FINAL PIECE

Done by Amina Thaher

English Language and Literature

Mr. Michael

Due : Monday 27th of October 2014

 

For this assignment I decided to write two opinion columns that discuss the same concept with contradicting opinions. Chosing an opinion column to discuss the effect of texting through social networks on communication enables me to provide a more profound fullfillment of the task. The first response will be written from the perspective of a regular citizen who has experienced a time where using technology to communicate wasn’t a possibility. The second column, however, will be written from the perspective of a young university student who is only familiar with the technological world of communication. Depending on the argument , the target audience would be people who practice what the writer is against or who simply want to further their knowledge on how texting through social networks affects language and communication. The purpose of both responses would be to reflect on the points that both arguments are trying to make, to bring attention to the positive and negative impacts of using social networks to communicate or replace language. Both opinion columns make connections with the initial question throughout the entire text. The key here is to demonstrate a statement that is not solely based on facts, but rather prior experiences, statistics anmd personal opinion.

THE TIMES

10/8/2014

Behold of the new era of "Communication"

As a person who is familiar with both the world of no texting and this version of it, it is my right to complain about this issue It is truly baffling how people these days think that their way of communication could ever compensate, if not  replace the true meaning of it. And I don’t mean the definition, im referring to the actual interpretation that communication has accumulated over the years. For a very long time technology wasn’t a very commonly accepted part of that and shouldn’t be, for obvious reasons. The people of today are becoming easily distracted, their attention span being shorter than a goldfish's. They're isolating themselves and therefore eliminating opportunities that can not be replaced by chatting to someone for hours.

Ever thought about where social anxiety might've popped from up all of a sudden? The cyber bullying? Sudden suicides, seeds that plant depression? People of all ages are affected through those factors and they're all ways of communication right? It is fairly easy for someone to develop a great ego and a dose of fake confidence when all you have to do is type in some letters, click send and stay anonymous if suitable. In contrast there are honestly not a lot of people who would dare and speak the truth, which in turn can be abused through social networking where new sneaky skills are acquired such as hacking and possibly destroying someones reputation. Taking a look at those hybrid versions of our beautifully articulated language/s is cringe worthy. "LOL" for laughing out loud. "BTW" for by the way. "lol ur stoopid" for Laughing out loud, you're stupid.

Most of the time it's just used to pass the boredom and not to express true feelings. Often there are misconceptions on what people actually mean or how they feel in reality and it all just numbs the conversations, stripping the partners off their identity and programming people to react less and become more self absorbed as well as rude and impatient. All that because of texting. A much more fitting alternative would be to give the electronical device the cold shoulder and actually T A L K to someone face to face, using your mouth and voice to give off thoughts, not your finger tips. We were given voices for a reason. Enjoy each others presence and develop healthy communication skills , regaining your identity as a human being with feelings and ideas that arent copypasted or marked with fake "lol's" and "rofl's" when your butt is neatly planted on your chair and your mouth a straight pinched line. Try it out and then think about wether texting and social networks really only have positive aspects to them. Just an idea to make this world a better place to live in. Thankyou for taking the time to read this!

Ralph F. Smith, aged 57 , New Jersey,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10/8/2014

Why Talk when you can Text?

So lately ive been reading a lot about how apparently texcting and using social networks is dumbing down the youth of today.                                    

Now despite those claims having negative impacts on their users, at the end of the day everyone with a respectable job or an education will have used it at least once, for their personal comfort.

As a current university student in New York City, I feel responsible about voicing my opinion on this matter. A lot of people find communicating through texting or social networks much more effective and beneficial. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so many people using that way of communication, in particular. I find that as a majority it is the people who are not familiar to the world of technology , that disagree with it and try to make up pathetic excuses to support their laughable argument. The majority claims that the academic efforts concerning subjects that require a lot of writing and critical thinking which includes basic grammatical knowledge is detoriating. Or that our youth doesn’t master the basic concepts of real life communication and that their linguistic abilities are receding rapidly due to constant shortening of entire stories and quick texting, not giving us sufficient time to process our thoughts and type them out. Wrong. That’s another load of cow droppings coming at you right there. We weren't born with little iphones texting away and we spent all of kindergarden and primary school withouttexting and social networks. As you can see I haven't reached the golden "21" , yet here I am typing away using perfectly constructed sentences with a wide and effective range of vocabulary. And I am not an exeption. We are very well capable of seperating our social network texting language from when we talk to someone with authority or have to write an essay on Stalin. One thing that particularly irritates me is how you look down on us so easily, as if you would've been any better if texting and social networks wouldve been introduced back in your days!                                                          

Isn't talking identical to texting? Yeah, let that one sink in. When you talk to someone you're not going to sit there contemplating things like : "Oh what is the absolute best word I could use for this expression right now and when does the comma settle in?"   Nope. You are simply transporting the thoughts you formulate into a direct message which is your voice , that will quickly spit out your thoughts. Honestly texting someone or using social networks does force you to respect some grammatical and spelling rules to some extent, to prevent misunderstandings. So really, not everyone shortens their terms dramatically. No one will walk or drive to the other end of the city just to ask what the newest gossip is or what your friends are doing tonight. So it would help us all if you could just face the fact that texting and social network communications have very minor negative effects on us that don’t last long. Concerning your claims of us being unable to communicate, we mostly still go toschool, university or work and are very capable of talking with others. Texting doesn’t damage our people or give them depression, the problems will always come from the peopleone way or another. I hope this has made any reader that didn’t agree with my opinion at least respect it. The facts are there, there's no serious permanent damage with texting that can't be done by talking. Thank you for your time.

Jace Newthorn , Aged 19 , NYC.

OPINION COLUMNS #1 AND #2 DRAFTS

Rationale

For this assignment I decided to write two opinion columns that discuss the same concept with contradicting opinions. Chosing an opinion column to discuss the effect of technology on communication enables me to provide a more profound fullfillment of the task. The first response will be written from the perspective of someone who has experienced a time where using technology to communicate wasn’t a possibility/ the norm. The second column, however, will be written from the perspective of someone clearly younger who is familiar with the technological world of communication. Depending on the argument , the target audience would be people who practice what the writer is against or who simply want to further their knowledge on how technology affects language and communication. The purpose of both responses would be to reflect on the points that both arguments are trying to make, to bring attention to the positive and negative impacts of using technology to communicate or replace language. Both opinion columns make connections with the initial question of wether technology being used to communicate is beneficial or not, throughout the entire text. The key here is to demonstrate a statement that is not solely based on opinion, but rather on bullet proof facts and correct observations which is a much more convincing strategy to persuade the audience.

Opinion column #1( negative)

A New Meaning To  "Communication"

It is truly baffling how people these days think that their way of communication could ever compensate, if not  replace the true meaning of it. And I don’t mean the definition, im referring to the actual interpretation that communication has accumulated over the years. For a very long time technology wasn’t a very commonly accepted part of that and shouldn’t be, for obvious reasons. The people of today are becoming easily distracted, their attention span being shorter than a goldfish's. They're isolating themselves and therefore eliminating opportunities that can not be replaced by chatting to someone for hours. Don’t believe me? Alright lets look at the facts. A study by Salaway et al , 2008 has discovered that 85% of undergraduates use social networking sites. That’s quite a lot and proof that technological ways of communication are the latest breakthrough and just increasing in fame, like a  disease if you ask me. Take a look at this graph and you might want to reconsider your opinion about wether the youth as well as the middle aged, and even some of the old are actually using technology for their own good.

It speaks for itself doesn’t it? Now the majority might protest, claiming that the more people use technology to communicate the better, but it is quite the contrary actually. Ever thought about where social anxiety might've popped from up all of a sudden? The cyber bullying? Sudden suicides, seeds that plant depression? People of all ages are affected through those factors and they're all ways of communication right? It is fairly easy for someone to develop a great ego and a dose of fake confidence when all you have to do is type in some letters, click send and stay anonymous if suitable. In contrast there are honestly not a lot of people who would dare and speak the truth, which in turn can be abused through social networking where new sneaky skills are acquired such as hacking and possibly destroying someones reputation. Taking a look at those hybrid versions of our beautifully articulated language/s is cringe worthy. "LOL" for laughing out loud. Most of the time it's just used to pass the boredom and not to express true feelings. Often there are misconceptions on what people actually mean or how they feel in reality and it all just numbs the conversations, stripping the partners off their identity and programming people to react less and become more self absorbed as well as rude and impatient. All that because of using technology to communicate. Texting, E-mailing, social networks and the sort all have a bad effect on their users if uitilized on a regular basis. A much more fitting alternative would be to give the electronical device the cold shoulder and actually T A L K to someone face to face, using your mouth and voice to give off thoughts, not your finger tips. Enjoy each others presence and develop healthy communication skills , regaining your identity as a human being with feelings and ideas that arent copypasted or marked with fake "lol's" and "rofl's" when your butt is neatly planted on your chair. Try it out and then think about wether using technology to communicate really only has positive aspects to it. Just an idea to make this world a better place to live in.

Opinion column #2 (positive)

Better Faster Stronger: Technological Communication

Despite the claims of Technology being used to communicate having negative impacts on the users, at the end of the day everybody will have used it at least once to help them , and if that doesn’t already prove who wins, then here's some more. Imagine a world were you would have to literally walk or drive to someone to quickly ask them something important, a world where the only information you get would either be in the library or from some ancient proffessor. Very time consuming if you think about it. A quick scan through google, a conversation here and there to different people at the same time and all beeing done in a few minutes. Isn't that just completely incredible? You will get judged, bullied or have bad experiences either way so why not get them over with quicker and more painless? There's always skype and others for some face to face convos if you really miss someones presence. So really, communicating through technology strengthens our relationships, enables us to make a lot of beneficial connections and opens us up to diversity and cultures. Its easier to reveal your true self without risking too much judgement and public humiliation. There is more privacy and freedom. People have learned to make faster decisions and find solutions to all their problems, with such a variety of opinions available. A 2009 World Bank report found that for every 10% increase in high speed internet connections, there is a 1.3 percent increase in economic growth. So it’s a win - win situation. People tend to augment and not replace their relationships with people, they simply find quicker ways to access them. All kinds of knowledge are always open to anyone using the internet which is incredibly fortunate. We basically created a new lanuage by shortening words, giving others a new meaning that only the "texters" understand ;  we create shortcuts and new possibilities everyday and form more solid bonds. Don’t be too restrictive on technological ways of communication, after all real life convos arent the best either. A new era of communication has arrived and won't leave anytime soon, so you might as well get used to it and try to at least accept it as a positive influence on people. Sooner or later you'll end up using or needing it anyway.

David Crystal And John McWorther Comparison and Contrast

Theories on how technology impacts language. 

This task required us to read an article by david Crystal and re-watch the Ted talk by John McWorther, summarize their theory of how technology affects language and conclusively identify their differences and similarities.

Texting

David's theory on how technology impacts the english language is mainly based on text messaging. The article commences by elaborating on how texting has become a "modern phenomenon", immediately eliminating a laregly negative view on the aspects on texting. It is mentioned how text messaging was never meant to be used in the way we do nowadays, but in fact was provided for commercial information or voice mail messages. Fastforwarding to now, in the UK a staggering 4 billion text messages are being sent per month. 

Two poems are mentioned in this article, in which David has provided comments and analyzation as well as opinion. One poem will be mentioned.

poem #1 "Txt Commndmnts"

1 U shall luv ur mobil fone with all ur hart 

2 U & ur fone shall neva b apart

3 U shall nt lust aftr ur neibrs fone nor thiev

4 U shall b prepard @ all tims 2 tXt & 2 recv

5 U shall use LOL & othr acronyms in convrsatns

6 U shall be zappy with ur ast*r*sks & ex!amtns

7 U shall abbrevi8 & rite words lik theyr said

8 U shall nt speak to sum1 face2face if u cn msg em insted

9 U shall nt shout with capitls XEPT IN DIRE EMERGNCY +

10 U shall nt consult a ninglish dictnry

David announces that due to the lingual options on the mobile phone being so constricted, "text speaking" as he calls it, has given rise to one of the most idiosyncretic varities in the history of language. A key term in this article would be " rebus abbreviation"which simply means a puzzle you have to unravel, by using pictures and abbreviations in order to identify a word. David uses that to explain those words used in the poem such as " 2 tXt & 2 recv" or "abbrevi8" and "b4". 

He also mentions that such forms of communication are not focused on merely texting ; they appear within many other electronical uses of communication such as e-mails, chatgroups and blogs. This reflects on the influence and power the language of text messaging has inflicted on the people.

Despite many  proclaiming the use of rebus abbreviation originating from todays youth, David insists that the very idea of rebus is a tradition that has been passed over generations, dating all the way back to the Victorians having used them to play games. As well as childrens annuals containing puzzles with them. So really, Text speaking is just a slightly different version of those things. 

David then inspects something that seems to be even more spectacular than using images to represent words. The mere ability to shorten words into commonly known abbreviations because of a restricition to a 160 characters, such as "LOL" (laughing out loud) or " BTDT" (Been there, done that) fascinates him. The fact that people adapted to their financial as well as technological limits so swiftly does show a lot. 

He points out how people appear to have realised that skipping a vowel is more beneficial than skipping consonants as well as leaving out puncutation and replacing it in words. Often one can identify an accent by looking at which consonants are being skipped or familiar contexts that relate directly to an accent or a dialect. He also brings attention to the reason of shortening entire sentences to a single word, such as a quicker connection to time and energy as well as a smaller phone bill. However after discovering over 500 rebus abbreviations he announced that only a small number of those would actually be commonly used, defeating the stereotype of the new generation dumbing down language. Though at times a regular abbreviation can have a different meaning to other individuals which could cause fatal consequences in reference to who you're texting.

To David, text speaking is one of the most interesting things to have evolved around time. He says that it is a new genre, an entirely new way for most of us to communicate, which many take for normal everyday things but can have a whole other meaning to linguists, like David. 

He states that text speak will definitely not affect our language completely, nevertheless the youth would occasionally use it to sound "cool", and it'd be found in school essays sometimes. The latter could be eradicated by the basic concepts of grammar which schools teach anyway. He sets forth the use of text speaking being a mere substitute for more compressed writing and time frames that people mostly master to divide from their general speech adressed at their regular audiences. 

Txtng is killing language. JK!!!

 John has a much more commical way of approaching the issue of texting, nevertheless serious undertones are kept consistent to prove his point. He also focuses more on speech and thoughts and how those connect to the idea of texting.

The key concept of his connection of the new generation and texting is that "Speech is much more loser, much more telegraphic much less reflective." As in the way we speak doesn't necessarily reflect the way we'd write an assignment , we dont feel the need to follow any grammatical rules consistently and we dont really reflect on our speech either. And were does our speech come from? Our thoughts.  We dont formulate our thoughts considering all the grammatical rules, punctutation and spelling or the best word to use for something , in fact we use our basic knowldege for understandable sentences and then immediately transport them into our texting appliances, without wasting time to elaborate and analyze, which could make us lose our train of thought. 

John points out that in the past, speech is what came first and was one of the only ways people would communicate, without writing for a long period of time. He states that if humanity had existed for 24 hours, then writing would've come in at around 11:07 pm, as an artifice ; just a cunning way to replace speech but in no way to fully represent it. He gives writing some credit by reminding his audience that it is a much more effective way to reflect on things we have to say, ponder on them and have them there permanently. 

There's beautiful articulated speech but apparently no one really talks like that , mostly because we dont think that way and it is highly unusual as well as its lack of individuality. 

He names the way we talk "casual speech". He describes it as a much loser, unmonitored way to speak. He then moves on to phones and how the sense of something in your pocket exchanging messages with someone is almost like actually talking to that person and having to keep up with what they're saying, vice versa. Just like real speech , you dont take time to look for a more educated way to say something or think about capital letters, you simply say whats in your head. The same goes for texting, one formulates a thought and immediately turns it into a few words that are abbreviated in order to reply quickly and effectively. People who text usually get straight to the point. He calls texting "fingered speech". It now enables us to write the way we talk and think. 

Commonly used abbreviations such as "LOL" are used out of context now, being given a new purpose. They're now being used in a very distincitve way , as a marker of empathy and of acommodation. That doesnt mean there's something wrong in our texting techniques, and using "slash" to change a topic you dont feel like discussing instead of going through the whole subtle process of slithering out of something as nicely as possible. 

The way John defines texting to be these days is an entirely new way of writing that the youth has developed over a short time period. And in addition to that, they mostly fully master the regular writing skills which means they have the ability to use two ways to communicate. As known, being bilingual has its benefits, but being bidialectal is just as effective.  Conclusively texting and regular communication is proof of our youth being able to balance out two uses which expands their horizon of understanding in terms of languages and personalities.

Similarities:

 Both John and David are very supportive of the use of texting of our youth and community and are similarly convinced that the users are able to juggle the two fairly different ways of communication perfectly and responsibly. They both came up with convincing theories and facts to back up their opinions that conclusively were the same. Both of them stressed that our youth isnt dumbed down or unable to exceed in any other academic subjects or general conversations, in fact they both agree that their skill of speech is enhanced by having two ways to express themselves.

Differences:

David focuses much more on certain grammatical rules such as the placement and deduction of vowels, consonants and punctuation and how that reflects on the texter, not really engaging in their thought processes or the difference in speech. His point of the article is more directed on exactly what texting consists of, how, when and where its used, and not what kind of effect that has as a whole or the actual reason of it, as can be seen on his analyzation on the poems given.

Where as John's speech seems much more simple , he has a wider perspective and discovers connections amongst thoughts, speech and texting that date back into the 1600ds and up to this point. He really tries to get the point across of how texting isnt wrong in any way, how it is simply a different new way of communicating that relates directly to your thoughts. How we now have the opportunity to text our exact thoughts in a short space of time. Other worldly concerns of the young people of today losing their elegance and articulation of speech is swept away with some forward answers and facts to back up his argument, which is much more fierce and focused. Also the fact that he chose to be filmed and have an audience further supports his belief in his argument and his want to spread it as these days people are more likely to watch a video than read a long bland article.

"Rihanna, Lady Gaga and what's really behind the burqa swag" 

Amina D. Thaher

7th October 2014 

As a muslim teenager living in a islamic dominated country,  my opinion on this particular article might be viewed as biased or narrowminded. But dont be too quick to judge, because you wouldnt want anyone doing that to you either , if you were to reveal your opinion on a personal matter.

Basically this article discusses how the "Burqa" is being altered into a trend by the mentioned celebrities that are, as mentioned, clearly not familiar with the Burqa, its concept and spiritual connection to Islam. 

Right at the first paragraph you already crossed a bunch of moralic limits which reflects your pathetic attempt at entertaining the reader, while stripping an essential factor in a tradition off its value.

Here, take a look at it. 

"Ladies! Wondering what to wear tonight that will turn heads and get all the boys excited? May I suggest a sexed-up burqa or perhaps a naughty niqab? While harem pants are v last season, veils are terribly in vogue. Not only do they add an exotic edge, but black is extremely mu-slimming." 

Did you honestly have to say that? To me that looks like an attempt at degrading a religion of modesty and self respect into the norms of society. You probably think youre doing muslim women a favour by "including" us into your ideas of a perfect society. Well guess what, chosing to dress differently , i think its clear we dont necessarily want to be part of that.

Rihanna as a person is very well known to be "open" , and i mean very open.

So the fact that she actually wore something in one of her pictures on instagram is a huge accomplishment, disregarding any personal views. But posing seductively in front of a sacred place? People like her, who chose to present themself as they are shouldnt even be allowed into a mosque or near one. What a shame. A mosque is meant for mental and physical purification , for being humble and submitting yourself to god, or any spiritual feelings you feel the need to share in that mosque. Its a place of private beliefs and a supposedly closed community. Its our right to express our religion freely and have limits, so her posing in front of it, with the hijab, just to get some attention at being "exotic" is just laughable.

The same goes for madonna who has the impression of the niqab (which conceals everything exept the eyes) to be sexually alluring. No , its actually there for modesty and to remind onesself to stay humble and realize our equality in society. Not to make men wonder whats under it. Its definitely a cultural thing, not religious . These days the hijab, niqab and burka are being used as ways to entertain, seem interesting and "enlighten" others who dont know as much about our very valued religion. The hijab itself is the one part required and fully connected to religion, in order to identify onesself as a muslim and to keep reminding yourself about it. The burqa and niqab are both involved with cultural traditions that are not required but still have history and value to others. Either way it is offensive for women who try their best to represent their religion and then have some random celebrities who dont know the half of it, put it on and convey a completely different message to the community. They have more power through their fame, and you writing a supportive article about it onyl makes it worse. 

Please try to respect other beliefs and traditions that mean a lot to the affected people and try to convey a message of peace and respect, rather than completely taking it out of its concept. 
However offensive this may sound, it is the plain truth and can not be negotiated in any way. Not only are you making up a new meaning for  the burqa, you are degrading it as yet just another fashion  piece for the entertainment of others.