The writing's on the ... phone

Will new modes of communication such as text messaging lead to the death of writing the English language? In the final part of series on handwriting and language, Sangeetha Swaroop meets experts to find out if such systems will destroy the vocabulary of future generations

"... this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it; they will not exercise their memories, but, trusting in external, foreign marks, they will not bring things to remembrance from within themselves.

"You have discovered a remedy not for memory, but for reminding. You offer your students the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom. They will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality."

When Socrates spoke thus, several centuries ago, voicing his sceptical thoughts on the discovery of writing and how, he believed, it would impact humankind, there were probably thousands who nodded in silent agreement with the great philosopher.

Yet ironically, had it not been for his most famous pupil, Plato, who had penned his teacher's thoughts down in the acclaimed Phaedrus - the very act that the great master seems to have abhorred - would these remarks have survived to this day at all?

Several score years later, in a world far removed from the halcyon days of the Greek era, where man's rapid strides in all walks of life have been abetted by the discovery and use of technology, a similar scenario from the ancient past appears to be playing itself out.

Scholars and futurists today predict the end of the written word; some going so far as to say that handwriting will be a curiosity of the past and that with it, man will lose an inevitable link in the world of language.

How often have we also been told that text messaging will lead to the death of the English language? SMS-speak, it has been said, will minimise the vocabulary of future generations.

Indeed, it would appear that the doomsayers emerge every time a new technology or new idea emerges. Many centuries ago, even one so revered as Socrates got it wrong. Will history repeat itself this time around too?

Unfazed by the comments of his peers and experts that reading and writing are doomed, Dr. Mick Randall, senior lecturer in TESOL & Head of Institute of Education at The British University in Dubai, asks: "Rather than seeing the widespread use of text messaging as the destruction of a language, why don't we see it as an addition to language? And why is so much fuss made about handwriting? Is it a necessary skill at all?"

Randall's comments stem from his broad-based views on literacy and his holistic approach to the teaching of language.

"Literacy now is seen as more embedded in society as a social means of communication but I prefer to look upon literacy as reading and writing. It is a set of cognitive skills and abilities," he says.

"The multiplicity of communication channels and increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in the world also make it imperative to look at visual and technological literacy as part of this process."

In the past, the thumbprint was mainly a way of identifying somebody who could not write. Today, this 'sign' or semiotic tool can be read by computers and is very specific in its 'communication' with the machine.

As a biometrics tool, the thumbprint is an example of the fact that visual/physical communication is much wider than it has ever been, he says.

"Even photos on passports are a form of communication but that is not to say that literacy is disappearing just because we have a visual mode of communication."

Language is constantly evolving and in that respect, so too is literacy, he says.

"You cannot have the traditional language-based approach alone. Text messaging, for instance, is a particular piece of technology, which in itself has a different form of language. Some people would say that this is a corruption of the language and would eventually stamp out English as we know it today.

"What we need to teach children, therefore, is the 'appropriacy' of using text or the SMS format. It should be on the school curriculum if only to show and teach children the difference that not all writing is the same; not all speaking is the same. They should be trained to know when to use it and when not to use it."

In linguistics, this concept of using the language form to the type of social situation to which one is communicating is referred to as register, he explains.

"What we need to do with all forms of literacy changes is to learn the appropriate form of usage. Contrary to what one might think, texting need not always be inappropriate either.

"A friend of mine, for instance, spells out all his letters while texting messages. Instead of '2mrw', he prefers to spell it out in full or may even write, 'the next day'.

"But the consequence of using long words is that his text messages always get cut off in the middle and hence, his message is not communicated efficiently or effectively.
"Now, he is a translator and a very intellectual man and though he happens to be a very good communicator in one field, unfortunately, he is equally inappropriate in another."

The context in which you use any form of language is, therefore, crucial, says Randall.

"The way we write a story is not the way we should write a report and when we speak, it is less formal than when we write. It is therefore not for us to say that this is bad or that is wrong but essentially, we have to teach children to use registers, to form what is called 'genres'.

"They should be equipped with a range of genres and taught the skills to be appropriate so that when they need to be formal, they can be formal."

Genre specific
Different genres have different language forms and just because one has an informal tone, it does not mean that the language is collapsing or corrupted, or that it is on the decline, he says.

"I think a lot of people tend to pick on what children are doing at the moment and view it as the end of everything. But that is not so. Look at headlines in newspapers. Take a simple one like 'PM to visit S Korea'. In its proper form, it ought to read: 'The Prime Minister is going to visit South Korea'.

"Headlines have been around for years and nobody is suggesting that because we have headlines, the language has been corrupted," he says.

"The headline is a good example of a particular genre or register. There are clear and precise rules for writing headlines. Even telegrams use a very special language and that hasn't destroyed the language either. When we teach, therefore, we should be looking at the range of language and how it can be used."

As with text messages, technology has been reviled in the media for the slow demise of handwriting. The art of writing is dying, believe many, arguing that handwriting is becoming a casualty of the widespread emphasis on computers and touch-typing.

Also, as technology marches ahead, it is said that grammar and spelling gets worse as computer users rely only on software to check these basics of the English language.

Moreover, as rewriting is a slow process, it is in conflict with the computer culture that encourages speed, and where the focus is on efficiency and ease, not perfection.

Says Mick Randall, "It is not the business of handwriting; it is the business of making it automatic that makes the difference. Automatic production of letters - be it by writing or typing - frees up mental resources for the process of composing. What is imperative, therefore, is that whatever low level skills you use for communication, it ought to be automatic."

A person's automatic skills will either be the handwriting or typing skills, he says. "The most important thing is that it must be automatic because only then does it free up your mind. Personally, I have difficulties with spelling and my handwriting is terrible, but these skills are automatic to my wife.

"So if I have to write, I would have to think hard which would consume both time and energy. For me the great benefit of a computer is that even after I start writing, I can always rearrange it with ease.

"To do it by hand, would involve preparing a draft, rubbing out and rewriting which, for me, is a very painful process. As for spellings, all it takes is a click for it to be corrected on the computer and to me, that allows my brain to be creative."

Research indicates there is a correlation between handwriting skills, computer skills and creative writing, he adds.

"Within the experimental group that did typing, the mechanical typing skills of one group were improved upon while the other group was merely asked to write. After this it was found that the group that had been taught how to type was much more creative than the others."

The underlying factor therefore is how automatic these skills are to you. "If your brain is full of thoughts of how to write the letter, then you cannot think the thoughts you want to write," he says.

"It is true that children with good handwriting also spell well. This is because when the business of actually forming the letters becomes automatic, you start to think of the next level, which is spelling.

"Then when that becomes automatic, you have more space in the mind to think of thoughts at a higher level. But while handwriting improves spelling, there is no reason why this cannot be done on the computer as well."

Is spelling a necessary skill?
On second thoughts, do we really think that spelling is a necessary skill, he asks. "The computer can spell-check for you. Spelling's a pretty mundane thing to do. What we need is to be free to have creative thoughts."

And what in the event of exams?
"To me passing exams and teaching children are two different things," says Randall. "We are actually teaching children to be creative, to think, and the opposite is what happens in exams. The question I often ask is: Why do we teach children to write? Is it just so they can pass exams?"

The same is true of English literature, he adds. "Reading should be for pleasure not for the sake of writing an exam. How many children in the past really loved Dickens? Or Shakespeare, for that matter? Did we not insist on these merely for exams?

"That, I believe, is an old-fashioned canon of thought and if we stick with this, we will turn children off reading. Many of the classics do not relate much to today's children.

"If they prefer the new generation of authors and the kind of tales that endear to their sentiments, well, why not? If these books get children to read, then let it be - as long as they do continue to read."

Dr Mick Randall is of the strong opinion there are no qualitative differences - in the way we think, create, or express ourselves - between handwriting and typing.

"The only difference is word processing which enables you to edit and re-edit. It's a skill that children need to learn - the ability to read their own text and re-edit it, which is often not an easy task.

"But word processing makes it simpler and less painful. I think, in the end, technology may well overcome the hours of boring practice you would otherwise need to go through to perfect this."