6)

1. In contrast to what many older generations believe about texting,

discuss McWhorter’s views on the subject. What does he think and
why?
John McWhorter, a linguistics professor at Columbia University, has a different
perspective on texting than many older generations. He argues that texting is
not ruining the English language but rather is a new form of communication that
has its own unique features and rules.

McWhorter believes that texting is a form of speech rather than writing. It is

more akin to the kind of casual conversation people have in person or over the
phone, rather than the formal writing typically taught in school. Therefore, it is
not appropriate to judge texting by the same standards as formal writing.

He also points out that texting has its own set of rules and conventions that are
often misunderstood by older generations. For example, the use of
abbreviations and emojis is not a sign of laziness or lack of education, but rather
a way to convey tone and emotion in a medium that lacks nonverbal cues.

Moreover, McWhorter argues that texting is not causing people to forget how to
spell or use grammar correctly. Instead, it is simply creating a new set of norms
for communication that coexist with the more formal standards of written
English.

In conclusion, McWhorter believes that texting is a valid and valuable form of

communication that should not be judged by the same standards as formal
writing. He argues that texting has its own unique features and rules that should
be understood and respected.

2. Describe the similarities McWhorter draws between speaking and

texting.

John McWhorter draws several similarities between speaking and texting,

arguing that texting is more akin to speech than writing and should be evaluated
differently. Here are some of the similarities he notes:

Informality: McWhorter points out that both texting and speech are informal.
When we speak, we often use colloquial language, informal grammar, and rely
on context to convey our meaning. Similarly, when we text, we use
 abbreviations, slang, and emojis, and rely on the context of the conversation to
convey meaning.

Interactivity: McWhorter observes that both speaking and texting are interactive.
In a conversation, we respond to each other's cues and adjust our speech
accordingly. Similarly, in texting, we respond to each other's messages and
adjust our language and tone accordingly.
Context-dependence: Both speaking and texting rely on context. When we
speak, we rely on context cues, such as gestures and facial expressions, to
convey meaning. Similarly, in texting, we rely on the context of the conversation,
including previous messages and the relationship between the speakers, to
convey meaning.

3. Explain how “lol” has evolved over the years.

The abbreviation "lol" (which stands for "laugh out loud") has evolved over the
years from its original meaning to encompass a broader range of uses.

Originally, "lol" was used to indicate that something was funny and to prompt the
other person to laugh. It was often used in online chat rooms and instant
messaging, where people could communicate with each other in real-time.

Over time, "lol" began to be used more broadly as a way to indicate that
something was amusing or that the person was acknowledging a joke or a light-
hearted comment. It could also be used as a filler phrase, similar to "um" or "ah,"
in conversation.

As texting became more prevalent, "lol" began to be used in text messages and
social media posts as well. It became a way to indicate that something was
humorous or to soften the tone of a message.

More recently, "lol" has evolved again to take on a new meaning. Some people
use "lol" to indicate that they are not actually laughing out loud, but rather using
the phrase as a way to acknowledge the humor in a message. This is
sometimes referred to as "fake laughing."
In addition, "lol" has spawned a variety of related acronyms, such as "rofl"
(rolling on the floor laughing) and "lmao" (laughing my ass off), which are used
to indicate even stronger reactions to something that is funny or amusing.
4. Discuss McWhorter’s purpose for drawing a connection between
various individuals from various points in time (i.e. the professor, a
schoolteacher, the President of Harvard, a superintendent and a
poor man, among others).

John McWhorter draws a connection between various individuals from various

points in time, such as a professor, a schoolteacher, the President of Harvard, a
superintendent, and a poor man, among others, to make a point about language
change and evolution.

His purpose is to illustrate that language change is a natural process that occurs
over time and affects people from all walks of life. He argues that language is
constantly evolving, and that the way we speak and write today is not the same
as it was even a few decades ago.

By drawing on examples of individuals from different backgrounds, McWhorter

highlights the fact that language change is not limited to any one group of
people. It affects everyone, from the most educated to the least educated, and
from the richest to the poorest.

Moreover, he argues that language change is not a negative thing, but rather a
natural and necessary process that allows language to adapt to new situations
and contexts. He notes that people are constantly innovating and creating new
words and expressions, which ultimately become part of the language.

McWhorter's purpose in drawing a connection between various individuals is to

emphasize that language is a dynamic and constantly evolving system, and that
we should not be too quick to judge or criticize changes in language use.
Instead, we should embrace the ways in which language evolves and changes
over time, while still preserving the core principles and structures of the
language.
 5. What is the last thing McWhorter says he would want to know if he
had the ability to go into the future? What would he do with this
knowledge?
In his TED Talk "Texting is Not Destroying Language," John McWhorter says
that the last thing he would want to know if he had the ability to go into the future
is whether texting will still be popular. He argues that this question is ultimately
irrelevant, as language is constantly evolving and changing.

Instead, he suggests that we focus on understanding the ways in which

language is changing and evolving in the present, and how these changes
reflect the larger social and cultural changes happening in society. He believes
that by studying language change in the present, we can better understand the
evolution of language over time.

McWhorter would use this knowledge to help people understand that language
change is a natural and necessary process, and that we should embrace the
ways in which language is evolving, rather than fear or resist it. He believes that
language change is a reflection of our changing society and culture, and that by
studying language, we can better understand these changes and how they
affect us as individuals and as a society.

Patricia Ryan: Don’t insist on English!

1. What does Ryan say regarding why the reasons for teaching
English have changed?
In her TED Talk "Don’t insist on English!", Patricia Ryan discusses the
changing reasons for teaching English as a second language.

Ryan explains that in the past, the main reasons for teaching English were
to access literature, culture, and to facilitate communication between
nations. However, with the rise of globalisation and the dominance of
English in business and politics, the focus has shifted towards teaching
English as a means of economic advancement.
 According to Ryan, English is now seen as a prerequisite for success in the
global economy, and is often viewed as a way to escape poverty and secure
a better future. This has led to a situation where the ability to speak English
is seen as more important than preserving cultural and linguistic diversity.

Ryan suggests that while learning English is important, we must also

recognise the value of other languages and cultures, and work towards
creating a world where linguistic diversity is celebrated and preserved.

2. Discuss some of the reasons Ryan explains the TOEFL is unfair.

In her TED Talk "Don’t insist on English!", Patricia Ryan discusses some of
the reasons why the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is unfair.

First, Ryan argues that the TOEFL is biased towards the cultural context in
which the test was created - that is, American culture. This is evident in the
content of the test, which focuses on American culture and history. This
means that non-native speakers who are not familiar with American culture
may struggle to perform well on the test, even if they have a good grasp of
the English language.

Second, Ryan points out that the TOEFL does not take into account the
diversity of English language use around the world. For example, the
English used in India or Nigeria is very different from the English used in the
United States or the United Kingdom. This means that non-native speakers
who have learned English in a different linguistic context may not perform
well on the test, even if they have a good command of the language in their
own context.

Third, Ryan suggests that the TOEFL does not take into account the fact
that English is not the first language of many non-native speakers. She
argues that the test places too much emphasis on grammatical accuracy
and written communication, which may not accurately reflect a non-native
speaker's ability to communicate in English in a real-world context.
 Finally, Ryan suggests that the TOEFL is unfair because it is often used as
the sole measure of a non-native speaker's English proficiency, without
taking into account other factors such as the ability to communicate in
spoken English or to understand different accents and dialects. This means
that the test may not accurately reflect a non-native speaker's ability to use
English in a real-world setting.

3. What point does Ryan make when she tells the story about two
English scientists?
In her TED Talk "Don’t insist on English!", Patricia Ryan tells a story about
two English scientists to make a point about the limitations of English
language proficiency as a measure of intelligence or expertise.

In the story, Ryan describes two English scientists who were working
together on a research project. One of the scientists, a native English
speaker, was struggling to understand a particular concept related to the
research, while the other scientist, who was not a native English speaker,
had a deep understanding of the concept and was able to explain it in
English.

Ryan points out that this story demonstrates that language proficiency is
not a reliable indicator of intelligence or expertise. The non-native English
speaker was able to contribute to the research project in a meaningful way,
despite not having the same level of English proficiency as the native
speaker.

Ryan argues that this highlights the importance of valuing diverse

perspectives and expertise, regardless of language proficiency, and
suggests that we should work towards creating a more inclusive and
culturally diverse global community

4. Toward the end of her talk, Ryan talks about Evan Wadongo, a
young boy from Kenya who won the Hero’s Award. What did he
invent and why?
 Toward the end of her TED Talk "Don’t insist on English!", Patricia Ryan
talks about Evan Wadongo, a young boy from Kenya who won the Hero's
Award for inventing a solar-powered LED lantern.

Ryan explains that Wadongo grew up in a rural village in Kenya where

access to electricity was limited, and he often had to do his homework by
the light of a kerosene lamp. However, he was inspired to create a better
solution when he learned about the harmful effects of kerosene lamps on
people's health and the environment.

With the help of a non-profit organization, Wadongo was able to develop a

solar-powered LED lantern that is safe, affordable, and environmentally
friendly. The lantern has helped many people in rural areas of Kenya to
access light for studying and other activities, and has also created job
opportunities for local people.

Ryan highlights Wadongo's story as an example of the importance of

valuing and nurturing diverse perspectives and talents, regardless of
language proficiency or cultural background. She argues that by celebrating
linguistic and cultural diversity, we can create a more inclusive and
innovative global community.

5. When Wadongo received his award, he said “The children can

lead Africa from…a dark continent, to a light continent.” Why
does Ryan find his words to be so significant?
In her TED Talk "Don’t insist on English!", Patricia Ryan finds Evan
Wadongo's words, "The children can lead Africa from...a dark continent, to
a light continent," to be significant because they reflect a shift in mindset
from a deficit-based to a strengths-based approach to development.

Ryan argues that historically, Africa has been portrayed in negative terms,
as a continent of poverty, disease, and conflict. This has led to a deficit-
based approach to development, where the focus is on fixing problems and
filling gaps.
However, Ryan suggests that Wadongo's words reflect a new way of
thinking about Africa, one that is based on its strengths and potential. By
focusing on the creativity and innovation of young people like Wadongo,
Africa can transform itself from a "dark" continent to a "light" one, where
ideas and talent are nurtured and celebrated.

Ryan believes that this shift in mindset is important not only for Africa but
for the world as a whole. By valuing and nurturing diverse perspectives and
talents, we can create a more inclusive and innovative global community.