Technology and our changing language: Does proper spelling still matter?

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/01/147741215/duz-prawper-speling-mader-nemor

Summary:

Wired columnist Anne Trubek and copy editor Lee Simmons debate over whether prescriptive spelling should change to accommodate our rapidly changing language. Both agree that technology is changing the way people communicate, and the language that they use. Short hand phrases, abbreviations, and acronyms like LOL have made their way into common language, and Trubek argues that these new variations of words should be accepted in written language. On the other hand, Simmons argues that we should not be changing prescriptive spelling to accept these variations because language needs to be standardized for the issue of clarity. He also notes, that language is changing too fast, and there are too many variations, that in making change we will quickly lose the rich etymology and common ground that language creates. Trubek argues that tech-speak is finding its way into common communication, and classrooms, and language is a constantly changing force that we need to accept.

Response:

I agree with Trubek here, we need to remember that we are the creators of language, and as we change culturally over time, so does language. At the same time, I am a lover of language, of words, and truly believe that words have power, so I certainly would not want to limit language or narrow our vocabulary. Simmons at one point compares tech-speak to the language in 1984, which was so limited that it disabled people’s ability to articulate their thoughts, and therefore to think. As a dystopian and science fiction fan, that fear hits home. But, I think that at the same time that technology is changing our oral and written language, it also provides new and various avenues for expression and communication. New avenues of communication, such as social media and easily accessible multimedia programs, are interactive and keep people engaged enough to potentially improve our ability to communicate. There is certainly a shift in how we communicate, and it may be changing the way we think, but if paired with critical thinking, certainly does not limit our thinking.

This debate is relevant to me as a future English teacher, because I need to decide how lenient to be in grading students who will inevitably integrate tech-speak into their work. This particular change in language is an accent, a dialect. And like any other dialect, I will need to evaluate when the language inhibits meaning, and when it does not.