidth will prune our written language even more.
I remember as a child being forced to not use can't and don't and won't because the contractions looked ugly and now a person looks stuffy if they insist on the old fashioned conventions.
English is alive and breathing and if we don't pay attention and evolve with it we will not be noticed as it passes us by.

.,,


----------



## ireney

To me, "G'day", "don't" gawd " etc differ from texting. These words attempt to represent phonetically the different pronunciation of the words. People do say "G'day" "don't" etc.

No one says "txt" or "lol".


----------



## Kajjo

Alex_Murphy said:


> Article: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/10/2003335577


Is this serious? I regard it as a joke, well-done!

Kajjo


----------



## roxcyn

Kajjo, I think it is serious.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Can't you tell by the fact that other people have heard about this as well that it isn't a joke?
I read about it on google news and then decided it would make a good topic and found the first news site that reported the article (it'd gone from google news).


----------



## .   1

I did a google search, oddly google needs full words and had no idea when I did a txt based search, and found 603,000 entries.  My daughter is not in favour of it.  She points out that the only place that it may be valuable is in English exams but the effort saved would be marginal at best.
She also pointed out that it would be fiendishly difficult to mark because txting is far from standardised yet if ever.  The language is too fluid and trying to be super cool.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

OK, if it is indeed meant to be taken serious, I can only say that this is a n utterly _ridiculous _suggestion that will neither improve language capabilities nor the level of education. There just need to be some people who can employ language in a sophisticated manner -- who, if not university students?

BTW [sic!], many abbreviations are not unambigious. Real language has a lot of advantages. If someone can type reasonable well, txt spk will not have a significant influence to the speed of writing. Thinking is usually slower than typing.

Kajjo


----------



## beclija

I am all with you as soon as university teachers learn to allocate enough time to in-class exams so that students can express their ideas in elaborate language and still say everything. This often isn't the case here, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were different in NZ.

I think everyone here agrees that it is a stupid idea for take-home exams, where time is not so crucial a factor.

As noted above, I'd rather compare it with stenography than call it a "language".


----------



## la reine victoria

Can we spect 2 c books published in txt spk in the future, in the interest of preserving trees used for paper making?  God 4bid!





LRV


----------



## invictaspirit

Some people are missing the point.

Language grows and changes in the space where there is conflict between modernisers and traditionalists. It's a mistake to believe that language mindlessly and randomly mutates to suit perceived fucntionality and ease of use. It is a debate, a battle, between those who flag up aspects that should be retained and those who want change, or the need to change itself. I see it as a sort of chaotic and unconscious compromise between opposing forces.


----------



## .   1

G'day Invictaspirit
Perfectly said.
I will bet that written language did not mirror spoken language until paper became cheap enough to be not noticed as a real cost.
My guess is that when many Imperial Romans wrote to each other they employed every trick of compression available to them.

My daughter has a theory that this will only effect a small number of students and she doubts if any of those concerned will go on to University.  She thinks that it may be a way to not penalise some lower achieving students who unconsciously fall back into txting during an exam.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> She thinks that it may be a way to not penalise some lower achieving students who unconsciously fall back into txting during an exam.


Honestly, how dumb someone has to be to _unconsciously_ use SMS abbreviations in a _school examination_? Maybe they should get a grip on themselves and realise what is important in real life. Surely not stupid SMS about "just standing in the bus" and "coming home soon"? My Lord, this is utterly ridiculous.

Kajjo


----------



## beclija

. said:


> ...
> My daughter has a theory that this will only effect a small number of students and she doubts if any of those concerned will go on to University.  She thinks that it may be a way to not penalise some lower achieving students who unconsciously fall back into txting during an exam.
> 
> .,,


Hello .,,
If that is so, I find it rather ambivalent. I am all for making academic/educational success quotes independent of social background, but this surely is not the way to do it, instead of that, writing skills should be more emphasized/supported. If you have more people pass school, but none of these will be able to use their education in their future life, all you've done is tidy up your statistics. 

I still find it a useful way to limit the effect of writing _speed _as a crucial factor when the time allocated does not suffice, but I strongly emphasize that I do not advocate neglecting writing _skills _as such.


----------



## la reine victoria

There was no such thing as txting back in the Dark Ages when I sat my crucial exams. The times allocated for papers were sufficient. We had to write with those old fashioned things called "fountain pens" and marks were deducted for "bad handwriting and spelling". English Literature was a bit of a challenge, time-wise, as was writing an essay in French.

Pleased to say I passed them all with flying colours. >insert boastful smiley< innit?  





LRV
Still writing with
a fountain pen.


----------



## ireney

invictaspirit said:


> Some people are missing the point.
> 
> Language grows and changes in the space where there is conflict between modernisers and traditionalists. It's a mistake to believe that language mindlessly and randomly mutates to suit perceived fucntionality and ease of use. It is a debate, a battle, between those who flag up aspects that should be retained and those who want change, or the need to change itself. I see it as a sort of chaotic and unconscious compromise between opposing forces.



That's why once something becomes accepted by the majority it becomes part of standard speech and can even be found (albeit with some delay) in dictionaries. I am quite sure "OK" was not always part of the standard language so to speak.  
Now let's supposed "sb" becomes a "norm" for writing "somebody" or "sth" for "something". They will be considered accepted abbreviations. 
Text-writing (not text speak, no one is able actually saying "sb" "sth" txt" "ppl" etc) is not standard. Not even all people that write SMSs (!) and/or on the internet use text-writing. Not all that use text-writing use the same "code")
It's not that the language or writing of the language has evolved and those opposing it just don't see it in my view.



. said:


> G'day Invictaspirit
> Perfectly said.
> I will bet that written language did not mirror spoken language until paper became cheap enough to be not noticed as a real cost.
> My guess is that when many Imperial Romans wrote to each other they employed every trick of compression available to them.
> 
> My daughter has a theory that this will only effect a small number of students and she doubts if any of those concerned will go on to University.  She thinks that it may be a way to not penalise some lower achieving students who unconsciously fall back into txting during an exam.
> 
> .,,



Again, when there's limited space, compromises are logical (I bet Egyptian priests missed a hieroglyph to too when they had a small papyrus to write on). 
From what we know however,  Romans or Greeks of anytime (these are the only two ancient people I know enough about) didn't eat up their vowels when writing to each other and we haven't found a single graffiti with numbers in place of letters 

Lower achieving students should perhaps spend less time on their PCs and on sending SMSs perhaps. This way they may both achieve getting better marks and  not falling back to texting 



beclija said:


> I am all with you as soon as university teachers learn to allocate enough time to in-class exams so that students can express their ideas in elaborate language and still say everything. This often isn't the case here, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were different in NZ.
> 
> I think everyone here agrees that it is a stupid idea for take-home exams, where time is not so crucial a factor.
> 
> As noted above, I'd rather compare it with stenography than call it a "language".



I agree it's not a language. I will however repeat myself once again and say that it's wrong to compensate for one wrong (not well designed exams) with another (allowing abbreviations).  I don't think it will save much time anyway but that's just me (and I am thinking if from a Greek perspective; We too have looooong words and complicated spelling -3 letters and 3 diphthongs for the sound "i"-).


----------



## Libby_Kiwi

As a New Zealand teacher of secondary school English,  I share your outrage!  This is just another example of lowering the bar.  Ever since the new NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) system was introduced about five years ago, there have been complaints, confusion and controversy.  A lot of schools are offering Cambridge Examinations because they no longer have faith in our national qualification system.  Teachers have been complaining for years but nothing gets done.  

There are no marks any more; students are graded Not Achieved, Achieved, Achieved with Merit or Achieved with Excellence for each assessment.  As the number of credits gained is the same whether you get Excellence or merely Achieved, there is no incentive to do well.  

In the English exam, writing skills (i.e. using correct English, not text speak) is part of the assessment criteria in one essay.  However, the other three essays are based on the student's understanding of literature topics studied, and we can't mark them down for using txt speak.

One secondary principal recently commented he could get his cat through NCEA; that's quite true.  In the internal assessments, moderation is a joke.  Students are given multiple attempts at an assessment.  Teachers choose which work to send in for moderation.  There is no agreement on a national standard in some assessments, such as creative writing for example.  

You wouldn't believe some of the stuff that goes on here unless you're in the school system and have seen it for yourself!


----------



## emma42

Good lord!  I thought things were bad in English schools (apart from the teachers, of course!), but things in New Zealand sound horrendous.  Sorry, thnz n NZ snd hrndz.


----------



## invictaspirit

That makes depressing reading.  Thanks for your post and greetings from a colleague in the English system.

We are unlikely to get to that here.  We go the other way, with a cross-party agreement in parliament, no matter which of the parties is in power, that testing and results are everything, and grades counting very highly.

In England, a GCSE student has to sit three examined papers (two in English and one in Literature) and must add to those a portfolio of coursework that contains five or six major essays.  Of the examined papers, three sections are assessed purely for quality of expression and nothing else.  One section is assessed purely for understanding and comprehension response and in that section alone, the quality of written expression is ignored.  In the Literature paper, the candidate's analysis and understanding of the texts (there are usually three) is of prime importance, but they will also get a score out of 3 for their written expression.  Of the five major essays in the coursework portfolio, two are assessed purely for written expression and on two more, written expression is a secondary factor, taking a back seat behind understanding and analytical response, but is accounted for.

Many of us here (and the media too) often argue that it is far too easy for students to get a *C-grade*.  (C is nationally accepted as the lowest 'pass' grade out of A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and U).  It is, I regret, possible for an English school kid to get a C-grade in English while still being a fairly shabby writer, provided he/she is fairly good at reading and understanding what he/she has read.  To get a C-grade, one has to write in full sentences and paragraph those sentences in a logical way and use *some* (but not very much) complex grammar and vocabulary.  However, one is allowed to spell some words wrongly, mess up a few punctuation marks and so on.  I call C-grade 'close to competent'.  It is getting there, but not there.

Having said all of that, it would be totally impossible to get a C-grade (or even an E-grade) if the student wrote in text-speak.  Text-speak would only meet the criteria of F-grade (and even then only on a 'best fit' basis).  No matter how penetrating or interesting the student's thoughts on reading texts were, his/her writing grade would seriously drag down the reading assessment.


----------



## .   1

Libby_Kiwi said:


> You wouldn't believe some of the stuff that goes on here unless you're in the school system and have seen it for yourself!


I thought that the N.S.W. Education System was decaying pretty quickly but there seems to be a note of panic in New Zealand.
I am sorry for your children.
Hang around here and enjoy playing with words and concepts and an environment where I believe that I have seen more txting in this thread than in the rest of the forum.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

invictaspirit said:


> That makes depressing reading. Thanks for your post and greetings from a colleague in the English system.
> 
> We are unlikely to get to that here. We go the other way, with a cross-party agreement in parliament, no matter which of the parties is in power, that testing and results are everything, and grades counting very highly.
> 
> In England, a GCSE student has to sit three examined papers (two in English and one in Literature) and must add to those a portfolio of coursework that contains five or six major essays. Of the examined papers, three sections are assessed purely for quality of expression and nothing else. One section is assessed purely for understanding and comprehension response and in that section alone, the quality of written expression is ignored. In the Literature paper, the candidate's analysis and understanding of the texts (there are usually three) is of prime importance, but they will also get a score out of 3 for their written expression. Of the five major essays in the coursework portfolio, two are assessed purely for written expression and on two more, written expression is a secondary factor, taking a back seat behind understanding and analytical response, but is accounted for.
> 
> Many of us here (and the media too) often argue that it is far too easy for students to get a *C-grade*. (C is nationally accepted as the lowest 'pass' grade out of A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and U). It is, I regret, possible for an English school kid to get a C-grade in English while still being a fairly shabby writer, provided he/she is fairly good at reading and understanding what he/she has read. To get a C-grade, one has to write in full sentences and paragraph those sentences in a logical way and use *some* (but not very much) complex grammar and vocabulary. However, one is allowed to spell some words wrongly, mess up a few punctuation marks and so on. I call C-grade 'close to competent'. It is getting there, but not there.
> 
> Having said all of that, it would be totally impossible to get a C-grade (or even an E-grade) if the student wrote in text-speak. Text-speak would only meet the criteria of F-grade (and even then only on a 'best fit' basis). No matter how penetrating or interesting the student's thoughts on reading texts were, his/her writing grade would seriously drag down the reading assessment.


That sounds like a pretty good system, InvictaSpirit..
Regarding what Libby Kiwi said, I have to say that the NCEA is not as bad as all that! My younger son is of the 'guinea-pig' cohort - his year was the first to do all three years of NCEA assessment, and it worked very well! He is a natural academic, and is doing very well in his second year of a degree, proving that NCEA is a very good predictor of academic success.

However, Libby Kiwi is a teacher and I am a parent, so I can't see it from the teacher's point of view. (I have taught ESOL students and people with disabilities but that's a different thing altogether.) 

VL


----------



## ireney

Victoria32, while I don't want to judge the NZ system (I need more information before I do) , perhaps your son is a case of no-matter-what-the-student-will-shine. I know both my brother and I had the same teachers . My brother thought they were all brilliant and passed all subjects with flying colours. Me, I used to complain about 1/3 of them (and I was right) and I was pathetic in Physics (though I can't blame my teachers for that). 
Same system, same teachers different perspectives and outcome. 
Some kids could excel even without teachers (but thankfully for us they are a small minority and they too can benefit from us being around).


----------



## Victoria32

ireney said:


> Victoria32, while I don't want to judge the NZ system (I need more information before I do) , perhaps your son is a case of no-matter-what-the-student-will-shine. I know both my brother and I had the same teachers . My brother thought they were all brilliant and passed all subjects with flying colours. Me, I used to complain about 1/3 of them (and I was right) and I was pathetic in Physics (though I can't blame my teachers for that).
> Same system, same teachers different perspectives and outcome.
> Some kids could excel even without teachers (but thankfully for us they are a small minority and they too can benefit from us being around).


That's possible Ireney... my son and his friends have all done well, but they are what would be called elsewhere, 'anoraks'... It's possible they'd have done well under any system - however some of his teachers stand out as extraordinarily good! (Some of his teachers at primary school were just shocking - he had one whose spelling was corrected by her 7 year old pupils, but that's another story...) 

VL


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> Is this serious? I regard it as a joke, well-done!
> 
> Kajjo



If it is a fraud, it has spread far and wide.  A longer version of the article is on Yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20061109/ca_pr_on_wo/oddity_new_zealand_text


Skoolz r ther 2 educ8 + raze litracy 2 certn standrds (Schools are there to educate and raise literacy to certain standards)," the statement quoted United Future legislator Judy Turner as saying. "NCEA shudnt let da standrd b decidd by informl pop cultr of da time."

It seems that there really is a Judy Turner, and a United Future party.  From its website:


> *Turner: Time for commonsense in smacking debate*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United Future* deputy leader and family spokeswoman, *Judy Turner*, says the debate over smacking or not smacking children needs a healthy dose of forward-thinking and commonsense.
> 
> 
> “On the face of it,” she says, “Green MP Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill to remove Section 59 from the Crimes Act (which allows parents to defend themselves from charges of abusing their children through physical violence) seems entirely reasonable.
> “But reality intrudes when you take a minute to consider the implications of banning smacking.


----------

