John McWhorter: A surprising new language -- texting

Summary

This video challenges the idea that texting is the death of writing, arguing that it represents a new form of communication blending speech and writing. It traces the history of language, explaining that texting is a modern evolution of language rather than a degradation of it. The speaker emphasizes that texting has its own grammar and structure, much like any language. Texting, referred to as 'fingered speech,' is a dynamic and valid method of communication, offering speed, immediacy, and shared context. The video encourages embracing texting as a vibrant, new way of using language in today's world.

Takeaways

• 😀 Texting is often perceived negatively, but it's actually a dynamic form of communication with its own merits.
• 😀 Language has existed for over 50,000 years, with speech being the foundation and writing a much later addition.
• 😀 Writing is a deliberate, slower form of communication, while speech is spontaneous and informal.
• 😀 In human societies, speech and writing are two distinct forms of language, with speech being more casual and writing more formal.
• 😀 Texting can be viewed as a blend of speaking and writing, as it enables fast, informal written communication.
• 😀 Texting is not necessarily bad writing; it is 'fingered speech,' allowing a more spontaneous form of writing.
• 😀 Texting introduces a new structure, with its own unique grammar, developed organically by users.
• 😀 An example of texting grammar is the use of 'LOL,' which has evolved from 'Laugh Out Loud' to signify shared context rather than literal laughter.
• 😀 Phrases like 'hey' in texting serve as grammatical particles that indicate topic shifts, similar to physical cues in speech.
• 😀 Texting, like other languages, has its own set of rules that users intuitively follow, even without formal instruction.
• 😀 Texting is a new form of language use, adding to the rich history of communication, and should be embraced as a creative evolution of language.

Q & A

Why do some people view texting as harmful to language?

Some people view texting as harmful to language because they believe it diminishes the quality of writing and may lead to the decline of language skills. This perspective is based on the idea that texting is a form of shorthand communication, lacking the formal structure of traditional writing.

What is the core argument the speaker makes about texting?

The speaker argues that texting is not the death of writing but rather a new, vibrant way of using language. It is an extension of speech rather than a decline in writing, with its own grammatical structure and energy.

How does the speaker define language in general?

The speaker defines language as primarily speech, stating that writing is a relatively recent addition to human communication. Speech has existed for far longer than writing, and writing is simply an add-on to the more fundamental form of language: speech.

How long has writing been in existence compared to spoken language?

Writing has only existed for about 5,000 years, while spoken language has been around for much longer, likely around 50,000 years. If human history were compressed into a 24-hour period, writing would have only appeared at around 11:07 p.m.

What is the difference between speech and writing according to the speaker?

Speech is described as loose, casual, and unconscious, with people speaking in short bursts of 7-10 words. Writing, on the other hand, is deliberate, slower, and allows for reflection and correction. The two are distinct but can overlap in some contexts.

What does the speaker mean by 'fingered speech' in the context of texting?

The speaker refers to texting as 'fingered speech' because it is a form of written communication that mimics the casual, spontaneous nature of speech. Texting is faster and more immediate than traditional writing, allowing people to communicate like they speak.

How does texting differ from traditional writing in terms of speed and immediacy?

Texting is faster and more immediate than traditional writing because it allows for quick composition and instant delivery. Unlike writing, where one can take time to reflect and edit, texting mirrors the immediacy of spoken conversation.

Can texting be considered a form of grammar? How?

Yes, texting has its own form of grammar. It includes elements like acronyms (e.g., LOL) and informal expressions (e.g., 'hey') that function as particles to indicate context or shift in topics. These elements work similarly to grammatical structures in spoken languages.

What is the role of particles like 'LOL' in texting?

'LOL' originally meant 'laugh out loud,' but its meaning has evolved. In texting, it functions as a particle indicating shared understanding or context between the speaker and the recipient, rather than necessarily indicating laughter.

Why does the speaker say that texting is a 'brand new thing'?

Texting is a 'brand new thing' because it represents a new form of communication that combines aspects of speech with the speed and structure of writing. It is a modern, dynamic evolution of language that hasn't been fully taught or formalized, yet it carries its own set of rules and conventions.