Discovery Gaming Community

Source (In French): http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actual...-leducation.php

What this basically means is that the MELS (Ministère de l'Éducation, des Loisirs et du Sport du Québec [Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports of Quebec]) recognizes Twitterature (texts written in less than 140 characters, including spaces and ponctuations, based on the character limits on Twitter) as an official educational tool which will be expanded on by creating a standard structure for grammatical rules and the likes for this format exclusively for it to be taught in classes like any other type of texts.

I personally believe it is a great idea: not only will it improve the level of language, but it will also teach people how to properly condense a text. It is effective on many creative levels, as well. It also shows that the government follows the tendencies of the youth and adapt to their reality, which I believe is great.

Some teachers had already implemented such a program in their classes with great results, as well.

Thoughts?

i liek it i tink

Intresting concept. Much the same as teaching culturally relevant vernaculars, for example Ebonics. I find it particularly interesting as I am currently in the final days of my course for certification to teach English as a second language. One of the things we have discussed in the class is about whether to correct socially or culturally accepted grammar, even if it does not follow standard English grammatical rules. The real question becomes one of whether an individual thinks that grammar rules are like laws, and any deviation from them should be be treated as a crime, or instead if language is a fluid and changing thing that must take into account culture, society and history.

I am personally a believer in the latter feeling. I believe that language adapts to communication, not the other way around. That said, it is very important for language learners to understand the differences between formal and informal uses of languages, to understand when formal language is necessary, and when informal langauge is acceptable. They still need to learn the standard grammatical rules and vocabulary, but they can also be taught about new forms of informal language.

I didn't really understand this announcement at first, but Zelot kindly clarified with his thinking out loud.

My personal belief is an obviously (to those who know my political stance) conservative one. It is crucial to give each and every student a firm understanding of traditional and complex English, or whatever their mother language happens to be. While I also do not believe that the grammatical rules of a language are laws to be adhered to at all times, this is mostly because rules such as these have a habit of fading in and out of popularity. In English, "i before e, except after c" springs to mind as a rule that has more exceptions than it does compliers.

It is during interaction with others in the world that an individual should learn the nuances of their "informal" language, and there should be a clear separation between the two. While yes, language adapts to communication, and is in fact in existence solely as a means of communication, overuse of colloquialisms risks fragmenting the language as some have already experienced. Thank goodness we don't have a dialect of English, Glasweigan notwithstanding.

Allowing the uncontrolled progression of a language in all it's forms risks diluting and/or simplifying said language until hidden meanings and subtlety of vocabulary are lost. This is an extreme consequence, and one that isn't likely to ever make it past theory as effective communication requires at least some standardisation of the language that is being used.