backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Feb 27 at 8:49 AM

Want to raise the next Shakespeare? Have your children text!

DailyTech recently detailed studies which have argued that "textisms", which include shortenings, contractions, acronyms, symbols and non-conventional spellings, are becoming a language of their own.  Now a new study shows that, despite public fears that texting is destroying children's language skills it actually is having beneficial effects.

Dr. Beverley Plester, the lead author of the report and senior lecturer at Coventry University, states, "The alarm in the media is based on selected anecdotes but actually when we look for examples of text speak in essays we don't seem to find very many."

Texting helps children as it exposes them to a variety of words, she says.  She continues, "The more exposure you have to the written word the more literate you become and we tend to get better at things that we do for fun.  What we think of as misspellings, don't really break the rules of language and children have a sophisticated understanding of the appropriate use of words."

The study looked at 88 children age between the ages of 10 to 12.  It asked them to generate text messages describing 10 different scenarios.  The study showed that children who regularly texted showcased a richer vocabulary, the ability to better express thoughts in writing, and were aware of the proper spelling of the words they were shortening in most cases.  The children were also given traditional schoolwork and again the texting students showed an edge.

The study is published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

Similar recent studies at the University of Toronto have shown that instant messaging may also provide children with a similar beneficial effect.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 10:05:47 AM , Rating: 5
So texting in a way that completely destroys the English language helps kids build language skills? I don't think so.

And 88 kids? Please. Maybe those kids already do well in school. Or read a lot too. Hardly a good statistical sample to draw any valid conclusion from. I seriously need to get into this grant crap. Can get money for anything these days it seems unless you actually deserve it.




RE: BS
By mdogs444 on 2/25/2009 10:13:38 AM , Rating: 5
OMG wut r u kraz? LOL.


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 1
lik totaly fo sho


RE: BS
By Samus on 2/25/2009 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
I still think 'w00t' is the best txt\l33t speak word ever created.


RE: BS
By MrPoletski on 2/27/2009 8:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
OMFG, nub


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 10:56:16 AM , Rating: 4
I feel texting can be beneficial and also non-beneficial. I think it really depends on the kid more than anything else. If the kid has lots of friends and lots of different forms to communicate, they'll benefit. Whether it be texting, email, IMs, phone, or chatting in a playground.

I don't think texting destroys the English language either. It simply takes the language and shortens the words down. The sentence structure doesn't change, the words meaning doesn't change, just that the word is shorter. Now texting does use English slang, of course, but that's not something that texting created. The slang was already there.


RE: BS
By Lord 666 on 2/25/2009 11:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
One of the reasons why I started posting on DT is to practice communicating in a clearer manner to the general public. The rationale was to test/practice outside of professional emails to an assumed educated audience.

Has it been successful? Mostly, yes. However, I am 100% confident in saying the intelligence and maturity level of many other contributers has significantly dropped in the past 6 months as well.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 11:10:36 AM , Rating: 5
I think the intelligence and maturity level of ppl in the world is dropping. I mean, look at the crap most ppl watch on TV nowadays. Not just the US, it's the same regurgitated crap in other countries as well.

If it weren't for Discovery Channel and some Sci-Fi TV shows, I'd never watch TV.


RE: BS
By chmilz on 2/25/2009 11:19:27 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I mean, look at the crap most ppl watch on TV nowadays

The world really is going Idiocracy:

Ow! My Balls! Guy: Comin' up next on The Violence Channel: An all-new "Ow, My Balls!"


RE: BS
By Moishe on 2/25/2009 11:30:13 AM , Rating: 3
This is TV by definition. It's passive entertainment that allows us to stuff our face while sitting and absorbing the messages that are thrown at us.


RE: BS
By rburnham on 2/25/2009 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 1
ppl?


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
ppl = people

Haven't a clue if ppl use it in texting, but I use it on forums, these comment type things, and online games. I picked it up from MMOs.


RE: BS
By ggordonliddy on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: BS
By inperfectdarkness on 2/25/2009 6:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
it's WAY worse than that. i find that i'm regularly ridiculed at work for my vocabulary. words that naturally are part of my lexicon somehow bring harsh responses. while we have arguably the world's widest and most robust dictionary--the average american uses <2000 words of it.

the last thing we need is texting to reduce the 2000 word vocabulary to an even less meaningful compilation of leetspeak, emoticons, and slang.

i MOURN the english language---and i dispise the troglodytes who have taken control of our zeitgeist.


RE: BS
By PrinceGaz on 2/25/2009 8:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i MOURN the english language---and i dispise the troglodytes who have taken control of our zeitgeist.


You "dispise" them? Is that something like despise, but spelt by someone who has themself decided to take control of the zeitgeist and change it as they choose? ;)


RE: BS
By inperfectdarkness on 2/26/2009 3:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
i never said spelling didn't own me. i said vocabulary owns everyone else.

to this day...i battle with dyslexia. phonetic grammar has helped me overcome that to an extent...but i still make mistakes.

all your words are belong to (fill in the blank)


RE: BS
By Moishe on 2/25/2009 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 3
So... you're saying that fewer intelligent and mature people are posting, or are you saying that the same people are posting, but they are losing intelligence and maturity?


RE: BS
By Lord 666 on 2/25/2009 12:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
There are two people who have actually matured and developed their posts; Gzus666 and FITCamaro. Their posts have taken a more logical approach in the past several months versus emotional responses. Masher and Kristopher have always been the gold standard and that Playstation 3 moron was more amusing than anything.

But in general the overal quality has taken a deep dive. Took a sabbatical from this site and stopped at 666 total posts, but that break didn't last too long. Might stop at 777 or 999 now.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 12:31:37 PM , Rating: 3
Ya, FITCamaro use to be pretty horrible with his postings. I think his dad posts on his account now.

;P


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 12:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
My ears are burning, someone is lovingly speaking of me. I too share your reasoning for posting, sometimes you need a relatively adult audience with which to speak with and practice the art of communication. Unfortunately the people I meet on a daily basis in person usually lack the intellect to speak beyond some guys throwing a ball down a field.

Just for reference, sometimes I post random crap cause I'm bored at work (my job is full blast or dead most of the time) and randomly arguing points is kinda fun at times. All in good fun though, I thank all that kept me from going nuts at work, ha.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just for reference, sometimes I post random crap cause I'm bored at work (my job is full blast or dead most of the time) and randomly arguing points is kinda fun at times. All in good fun though, I thank all that kept me from going nuts at work, ha.


Same. I work a 9 hour shift (1 hour for lunch, which I never get) and have internet at my disposal. I can finish up all my work in 1-2 hours usually and have buttcrack of free time.


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same. I work a 9 hour shift (1 hour for lunch, which I never get) and have internet at my disposal. I can finish up all my work in 1-2 hours usually and have buttcrack of free time.


Yea, lately I have been working a 10 hour shift cause one of my coworkers is on leave. Towerdefense.net has been saving me from going insane.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 1:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
That site is blocked for me. But this one sure isn't.

http://www.jeannettevejarano.com/games/tower-defen...


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That site is blocked for me. But this one sure isn't. http://www.jeannettevejarano.com/games/tower-defen...


Yea, I never liked that one too much. Lately I have been playing Mushroom Revolution and that has been pretty entertaining. Fortunately our IT department consists of a programmer, so very few things are blocked. Of course our network connection is atrocious thanks to hubs and a poorly structured network, but oh well.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 4:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
We have a couple FTP servers that sit in our DMZ, so I can always get on those and surf to wherever I please. I do it sometimes when I'm bidding on an item on Ebay.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think he means that most of the intelligent and mature ppl have stopped posting. The replacements are of the idiotic kind.


RE: BS
By daar on 2/25/2009 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
So in other words, you wanted to learn to speak in non-dork, and had no friends that could help you practice that. Not too surprising when you call yourself Lord 666 and decide to stop posting depending on the number of your posts, like...666. The maturity level here hasn't really changed much, it's just that the same circumstances that lead you to post invariably will lead you to this perception.


RE: BS
By Lord 666 on 2/25/2009 6:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Insightful, but not accurate. Guess your the type of person who "sees" images of Jesus in their grilled cheese or in clouds.

Sometimes a critique about my writing/conversation is it comes across as condescending or terse. My posts on DT are an effort to reverse that.


RE: BS
By marvdmartian on 2/25/2009 12:06:53 PM , Rating: 4
I think a more revalent finding would be to say that well educated and literate children are not having their literacy destroyed by texting. On the flip side of that argument would be the fact that an illiterate (or barely literate) child will not improve their literacy by texting, will they?


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 12:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
That I'd agree with.

But I dated a teacher here in Charleston a while ago for a few weeks. She showed me some of the writing "skills" of her students. Tests were plagued with kids using "text speak".

I've heard of kids writing essays in "text speak" as well. Sure probably not at the college level since kids stupid enough to write an essay like that likely don't make it into college.

Being able to express yourself clearly doesn't mean you're well educated either.


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 2:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I dated a teacher here in Charleston a while ago for a few weeks. She showed me some of the writing "skills" of her students. Tests were plagued with kids using "text speak".


That could be because you are in South Carolina, not exactly a place known for its linguistic prowess as a whole (or any of the south for that matter).


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't any different in any other part of the country.

And the south is not just a bunch of idiot rednecks. Several states in the South have far better off state economies than many liberal northern states. Last I checked California is supposedly regarded as this state full of brilliant people. Yet it has the worst economy in the country and people are fleeing in droves. Not to mention its largely overrun by illegals.


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 2:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I live in the South and most of these people amaze me when they can eat without choking to death. Granted there are always exceptions, but it is rather sad most of the time. Most of the people I speak to who can put sentences together and have a brain on their shoulder tend to be from somewhere other than the South. This doesn't mean they are all bumpkins, but they sure seem to be an overwhelming majority.

Also, economies have nothing to do with local intelligence, especially linguistics.


RE: BS
By clovell on 2/25/2009 3:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't an economy fund a state's education system?


RE: BS
By Gzus666 on 2/25/2009 3:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand of public schools, it comes from various sources and usually depends on the test scores. I know when I was in school here in Texas, they had TAAS (I believe it is TACS now or something) that was meant to show how well a school does and there by decides the funding they received.


RE: BS
By Danger D on 2/25/2009 3:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
I quit reading when you said its instead of it's.


RE: BS
By ggordonliddy on 2/25/2009 8:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
WRONG!

The possessive "its" (which he used) is not supposed to have an apostrophe! Please check yourself and correct yourself.


RE: BS
By BarkHumbug on 2/26/2009 6:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
No, YOU are wrong.

Re-read the sentence and check yourself, yourself. Is was clearly meant as "it is" and not a possessive "its". Otherwise the sentence doesn't make much sense.


RE: BS
By ggordonliddy on 2/26/2009 10:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Huh??????!!!!!!!

The original quote was:
quote:
That could be because you are in South Carolina, not exactly a place known for its linguistic prowess as a whole (or any of the south for that matter).

Obviously the word "its" is being used there in the possessive form, and so no apostrophe should be used.

What is the confusion here? How do you get "it is" out of that original sentence?!


RE: BS
By ggordonliddy on 2/26/2009 10:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
Doh. I thought this was all in reply to the comment from "Gzus666". Now I see that it is about a prior comment by FitCamaro.

When is DT going to get a better message board system, where you can more easily see the message hierarchy, and edit your saved messages?

Mea Culpa!


RE: BS
By Danger D on 2/26/2009 9:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
He does need an apostrophe. I’m usually not that petty, but he called me out on a grammar error earlier, so I was just pointing out that he shouldn’t be throwing any stones.


RE: BS
By clovell on 2/25/2009 3:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah - most of this stuff relates back to phonics. A lot of elementary schools have been messing around with different 'philosophies'. Generally, those that lack the phonics foundation end up raising students that are pseudo-literate.


RE: BS
By ggordonliddy on 2/25/2009 8:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Phonics! Nay, sir! Ebonics is where the shizzle is be's at, yo! I likes it when me tax dollios goes to ebonics, fo realz!

Fo realzio, my Ebonics ain't no up to standards. Please to send to me tax monies to improve my Ebonical rhetoric. Thank ye.


RE: BS
By Screwballl on 2/25/2009 1:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
wtf hw is ths a wy 2 imprv lang skllz?

Come back with a study of 10,000 kids and see just how bad off our kids and teens (that do lots of texting) score on a variety of educational testing, primarily english and language skills.

I hate going to fast food places anymore because they can't get a simple "catsup only" order right...


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
I was watching a standup comedian last weekend and while the guy was funny, I wanted to punch him in the face every time he said "ask". Because it was "ax".

Sure I say "yall" from time to time. But it's a word damn it. :)


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 1:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
yall is a combination of words. As in....You All.


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
Here's your sign.


RE: BS
By ekv on 2/25/2009 1:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, even I saw that 8)


RE: BS
By BBeltrami on 2/25/2009 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.


RE: BS
By clovell on 2/25/2009 3:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
We don't need a study of 10,000 kids - at the end of the day the results aren't going change anything - parents and teachers might use it as a rationalization, but that's it - nothing will change. Let's save the money we'd spend and put it to use in something that will make a difference.


RE: BS
By MozeeToby on 2/25/2009 1:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
How about the fact that children who text are more likely to come from upper income families since they are the ones that can afford to give their children cell phones and text messaging plans. It reminds me of the studies that say families that eat together talk more; it says more about parental priorities and finances than it does about human behavior or learning.


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 1
Hardly. Plenty of people who can't afford it have freakin iPhones and shit and not only have text message plans but go on the web as well. Wealth doesn't play into it at all. In fact I'd say wealthy people who want their kids to grow up properly and learn are less likely to give their 10 year old a cell phone.


RE: BS
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 1:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Some give cellphones to their kids for emergencies and the whole GPS tracking function. Gotta know what your kids do every minute of the day.


RE: BS
By MozeeToby on 2/25/2009 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't argue that many lower income people spend money of cell phones when they should be focused on other things. However, statistically there are many more well off kids with phones than poor kids. Unless, that is, you'd like to make the argument that every single poor family has zero judgement about what they can and can't afford.

(note: If you'd like to make that argument, then I, as someone who grew up just barely above the poverty line, will ignore it.)

Studies work on averages, anything is is an anecdote and scientifically worthless. There are methods that can be used to control for factors outside of your topic of research. The fact that the researches didn't use them smacks of either laziness or an agenda. Either way the science is bunk.


RE: BS
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Some children have problems visualizing words properly or the proper spelling of a word that sounds exactly the same as a differently spelled word.

I don't find it far fetched that the process of texting or typing, via visual aid, can be a benefit.


RE: BS
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that typing can't help you learn to spell. But I'd love to see a kid today that actually spells out every word they say in a text message. Or just plain learns to spell better by doing it.

If you want them to learn to spell, give them a word spelling program. I remember we had an Apple II game in middle school that taught us to spell properly. And I learned to spell because any time I asked my mom how to spell a word, she made me look it up in the dictionary instead of telling me. Plus I read a ton.


RE: BS
By ekv on 2/25/2009 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
I believe I read it first in Chuck Colson's "How Now Shall We Live", where a study was mentioned which concluded that processing the written word is one of the most abstract functions our brain performs. If you stop to think about it you can see that reading and writing involves a lot of the brain's processing power.

I have extreme difficulty with the small sample size of the study (88?!), but I can see where having to re-arrange and shorten words, while maintaining some semblance of phonetic quality would require some skill ... involving visual (and auditory) brain centers.


RE: BS
By Hardin on 2/25/2009 1:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, omg, rofl, imo, are not a variety of words. This study is absurd.


RE: BS
By fk49 on 2/25/2009 2:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the fact that "textism" is emerging as a different form of English is the reason that kids' language skills are improving.

More likely, the kids who text are learning to work with the limits of text messages, namely the character limit and cost-per-text. This means that people sending texts must be able to quickly create concise messages that can communicate an idea clearly in one try. This, I think, would definitely improve cognitive and constructive abilities.

Also, the study mentions that very few "textisms" occur in formally written work. I would contend that kids understand that they are working in two different systems between formal English and "textism" and each has a different purpose.

In the context of math problems, for example, most people could easily write "two plus three equals five" if necessary, but we write "2+3=5" because it is a system tailored for math, and do so without destroying the English behind it.


RE: BS
By PrinceGaz on 2/25/2009 8:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, the study mentions that very few "textisms" occur in formally written work. I would contend that kids understand that they are working in two different systems between formal English and "textism" and each has a different purpose.


That study may have found that little txt-spk occurs in formal work, but it is cropping up increasingly often outside of SMS texts. Many internet forums have to remind some users that text-speak is not acceptable.

Whilst I would say that any form of increased written communication has to be good for general literacy, being able to write the non-compressed version is definitely desirable, but I suspect many texters couldn't correctly spell everything they abbreviate.

Then again, does that matter? It could be a language evolution, where unnecessary letterage (is that a real word?) in words is reduced to the minimum number of letters needed to convey their meaning. It doesn't make them quicker to say, but does make them quicker to type. But typing will probably be obsolete within twenty years anyway, so why bother with shortened words with vowel-ambiguity?


RE: BS
By clovell on 2/25/2009 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
While it's not exactly a pivotal study, I really don't see your quarrel, FIT.

I mean, is it that far-fetched to think that exercising composition (and I use the term very loosely here) increases proficiency? I mean, it's not going to teach kids anything, but it does give them a medium on which to practice.

At the same rate I agree that this research is pretty much pointless. Will researching change anything? Has all the 'research' concerning television, R-rated movies, pron, video games, etc. actually had an effect on how parents raise their children?


RE: BS
By MrPoletski on 2/27/2009 8:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
There are 1337 reasons why texting shortcuts are cool.


Texting... but who has the phones?
By TheHarvester on 2/25/2009 11:41:13 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't say what age group these kids are, but my first reaction to the study was that perhaps the kids who had phones at such an early age may have parents that are more successful than those whose kids don't have the phones. Not to inject Darwin here, but perhaps more successful parents pass on better genes and these kids were going to have an edge regardless of whether they had phones or not?

Just a thought.




RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The study looked at 88 children age between the ages of 10 to 12.


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By TheHarvester on 2/25/2009 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, so it does say the ages. Granted, phones are getting ever more widespread among kids, but my point stands. 12-year-olds are not paying for their phones, and a 12-year-old's parents that can afford to pay for a monthly cell plan (including texting) might not be so well off.

In any case, the main point of my posting was that the study, in its tiny, tiny sample size, drew superficial conclusions with little to no merit, at least without further investigation (preferably not paid for by the grants FIT was taking about...).


By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
If I had kids, I'd buy them a cellphone. Course I'd be getting it for the gps function and minimal minutes plan. Zero texting.

I pretty much want them to use the cellphone for nothing more than the occassional call of "I missed the bus, can you pick me up" or "some weird guy grabbed me and now I'm inside the trunk of this car going somewhere."

I have a cellphone and it's also my home phone pretty much. I use around 10-15 mins a month on it. If you talk more than that on a phone, just go to whoever's house it is you're talking to.


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By MozeeToby on 2/25/2009 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 4
Except that generally more educated and financially successful people are having fewer children. If success is genetic, we're all screwed because the successful people will be out bred by the unsuccessful.


By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think we have our current president?


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By afkrotch on 2/25/2009 1:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
They are financially successful because they have less children. Children are a big drain on the pocketbook with zero returns.


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 2:33:09 PM , Rating: 3
No they're financially successful because they waited until after they had their education and a good job before they started having kids. Then they decided that it was more important to maintain a high standard of living than have tons of kids so they only had a few. As opposed to just expecting the rest of the country to cover them for the results of their actions like those who indiscriminately have sex without using birth control when they couldn't afford to have kids/care for the ones they already have.


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By bankerdude on 2/25/2009 4:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No they're financially successful because they waited until after they had their education and a good job before they started having kids.


Wait....so in your definition of financial success a person must wait to have children until they've completed secondary education and have secured a good job...Sounds a bit like a generalization there. However, while your view of successful people may be a narrow one, my kids won't hold it against you!


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By clovell on 2/25/2009 5:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
True, but it's a fair generalization.

What you should realize, though, is that different people have different goals for themselves in life - among those goals are financial goals. At a minimum, one would hope to be able to provide the basics for his or her family - food, shelter, clothing, and love. After that, it's a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I agree with FIT on this one. I had my first child at 19 while I was a junior in college and my second at 23 while I was in my second year of grad school. I borrowed more money than I ever would have wanted to and worked three jobs while in school to support them.

On the whole, I'm successful - I finished my masters degree and started my career with a Fortune 100 company. But, while I make good money, I don't exactly consider myself financially successful. I think there's a distinction to be made between the two.

Your thoughts, bankerdude? FIT?


RE: Texting... but who has the phones?
By bankerdude on 2/26/2009 11:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, this might be going out on a limb a bit here, but my situation is similar to yours. I was married at age 22 and had my first child at age 23. I had started college back when I was 18 but had dropped out to work full time for my family's restaurant. I was making decent money at the time, nothing great. However, having my first child really changed my life. It motivated me to go back to school and finish my business degree. Sure, it was hard as I held two jobs while going to school and attempting to be an adoring father, but I honestly don't think the motivation would have been as strong or as urgent for me without the birth of my child. It really aligned my priorities for me. I now work for a very successful financial institution and I've seen my salary quadruple in 5 years time over what I was making at the restaurant. Meanwhile, several of my friends who attended high school with me and went on to finish their college degrees are just now begining to raise a family. I can't imagine what it would have been like for me to not have the support and love of my children through the difficult period in my life. Not to mention, I'll still be young enough to walk to their graduation ceremony rather than being wheeled in! :p lol.


By clovell on 2/26/2009 4:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Good points. My family was motivation in that I considered it my duty to be able to give them the life they wanted. Unfortunately, that wasn't a shared view; I'm now divorced.

I love my two daughters, but I sincerely wish I had never been married. I think that if I hadn't had kids so soon into the marriage, it would have ended sooner. At the end of the day, I'm the one stuck paying the alimony, student loan debt, mortgage, etc.

It taught me a lot of things though. And honestly, if you're happy where you're at in life, I think that's one of the best metrics of overall 'success' that there is - and likely the only one that counts. That's where I'm at, and while money is still a stressor, I still think of my life as successful.


It's the ideas
By Danger D on 2/25/2009 1:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Language evolved as a tool to communicate using the equipment available to us: our voices. The written language evolved as a new tool became available: pen and ink (or rock and cave wall, whatever). It’s absurd to think that, as new tools become available, are language won’t or shouldn't evolve to accommodate those tools.

Cell phones are not the same as books. When I write on paper, I take time to think about the best way to say something, and I assume the person receiving that paper will read it at a later date and devote the necessary time to doing so. The spirit of texting and instant messaging is really closer to the spoken word than the written word. It’s meant to communicate thoughts in real time, in nuggets, and it often assumes a reply. It’s a conversation.

The written word will never die. But if I’m wrong, it will have died because it was no longer the best way for our society to communicate.

My point is that our ideas matter, not our means to communicate them.




RE: It's the ideas
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 1:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
I read your post until you said "are" instead of "our".


RE: It's the ideas
By Danger D on 2/25/2009 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
sorry


Lolz
By dflynchimp on 2/25/2009 10:45:26 AM , Rating: 5
I dunno wut ze rest of U are thinking I 4 1 think that txting rly help my grammr skilz out lots IMHO lollerskaterz!




Who funded this study?
By arisch on 2/25/2009 2:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone take note of who funded this study? I read both the BBC and this article and I did not see who financed it. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that a multi-billion dollar industry could pony up a few dollars to have some respectable academic cherry pick a hand full of kids then get their friends in the media to publicize it.




RE: Who funded this study?
By molgenit on 2/25/2009 3:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Found the article; and it does not cite any funding organization but thanks the schools and the children. I could not find any other articles by either of the 2 authors on Pubmed so they are not very well published. Looks like a shoestring project completed in a few weeks from a small department. By the way; the students in the study had only averaged a year of phone use so I'm not sure what effects could be expected in such small number of subjects with such a small amount of texting experience.


Quality of "research" depends on institution
By lemonadesoda on 2/26/2009 5:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Some helpful info for international members of DailyTech.

1./ "Coventry University" is actually (should I say, "was") a crappy polytechnic (tertiary education for people that couldnt make it to university). There were good ones and bad ones. But now the term "university" has was dispensed to all these institutions for unfathomable reasons some years ago in a game of politics. These institutions are mutton dressed as lamb.

2./ There is a clear correlation betweem children whose parents have enough money to pay for mobile phones for their children, and those children who come from single parent families on income support who didnt have phones. Literacy levels are different amongst these groups for socio-economic reasons.

With those 2 simple facts, what exactly was it that this "acedemic research" showed again?




By kelmon on 2/26/2009 10:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
I did my Economics degree at Cov Uni. Go figure...

Still, I believe it ranks highly for automotive design. Business? Not so much. Mind you, it looks like they've thrown a reasonable bit of money at the place since I left. Unfortunately, the decent pubs have gone.


The mother of all studies
By aegisofrime on 2/25/2009 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I propose a study to study the accuracy of studies.




orly?
By Proxes on 2/25/2009 10:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
lol wut!?




By kevinkreiser on 2/25/2009 6:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
great that it improves kids' language abilities. i think that there are a lot of drawbacks that aren't outweighed by that one advantage though. like the obvious adiction to texting which tends to inhibit things like driving, walking, and paying attention in class.

also, the whole texting/IMing is easier than talking to someone thing. although confrontations are easier, communication suffers when text is the only medium. you get a lot of meaning out of the sound/sight of a human being talking to you. i think texting should be a secondary mode of communication, and i think among youths it's getting to be the number one mode.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki