Are emojis ruining or enriching the English Language? :)

Hi guys,

I'm here again with another blog post!! This weeks' topic is all about emojis, do you love a cheeky emoji from time to time? I know i do! However, some people are looking further into how emojis are coming into conversations these days and becoming more of a necessity for language. I'll be exploring various articles questioning the matter of emojis.

Firstly, emojis haven't just been what we know and love today, on android and Apple there are a range of smiley faces to incorporate into texts and messages, captions and comments, though years before this we would write or type a ":)" to suggest that we were happy/smiley about something and a ":(" to give the impression that we're sad or disappointed. Then these were so highly appreciated it evolved into a range or 'smilies' with angry, happy, sad, shocked, laughing, confused, winking, partying. Here are some emoticons from MSN Messenger from around the year 2000.

Back then, the MSN emoticons were great. They helped you say things without needing to type it all out. Just like will emojis, how can they be ruining language when the point of any language is to understand each other? With emoticons and emojis they really describe your emotions and how you are feeling. For example a winky face ";)" may hint that the sender is joking about something or it can be seen as flirting! It's a great way to either get the person to realise you're just messing around like in person you would say the 'joke' while laughing or with some sort of jokey, sneaky face or emotion that they would understand whereas texting is a bit different.

For example the sentence "What are you doing this weekend?;)" would suggest to the recipient that they may be implying they would like to do something with them at the weekend for example go on a date. However without the wink, someone may just see it as normal conversational chit-chat.

Also when talking to friends lets imagine someone said "Do you like my new bag?" Then the friend replies with "It's disgusting" the friend would feel extremely upset most likely. However if the friend sent "It's disgusting;)" the friend would obviously know it's a joke and they do like the bag really!

Anyway, enough of the history of emojis. It's all about the present now. Currently there are topics arising with the dependency on emojis in text. Some people are finding it lazy and stupid to put a face instead of finding the effort to type or write words!! For example an article on Huffington Post displays this quote:

"I am deeply offended by them." Maria McErlane, a British journalist, actress and radio personality told The New York Times in 2011. "If anybody on Facebook sends me a message with a little smiley-frowny face ... I will de-friend them ... I find it lazy. Are your words not enough?"

I think this shows how emojis aren't for everyone. Some people may always prefer words to faces to describe how they feel, these people may also suggest that it is ruining English language. This is because as we write less and less words as they are replaced by faces it results in us being more and more illiterate. Although, do i agree? Not really. I think it shows what type of person you are if you fancy sending a cheeky smiley from time to time!! But I do understand sometimes emojis can feel like they are being put way too much, way too often.

Next, from the same article, another quote opposes this showing emojis in a very postive light:

"It's like you're a speaker of some primitive Japanese picture language with only three hundred some odd words and your vocabulary just DOUBLED."

This is suggesting that emojis are extremely helpful for expressing yourself and your views especially when testing a friend. To compare it to doubling vocabulary is a strong view however it is true, they can display how you feel with a few little pictures than many words also they really put emphasis into the conversation.

Another quote from the same article suggests that emojis again, are great, one person says "WAIT A SECOND! There are NEW EMOJIS for iOS6 and I can't even begin to explain my excitement ...There's a family and a bride, which I'll never use except wishfully, and gay and lesbian couples ... And there is a tongue...."

This person was obviously very excited about the new update. Even more on topic there was a recent emoji update just a couple of dfays ago! It contains more hand gestures (even a rude one that shouldn't really be on there) and plenty of others for Apple product owners to get!!

In conclusion, I don't think emojis are ruining the English Language at all. I mean it's not like students go into exams and expect to be able to draw some smiley faces and get their ideas across! Teenagers know the time and place to use them and when it is appropriate. It helps to separate formal from informal and can enrich the conversation, definitely not ruin it. For example people that are shy might find it easier to send faces which would represent their expressions than to have to struggle and find words to suit their emotions. Although on the other hand it might discourage people from trying to spell words which then may lead to spelling mistakes when at school as they don't practice at home. Many people although tend to use '"text speak" for example "C U soon 2morrow" which isn't enriching there english language any more so than an emoji. I think emojis are great from time to time and i think it's somebody's own person preference and opinion to whether they want to put them into their messages and texts. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Language Scrapbook 2

Hi guys,

I'm back again with part 2 of the language scrapbook *fanfare and applause*. Today i will be examining another piece of writing.




The genre of this piece of text is a type of poem from a children's book. It's not known if the whole book is by an African Pygmy or if the book is full of different poems. The text is about a fish which we can clearly tell on the line "I am the fish". The genre is simple and short and uses mostly monosyllabic words to convey that the poem is for a younger audience.
The audience of the piece will be to young people in nursery or primary school due to the simple words in the text. The text could also been read out to the audience of young people by a more experienced reader that would emphasize the words.
The purpose of the text is the reason that it's been created is that the subject of the fish is described about it's actions and what it does. The reason is to give children entertainment while learning words and about animals, the reader may feel relaxed and happy as the writer states "everything lives, everything dances, everything sings" which are really positive words and phrases to make the reader feel joyful. Also in this the author has conveyed repetition in the text by the word "everything" which is a persuasive technique and gets the readers' attention.
The context of production, in my opinion, is that the language is basic, the influence on the text could be that the it is for a younger audience therefore even when the poem was written, the author still had access to the basic, simple, monosyllabic words he wrote in the text. Whereas, he wasn't really able to put polysyllabic, educated and elongated words in the poem as this wouldn't be professional for the intended audience.
The context of reception is that the most likely option that the text will be received in is a book being read by a young reader or being read to by a more advanced reader that can emphasize and exaggerate the words, pauses and sentence structures for the audience listening.
In my opinion the range of persuasive techniques is great and the verbs and nouns and general positivity of the poem is super.

Should we always use English correctly?

                

Hi guys, it's Yasmin here again to give my opinion on "You should always use English correctly" I wrote a 500 word post on the matter with the conclusion being no, we should not always have to use English correctly. I hope you can read the pictures if not I can update it! I think speaking English correctly is important for certain times and would have many benefits, however I think we should not have to conform to the typical English language all of the time.

Topical Issues In Language

Hi guys,
I'm back once again and today I'm asking and answering the question "Should slang be banned?" I mean, this question is a controversial one and poses a lot of questions in itself, but I will be talking through my opinions and reasons for in this blog post today.
 
To help me make my decision and get more opinions and ideas on the topic I watched, read and listened to the following:
 
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-slang-be-banned-in-schools
 
This is a page I found on the internet while researching the topic. I thought it was interesting to read a few other people's opinions on the matter of banning slang. It was also interesting to note that some of these are school children in which the slang ban would be a current issue for them in school and it would be even more interesting to investigate what areas slang is more spoken in and what schools were/are affected.

http://eastnorfolklanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/should-slang-be-banned.html
 
We watched a video in class of a 5-minute debate between Lindsay Johns and Michael Rosen about the exact topic of banning slang, both sides gave some compelling ideas onto the table and each had a comeback for every issue that came up. Lindsay Johns had the opinion that when someone speaks showing their educated, literate and polysyllabic language from the Oxford Dictionary, it's more powerful than slang. He continues his point telling Rosen that "99%" of people in power do not convey street slang. I can understand his way of thinking, when walking into an interview or meeting; work, education or general, it's never 'professional' to converse with abbreviations, monosyllabic and newly invented words, originating from the streets of London for example. If an employer had to choose between someone speaking average street slang and another candidate conversing with elongated, educated and elevated language as they had been taught to speak it through their schooling and upbringing, which one do you think the employer would choose?
 
However, against the slang ban is Michael Rosen who refers to powerful people for example David Cameron speaking a different type of slang; "Eaton Slang", in which he learnt from an extremely expensive and educational private school. By saying this, Rosen demonstrates that slang is just a cultural specification of language depending on what social group you are in, perhaps not to do with intellect and academia all of the time, just quick and easy language some feel more comfortable with. He also tells Johns that there is no evidence that slang prevents anyone from doing well, he says it would be more beneficial to study slang and to educate people on why not to use it and let them make their own decisions based on their intuition than to ban slang. People that speak the language of slang could be able to show that they are bi-dialectal meaning they would be able to switch from slang to formal when they feel like they needed to. I believe that giving people the choice of free speech is extremely important in democratic countries to avoid fights and discrimination between groups. Maybe slang decreases chances of getting the job in an interview but is there true evidence, facts and statistics to prove this? Maybe not.
 
In my opinion language should be free speech, how and when someone feels the need for it. However, there are exceptions, for example using taboo language around people who you don't often associate with isn't a great idea, especially young children. I don't feel like it's any one person's right to influence someone else's child into speaking slang unless the parents were happy with that as youth pick up language quickly.  Although, in an interview not using slang is extremely beneficial most of the time due to the interviewer being able to tell that you have come in, sat down, made an effort to look smart and think smart and provide the best display of your intelligence and education when conversing. By doing this, the speaker will be able to show that they can change their language to when they feel right, demonstrating a higher understanding of language in general instead of sticking with monotone words all of the time. Banning slang would be devastating on the educational systems too, for example the school that banned some slang terms from the classroom will most likely get the response of rebellion and children not enjoying school as much as they believe they are being constantly monitored for their language and being taught how to speak correctly.

In conclusion, as I have mentioned before many times, is the 'correct' way of language really the right way? Or just the way that someone has made to be the 'correct' way and everyone just followed them and their ideas? I don't think we should all conform to using the same type of language, and for that reason I don't think we should ban slang! From speaking, reading and writing we all are different. I think being different should be appreciated, admired and it lets the world think who stands out from the crowd and who follows. Yes, speaking slang is not great and does not show off education unlike sophisticated and elaborately exaggerated articulation would do in some situations but it does express ourselves. Yet I neither think that slang should be in conversation all of the time, there needs to be a balance of language.