As a new academic semester begins, educators around the country are haunted by New Zealand's decision to allow text message slang on national exams.
What does the New Zealand Qualifications Authority's policy say about the future of our language? Are we to condone Suzi who cant use apostrophes? and what about chad, a student i know whos given up on capitals? Worse yet, what do we do about Johnny, u wont blieve this 1, who drops vowels and uses acronyms?
Given the prevalence of such language abuses, why would New Zealand officially allow students to use abbreviations that most of us would like to see confined to the world of instant messaging and text messaging? Surely, if we are to believe the media hype, those New Zealanders must have kiwi-size brains to degrade our language in such a deliberate manner.
The hype, however, is not the reality.
The real threat to the English language comes from bad writing and questionable literacy. Most of us can think of a president who abuses our language more than the average teenage blogger.
Text-speak does, of course, have limitations. We're not going to win any Pulitzers writing either "GMTA" or "great minds think alike." An acronym of a cliche is still a cliche.
Educators should recognize text-speak appearance as that most valuable of pedagogical tools, the "teachable moment." Text-speak provides us with an opportunity to introduce students to some basics of English composition: tone, audience, style and clarity.
Our mode of writing is always context specific. A biology lab might be written entirely in the passive voice, but a passive style will make that paper on "Great Expectations" a dud. Contractions might be acceptable in an editorial, but not a formal history essay.
Text-speak requires similar rules. Only a fool would try to write in full Standard English using a cell phone keypad. At the same time, we should recommend a cranial CT scan for the student who writes a term paper using text-speak.
The guidelines of the New Zealand Qualification Authority make such distinctions clear - students will be penalized for using abbreviations in an exam that requires them to demonstrate language use.
In many academic contexts, text-speak will never be appropriate. Formal essays, which presumably always require a demonstration of sound language use, are not the place for short cuts.
Exams represent a different scenario. Students need to consider the subject matter and exam prompt. In a timed psychology test, abbreviations such as "b/c" in place of "because" should pose no problem. In a literature exam with tight time constraints, a student might be wise, after the first usage, to save time by abbreviating "point of view" and "Fyodor Dostoevsky" with "POV" and "FD."
Whatever the exam guidelines, students need to clearly show their understanding of the subject. The student who writes "drng t g8 dprsn, pvrty wz, ttbomk, a bg prblm" (during the Great Depression, poverty was, to the best of my knowledge, a big problem) is being neither clear nor insightful, whether in the United States or New Zealand.
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen's Henry Tilney mocked female letter writers for having "a general deficiency of subject, a total inattention to stops, and a very frequent ignorance of grammar." Then, as now, language was influx. However, if we approach current changes thoughtfully, as Austen did, language need not be in a state of decline.
Allen Grove is a professor of English literature and composition at Alfred University. Contact him at fgrove@alfred.edu.
