Angela's summary of "On the New Literacy"

Is technology that encourages fragmented points and shorthand writing such as Facebook, Twitter, texting, e-mail, or even Powerpoint destroying the ability of this generation's young people to write properly? Clive Thompson addresses this question in his essay “On the New Literacy”. In it he states that “technology isn't killing are ability to write. It's reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions”. He goes on to explain that young adults are writing more than they have in generations past, but when they write they are writing short and to the point for an audience. They tend to focus on debating and subjects that they find to be interesting and that they believe will persuade others' views. Thompson also points out that according to Professor Lunsford of Stanford University's study, the fragmented text speech so often used by young people did not affect Lunsford's students' in-class writing ability. In fact, her students seemed to be well able to adapt their writing style to fit the situation they were in (ie. Informally with friends, fragmented while texting, and academically appropriate in class assignments).

My own view is that this condensed, broken up, or fragment language can be devastating to the young peoples ability to write proper sentencing. By using the fragment language so often as they do they don't allow themselves to practice proper English writing structure, and if something is not practiced and remembered it is lost. Though I do not dispute the outcome of Lunsford's class study, I do believe that her study does not prove Thompson implication that fragmented personal writings (Facebook, texting...) does not harm academic writing. Lunsford conducted her study on university students, men and women who have gone through many years of English and writing classes and who have been conditioned to write academically so of coarse her outcome was that her students could write academically. However if a similar study was done on younger students or young people with much less of a grammar and language education I am sure the results would be drastically different.

On a more personal note: I don't like it when people write using broken language or text abbreviations like “ttyl” for “talk to you later,” it makes it very difficult to understand what they are saying sometimes. I'm sure that even the person who the message is intended for often has difficulty reading it. And, it may be my strict upbringing but I can hardly stand it when people write with swear words. I understand that the main reason most people use that kind of language in writing is to express an extreme opinion but there are other things to say other than (please excuse the language) “wtf”. On the other hand I realize the usefulness of using such methods to an extent. I, myself summarize and bullet note frequently when I write but I don't use foul language and if another person is going to read my writing I try to make sure that it is understandable.

In the end, writing is all about presenting your thoughts and feelings to one or more people. Which, true, can be done using fragment language but it is much clearer and thoughtful if it is written out in a way that you know they can understand it.