Schools failing to teach English proper, like.

westendgirlie

Can you speak proper what like I can?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

You cannot communicate unless there is agreement on the meaning of words and the use of grammar. Two kiddies may be able to communicate with each other, but if they wish to communicate with anyone who does not know their personal language then they have problems.

Exactly. People talk about "well if you can get the point across what's the problem", but frequently the point is lost, either outright or through ambiguous language. The meanings of the words do change with subtle spelling differences. People seem to expect that the reader should put in extra effort to decipher their writing when a little more effort on their own side would guarantee clarity and avoid any confused back-and-forth.

I don't care so much about laziness or typos or anything in informal settings (honestly, they can type on facebook however they like as long as they can then turn around and write an essay in proper English), but it is certainly carrying through to formal settings and it is a problem.

The quote in the original post makes a good point: students are getting Bs in Honours English despite obvious gaps in their spelling/grammar/general English.
And whatever about the rest of us, students wanting to do journalism... surely they of all people should have a high standard of English?

Seachmall

looksee wrote: »

The people who use it are forcing themselves into a subculture that is unable to communicate in the world of employment, education, even social and consumer rights. People who are capable of communicating in standard English but use 'cool' English on Facebook and Twitter are exacerbating the problem.

But it's not a subculture, it's completely mainstream. The kids of today who understand txtspk will be the employers of tomorrow. Language doesn't evolve over one generation, it takes one generation to bridge the gap and create the new language, another generation to accept and refine it and another to make it common use.

This is where the language is going, for better or worse the English language is becoming faster to write with a small compromise to legibility (which is compensated for with context).

The language we use today is a perfect spoken language, but it's a terribly slow written one.

ImpossibleDuck

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know where the turning point was.

I do. Mobile Phones.

jester77

Their is some awful grammar said on this site, I do be sometimes amazed at how bad young people can be at righting there mother tongue.

flutterflye

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

I do. Mobile Phones.

Yes, but we all have mobile phones.

I got one when I was 14, it was the same year that everyone in Ireland had one.

Yet I have never used text speak, especially in everyday usage, and this is the same for most.

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Logical Fallacy

jester77 wrote: »

Their is some awful grammar said on this site, I do be sometimes amazed at how bad young people can be at righting there mother tongue.

I done speak proper....what me Dad does.

flutterflye wrote: »

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Actually without wishing to cast any aspersions on anyone, my young sister is a teacher, she is in her mid twenties and if her Facebook is anything to go by the textspeak is prolific among her and her other teaching friends. It actually makes me weep a little when long conversations from her profile end up in my "News" stream.

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Well... that might be a bit extreme. It might just be because of the internet and everyone getting their say that it seems worse than before?

Superbus

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

It begs the question; what are children being taught in Primary/Secondary School? It seems to me that most children walk into Secondary school with very. very little knowledge of English, Irish or basic arithmetic!

My Irish was actually better in 6th Class than it is now going into 6th Year, and in 1st Year you launch straight into the JC Maths curriculum so basic arithmetic is assumed, and I feel that to be fair.


With English it's more complicated. I did Work Experience with a 6th Class, their reading material was 'Millions', which they read reluctantly in class and eventually watched the movie of. This is a children's book, but by next year they'll be studying Willy Russell, and by the year after that it'll be Shakespeare. The jump is too great, and too sudden - one moment you are still learning the complexities, reading one word at a time with your finger under the sentence and writing 'My Summer', as throughout primary school; the next it's a 4 page essay on the Theme of Rivalry in 'Romeo and Juliet'.

ImpossibleDuck

Superbus wrote: »

My Irish was actually better in 6th Class than it is now going into 6th Year

This is such a common phrase!!! It makes me kind of sad to think about it because I love the Irish language and was taught in very well in primary school but as you say, as soon as I went into 1st Year, the level dropped dramatically.

flutterflye

bluewolf wrote: »

Well... that might be a bit extreme. It might just be because of the internet and everyone getting their say that it seems worse than before?

Maybe.
I don't know.

I definitely think it is way, way worse than ever before.

Anyone see that movie 'Idiocracy'?
The film itself is dreadful, but it is indictive of society today - everything dumbed right down, language becoming more and more simple, people becoming more and more simple.

I thought we were supposed to evolve, not regress.

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

language becoming more and more simple

This is a good thing. Simplify the language and literacy will increase.

Aside from common understanding 2 things make a language a good language: efficiency and descriptiveness.

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

The first example is contextually ambiguous, however add the emoticon and the context becomes clear.

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

This is a good thing. Simplify the language and literacy will increase.

Aside from common understanding 2 things make a language a good language: efficiency and descriptiveness.

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

The first example is contextually ambiguous, however add the emoticon and the context becomes clear.

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

Good god!

I don't even know what to say to that!

But I completely disagree!

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

It's only a good thing once subtlety and fluidity is not lost.

I think txtspeak is more about blunting the language that anything...while people might not know all the meanings, the meanings tend to very specific.

To be honest, it's not something we really have to worry about, as historically the language that will still be around in the future is Chinese. lol

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

Good god!

I don't even know what to say to that!

But I completely disagree!

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

DublinWriter

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know where the turning point was.

The big turning point came in the primary education system in the late 80's/early 90's where emphasis on teaching children to read and write was put back from their fourth to their seventh year.

Seachmall wrote: »

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

Logical Fallacy

DublinWriter wrote: »

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

Already on the boil.

Jam

NomdePlume wrote: »

Unfortunately this also applies to many students who are in third level. I was a tutor at college for a while, and the number of first year English students with very poor writing skills was shocking.

Take this and swap English with Maths in science courses.

It's still shocking how many final year physics students that can only just about do basic algebra after 16~ odd years of education.

Back on topic:
I blame txting and TV. Or maybe society in general where it's commonly seen that one doesn't require talent, or skills earned through hard work, to succeed in life. Look at Jedward, Bieber, etc. I don't need to make an effort, I just need to get noticed.

suitseir

Mobile phone text messaging has a lot to do with it, and the shortening of phrases and sentences even on discussion boards!

Just a personal opinion or as one would see on discussion boards....IMO!

PseudoFamous

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

It begs the question; what are children being taught in Primary/Secondary School? It seems to me that most children walk into Secondary school with very. very little knowledge of English, Irish or basic arithmetic!

I find that the majority of education in primary school is to be seen in junior and senior infants. The rest of the time is just spent forgetting it, and first year of secondary school seems to be teaching the entire curriculum of primary school again.

gigino

Too much time, money, effort is wasted on the dead and ugly and useless Irish language.

Oh, plus our teachers get too much holidays , + are paid too much.


I know teachers now swanning it around exotic hotspots, living it up in holiday homes etc.

In the UK teachers are paid half as much and do not get summer holidays until the end of July.

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's only a good thing once subtlety and fluidity is not lost.

I think txtspeak is more about blunting the language that anything...while people might not know all the meanings, the meanings tend to very specific.

True, in terms of literature it's not exactly up to par with our current language but for daily communications (where speed is a priority) it beats it by a longshot imo. Perhaps it'll never become more than another shorthand used informally but I'd say it will be extremely common (it pretty much already is) as a standard communication (it essentially already is among teens and twenty-somethings). I think the current generations will be the only one's to have issue with it.

Dublin Writer wrote:

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

I said it added context to, not replaced, written word.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

All of the above!

It is just so dumbed down.

Could you imagine reading a novel written in txt spk, lacking paragraphs, punctuation and grammar, but yet it has emoticons at the side?!

Instead of making use of the vast array of words at our disposal to describe anything our heart desires, you are suggesting that the use of emoticons would be more efficient and sufficient?

Seriously, get a grip!

biko

Denny M wrote: »

The people not getting the difference of "your" and "you're" or "their", "they're" and "there" always bugged me. I don't make a point of making fun of them or anything for it, it just annoys me.

I think public ridicule can be an effective tool for learning.

endabob1

Seachmall wrote: »

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

It's basically the lowest common denominator argument, never argue with a fool because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

All of the above!

It is just so dumbed down.

Could you imagine reading a novel written in txt spk, lacking paragraphs, punctuation and grammar, but yet it has emoticons at the side?!

Instead of making use of the vast array of words at our disposal to describe anything our heart desires, you are suggesting that the use of emoticons would be more efficient and sufficient?

Seriously, get a grip!

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

Those 2 things make it a better language for day-to-day use. Shorthand has been well known to be a better writing language for a long time (hence it's use for transcribing interveiws and court hearings), this is essentially the same thing but building on the English language (as oppose to creating new symbols) making it easier to learn and understand.

I'm guessing you don't like it because it's the norm amongst the "educated" not to like it. Not for rational reasons.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

Those 2 things make it a better language for day-to-day use. Shorthand has been well known to be a better writing language for a long time (hence it's use for transcribing interveiws and court hearings), this is essentially the same thing but building on the English language (as oppose to creating new symbols) making it easier to learn and understand.

I am not commenting on most of that, as it is just plain ridiculous.

But just wanted to say that using shorthand or text speak is an efficient tool to use for note taking, so long as you expand on it later when you need to use it.

It is not sufficient for decent communication on any level.

sock puppet

Seachmall wrote: »

It is more efficient, that's not really debatable.
It is just as descriptive (it uses the same words albeit abbreviated versions) with the added factor of not being contextually ambiguous.

How does spelling there, their and they're the same way remove ambiguity?

Bruthal

suitseir wrote: »

Mobile phone text messaging has a lot to do with it, and the shortening of phrases and sentences even on discussion boards!

Just a personal opinion or as one would see on discussion boards....IMO!

Id say your right, and dat dreaded text spelling.

Logical Fallacy

flutterflye wrote: »

It is not sufficient for decent communication on any level.

If not, then why is it becoming so prolific?

Normally when something is not good at it's specific task it tends to fall by the wayside.