kthxbye
As an openly admitted extension of the "culture wars" presently being waged by JHo and his band of Doodz, Julie Bishop has today come out swinging against the Victorian high school curriculum unit entitled "Text messaging".
According to The Age online, "In the unit ... students are asked to discuss issues associated with the growing practice of text messaging, develop a glossary of SMS (Short Messaging Service) abbreviations and translate and write SMS texts."
It's a cheap and easy headline for Bishop: "Schools abandon English for text messaging!!!" and almost painfully predictable. But typically, I suspect there has been little, if any examination of what the subject purports to teach, or even an attempt to find out more about it. After her ridiculously shrill denunciation of school boards setting curriculum "straight from Chairman Mao" (which has since been retracted), there is perhaps no great surprise about this.
Quoth she:
To be honest, Bishop's response is barely worth consideration given the ideology so blatantly behind it, but it has made me consider my own initial, almost pavlovian, response when I heard that schools kids were "learning SMS" in their English classes. I got all huffy and thought, "how dare they do such a thing". But then I stopped for a moment, put on my I-refuse-to-be-an-areshole hat and gave it a bit of thought like the rational human being that I like to think I am and to be honest, I think it is a perfectly acceptable thing for these kids to study.
First of all, let's just consider exactly who is being "taught" here. The kids this is aimed at are years 8 through 10, in other words, 13 - 16 year-olds. Australia has one of the highest rates of mobile phone usage in the world and the figures of use in that age bracket are widely known to be enormous. These kids don't need to be taught how to use SMS - they freakin invented the language! I'm tipping your average 15 year-old is far more adept at texting and use of SMS abbreviation than, let's say, Julie Bishop.
What exactly is being taught? You can have a look for yourself if you're interested (PDF), but there are a number of different facets. Essentially, the subject is designed to break down the construction of SMS 'language' and examine how it is used, how it reflects 'plain English' and how it has developed, seeking to give students a deeper understanding of how language is built and is affected by those who use it and the circumstances in which it is found.
Language is a constantly evolving part of human life. SMS abbreviation is simply a further evolution in a time of extraordinarily rapid technological change. Anyone who tries to argue that somehow SMS is "a travesty of English" has not really thought about it very hard.
The English language comes in all manner of forms: scientific, Shakespearean, management, sports-speak, all of which have developed out of their own particular circumstances. SMS is no less valid simply because Julie Bishop doesn't understand it herself.
I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable for an English essay to be written in TXT (unless it's been specifically requested), but it is arguably the most dynamic dialect in the English language at present and therefore is worthy of examination, if for no other reason than to make it explicit as to why it's use outside SMSing is innapropriate. By including it as part of formal English classes, it both recognises and validates the part these kids play in the evolution of the English language. Just because they're kids, doesn't mean they haven't had a (significant) hand in the most dramatic changes to the language seen in a considerable time.
I guess we can just chalk this up to yet another ideologically driven political stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator with little if any intention of addressing the relevant issues at hand.
According to The Age online, "In the unit ... students are asked to discuss issues associated with the growing practice of text messaging, develop a glossary of SMS (Short Messaging Service) abbreviations and translate and write SMS texts."
It's a cheap and easy headline for Bishop: "Schools abandon English for text messaging!!!" and almost painfully predictable. But typically, I suspect there has been little, if any examination of what the subject purports to teach, or even an attempt to find out more about it. After her ridiculously shrill denunciation of school boards setting curriculum "straight from Chairman Mao" (which has since been retracted), there is perhaps no great surprise about this.
Quoth she:
"It is unacceptable for students in English classes to be learning SMS, which is a travesty of English, studying television chat shows such as Jerry Springer, and other topics that are a distraction from their need to learn communications skills that will support them in a job and in further education and training"
To be honest, Bishop's response is barely worth consideration given the ideology so blatantly behind it, but it has made me consider my own initial, almost pavlovian, response when I heard that schools kids were "learning SMS" in their English classes. I got all huffy and thought, "how dare they do such a thing". But then I stopped for a moment, put on my I-refuse-to-be-an-areshole hat and gave it a bit of thought like the rational human being that I like to think I am and to be honest, I think it is a perfectly acceptable thing for these kids to study.
First of all, let's just consider exactly who is being "taught" here. The kids this is aimed at are years 8 through 10, in other words, 13 - 16 year-olds. Australia has one of the highest rates of mobile phone usage in the world and the figures of use in that age bracket are widely known to be enormous. These kids don't need to be taught how to use SMS - they freakin invented the language! I'm tipping your average 15 year-old is far more adept at texting and use of SMS abbreviation than, let's say, Julie Bishop.
What exactly is being taught? You can have a look for yourself if you're interested (PDF), but there are a number of different facets. Essentially, the subject is designed to break down the construction of SMS 'language' and examine how it is used, how it reflects 'plain English' and how it has developed, seeking to give students a deeper understanding of how language is built and is affected by those who use it and the circumstances in which it is found.
Language is a constantly evolving part of human life. SMS abbreviation is simply a further evolution in a time of extraordinarily rapid technological change. Anyone who tries to argue that somehow SMS is "a travesty of English" has not really thought about it very hard.
The English language comes in all manner of forms: scientific, Shakespearean, management, sports-speak, all of which have developed out of their own particular circumstances. SMS is no less valid simply because Julie Bishop doesn't understand it herself.
I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable for an English essay to be written in TXT (unless it's been specifically requested), but it is arguably the most dynamic dialect in the English language at present and therefore is worthy of examination, if for no other reason than to make it explicit as to why it's use outside SMSing is innapropriate. By including it as part of formal English classes, it both recognises and validates the part these kids play in the evolution of the English language. Just because they're kids, doesn't mean they haven't had a (significant) hand in the most dramatic changes to the language seen in a considerable time.
I guess we can just chalk this up to yet another ideologically driven political stunt designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator with little if any intention of addressing the relevant issues at hand.
I'd be inclined to agree - so long as students know where and when to use the appropriate style of writing, why should it be a problem to study a different style of writing?
ReplyDeleteWe don't expect people to have one style of writing for all forms of communication in real life. From fiction writing, to essay writing, to poetry, to letter writing, to CV writing, to (shudder) mission statement writing, there are a wide range of different conventions to be applied in different circumstances.
So long as the students aren't submitting research essays in text message language, I don't see the harm.
And besides, if it makes ideas and theories about language more accessible to them, then how is it different from the near-ubiquitous asking students to study versions of Shakespeare that have been pumped and modernised in order to get them to see the stories for what they are/were and to better understand Shakespeare's own writing?
I've had many a discussion defending the validity of university courses that focus on pop-culture TV shows like Oprah and Springer (as Julie Bishop mentioned so disparagingly) and other cultural-fringe-dwelling phenomena like fan-fiction, circus burlesque or performance art.
ReplyDeleteThe value of studying culture comes from studying it at all levels. Culture is a network, each area responding to and also influencing our understanding of the other. It strikes me that studying SMS to improve students' understanding of English language usage is akin to studying Hollywood films like 'Dead Ringers' or ‘Alien’ to better understanding the application of Freudian psychoanalysis, or going to contemporary art galleries to better understand the legacy of Rembrandt.
Get into it kidlets.
Anyway, Pitmans doesn't appear on my mobile's list of languages !
ReplyDeleteGood post Tom
ReplyDeleteMike and Helen - Yes!
ReplyDeleteLisa - Thanks.
Anon - you've lost me...