Lilspeak vs. age-appropriate language
Jun. 29th, 2005 11:05 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
shandra.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesThis is probably beating a dead horse a little but I don't really like to see people feel their kids are being negated by a discussion about Lilspeak.
So I just wanted to distinguish a bit between bad spelling/grammar and Lilspeak, apart from the rant. And say why we decided to discourage our kids from learning or using it.
Children acquire language in a fairly specific pattern. This article from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders shows some of them. People who have worked in special ed (I did, although not at a very high level) know that quite often it's possible to identify a physical or neurological learning difficulty simply by looking at kids' written mistakes. Mistakes that transpose (flip) letters are one kind, mistakes that get the wrong sounds are another kind, etc. Not all spelling mistakes have a reason - that's why you get *really weird* spellings sometimes, that aren't phonetic - but that in itself demonstrates a clear stage that the child is at.
Why Lilspeak is controversial is that often the way it is written on the 'net doesn't follow the rules of language acquisition. It's not just a case of delayed development - someone in a multiple system writing like they're 5 when they're 7 - it's that the errors common in Lilspeak are not commonly made child grammatical errors. Also, as people have noted, quite often the errors are superficial - phonetic spelling, for example - while the underlying verb/tense/clause construction is fine (and quite advanced).
Now the reasons for this could be a zillion - overlapping adult consciousnesses, absorbing social/grammar/spelling rules on the net (kids are good at this - in fact that's how they absorb language), whatever. In a way Lilspeak is more like a pidgin language - a strange hybrid between how children "sound" inside and the adults hearing it. Functionally kids who use it have learned a new language.
But why it can be controversial is that anyone that is aware of how kids acquire language will not perceive Lilspeak as a child language. It may make them more suspicious and less accepting of system kids. It may in rare cases open a system child who /is/ trying to communicate to ridicule or skepticism that isn't necessary. And as a group concern (which I don't worry about too much, but it is there) it can make the typing look "faked" and "not really a kid" to anyone who's trying to prove that for whatever reason.
You could say to your average person Lilspeak probably looks the same as actual poor spelling, but I myself think anyone sensitive to language patterns will pick up on the bad-spelling-but-complex-sentences dissonance, on some level. And we have generally found that if people feel something is 'off' they get closed-minded pretty fast.
As long as one's system kids only talk to other multiple systems' kids, it won't be an issue if that's the dialect they choose to acquire and learn - so no harm, no foul in that sense. But if one's looking at a broader audience for system kids to communicate with, it may cause problems.
I don't think being aware of this is elite or snobby. I don't even think it means "down with Lilspeak!" Neither does it mean "down with bad spelling!"
I'm just saying, sometimes the Lilspeak hides the realness of the child rather than communicating that reality. And hopefully that information can be useful to people in making their own decisions about it.
So I just wanted to distinguish a bit between bad spelling/grammar and Lilspeak, apart from the rant. And say why we decided to discourage our kids from learning or using it.
Children acquire language in a fairly specific pattern. This article from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders shows some of them. People who have worked in special ed (I did, although not at a very high level) know that quite often it's possible to identify a physical or neurological learning difficulty simply by looking at kids' written mistakes. Mistakes that transpose (flip) letters are one kind, mistakes that get the wrong sounds are another kind, etc. Not all spelling mistakes have a reason - that's why you get *really weird* spellings sometimes, that aren't phonetic - but that in itself demonstrates a clear stage that the child is at.
Why Lilspeak is controversial is that often the way it is written on the 'net doesn't follow the rules of language acquisition. It's not just a case of delayed development - someone in a multiple system writing like they're 5 when they're 7 - it's that the errors common in Lilspeak are not commonly made child grammatical errors. Also, as people have noted, quite often the errors are superficial - phonetic spelling, for example - while the underlying verb/tense/clause construction is fine (and quite advanced).
Now the reasons for this could be a zillion - overlapping adult consciousnesses, absorbing social/grammar/spelling rules on the net (kids are good at this - in fact that's how they absorb language), whatever. In a way Lilspeak is more like a pidgin language - a strange hybrid between how children "sound" inside and the adults hearing it. Functionally kids who use it have learned a new language.
But why it can be controversial is that anyone that is aware of how kids acquire language will not perceive Lilspeak as a child language. It may make them more suspicious and less accepting of system kids. It may in rare cases open a system child who /is/ trying to communicate to ridicule or skepticism that isn't necessary. And as a group concern (which I don't worry about too much, but it is there) it can make the typing look "faked" and "not really a kid" to anyone who's trying to prove that for whatever reason.
You could say to your average person Lilspeak probably looks the same as actual poor spelling, but I myself think anyone sensitive to language patterns will pick up on the bad-spelling-but-complex-sentences dissonance, on some level. And we have generally found that if people feel something is 'off' they get closed-minded pretty fast.
As long as one's system kids only talk to other multiple systems' kids, it won't be an issue if that's the dialect they choose to acquire and learn - so no harm, no foul in that sense. But if one's looking at a broader audience for system kids to communicate with, it may cause problems.
I don't think being aware of this is elite or snobby. I don't even think it means "down with Lilspeak!" Neither does it mean "down with bad spelling!"
I'm just saying, sometimes the Lilspeak hides the realness of the child rather than communicating that reality. And hopefully that information can be useful to people in making their own decisions about it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 04:01 pm (UTC)I suppose - they type how they think it should be spelled that way - and they type how they speak because when they sound it out that's how it sounds. (Hence draw=dwa or something.)
But our littles are and strive to be smart - so all but 2 of them are really liking the idea of "typing better". Dani (again, the first child to arrive) is like a sponge and she herself is multiple (her big is Danielle) so once we sat down and decided "we're going to type better" she just ate it up!
Right now she's copying "big typing" and can teach the other littles what she learned fairly quickly. They want to be like "outside kids" and Dani commented "I've been here for years and my spellings just got worse around other littles not better".
Given - they are *still* 4/5 years old will have their mistakes. It's hard for them to remember we just want to get better - they don't need to be *~PERFECT~* because I've seen a LOT of kids her age (4) spelling and her "lilspeak" is many times better then their writing. But you can see (in our kids) that they don't struggle so much with the grammer, they just struggle with spelling.
So we're torn on the issue of teaching them. To many (outsiders) they do a lot better then some outside kids. So some of them want to stick with the way the spell - others are just sucking up all the knowledge they can and copying words down and remembering them. Again, they're smart enough to, keeping them at their level and not helping them progress (like Dani who's been around for years) hurts them.
We shall see as time goes on! Those who want to will learn - those who don't - they're not hurting anyone.
Kay'
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 04:59 pm (UTC)I think our kids in part have been amenable to not using lilspeak because they aren't that motivated (yet anyway) to communicate with other lils online much - when they do it tends to be one-on-one.
We don't enforce any global standard on our kids, we just pretty much guide them towards standard english as the language of choice. Some people in our system aren't native english speakers either - a couple are french and Lynn's group has their own internal language that is something like english but not, which is confusing.
Add a brain injury we had that caused damage with our visual processing and some days dealing with words is like screaming underwater. Of course that doesn't stop us from wanting to be writers and being an editor - sigh. Language is a Big Fucking Deal in our system.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 04:43 pm (UTC)Well said!
Date: 2005-06-29 04:44 pm (UTC)I can understand typing out thoughts to be read the same as if you'd spoken them (ie the "dwa" example). Sometimes it can make the text more difficult to read, as it will result in phonetic spellings as opposed to traditional ones, but as someone in another thread had mentioned, it does really help to sound out the words in these cases LOL Sometimes I have to do just that when I'm reading something my lover has written. He has a very thick Irish brogue that at times leaves me blinking at the screen with a dialtone in my brain hee hee but it's part of who he is and I find it VERY endearing ^_^ I wouldn't have him change it, unless he himself chose to do so (and I'd probably miss it if he did! lol)
I think that the actual spelling errors issue is separate and though LJ does have a spell check feature I have found it to be incredibly cumbersome. If someone with decent grammar skills but poor spelling--ie someone who is not expressing an accent or some such trait--wants to improve the readability of their posts, they could perhaps write in MS Word or some other text editor, and use the spell check option there, then copy & paste their entry into LJ.
~Kier
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 05:32 pm (UTC)Now the reasons for this could be a zillion - overlapping adult consciousnesses, absorbing social/grammar/spelling rules on the net (kids are good at this - in fact that's how they absorb language), whatever. In a way Lilspeak is more like a pidgin language - a strange hybrid between how children "sound" inside and the adults hearing it. Functionally kids who use it have learned a new language.
which is similar to what some of us have speculated about lilspeak amongst ourselves. (Our kids don't actually use it, for the record, but then they very rarely speak to other plural kids at all.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 06:56 pm (UTC)http://www.mosaicminds.org/Community/Suburbs/TheKastle/
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 06:58 pm (UTC)In some places if kids communicate in standard english, they are presumed not to be kids - at least this was the case a couple of years ago; it may have changed.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:01 pm (UTC)I don't think she cares much about being identified as a kid in the first place, though. She is who she is. (She gets a real kick out of playing with our niece, though.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 12:02 am (UTC)Mouse
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:17 pm (UTC)I have words I can't spell too. Curiosity (curiousity?) gets me every time, and loads of others.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 07:36 pm (UTC)I myself think anyone sensitive to language patterns will pick up on the bad-spelling-but-complex-sentences dissonance, on some level. And we have generally found that if people feel something is 'off' they get closed-minded pretty fast.
These are the things we were expressing in our comments to the last post on 'lilspeak'. That's makes us wonder whether the person is credible on many other issues: Sure, that goes back to 'you fake one thing, gotta wonder what else you're faking', but it's a true (and, I hope, understandable) 'fear'.
When you see someone writing with as much proficiency and flare as any great author, but consistently misspelling basic words, it puts us on edge.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:44 am (UTC)Scroll down to the second to last comment (in the 'main' comments, not the threads). You were mentioned. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:15 pm (UTC)I think this was a very well-written post on the subject. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 10:51 pm (UTC)And we (the system adults) have to admit that yeah, we do get suspicious of kids that use Lilspeak, because of the oddball misspellings combined with that advanced grammar thing you pointed out. Also, those of us that have been about equal age with the body as it grew (like, say, me, and Setsu later on) didn't write that way at all, because we always wrote in emulation of our favorite book authors. Cira's a book-addict too, so maybe it's a thing that kids don't find as important if they prefer television or video games.
I also want to point out that way back in the early days of the internet, like 1995, spelling was a lot better in general than it was now. I remember being on IRC channels using RPI campus dial-up at 12, and everybody used complete sentences, punctuation, etc., sparsely sprinkled with the classic acronyms (LOL, ROFL, and IMHO, mostly). I remember one person would even use periods in the acronyms, "L.O.L." instead of "LOL" for instance. Chats were also slower, more like the speed of IM conversations are today, but with several people talking instead of two. It kind of stayed that way for a while, until there were suddenly a WHOLE LOT more people. I think it's 'cause they started getting access from places other than colleges (AOL, Prodigy, etc.). Or maybe it was when Mosaic started getting packaged with services. I dunno.
Uh, anyway, I think I meandered a bit there, but my point was going to be that maybe it's just a Modern Internet thing. Did littles talk in Lilspeak way back when in Usenet lists, in emails, in IRC channels? How did they sound/type back when mIRC was prettier than Lynx? Before AOL's big service premiere ad campaign? Maybe it's a social thing, like you were getting into there-- a dialect that kids take on in order to fit in, a pigdin resulting from so many people coming together and trying to speak in a common language, even if they have to invent it themselves.
Heck, that's no different from English, really. God only knows how "stupid" primary English speakers must've looked to Norman nobility. Smart people spoke French and wrote in Latin. Duuuuh. And English was written purely phonetically for centuries until someone cobbled together the first dictionary-- that's why scholars have been able to figure out what Elizabethan English sounded like from Shakespeare's plays (which have phonetic spelling), and others have figured out what 1600s London dialect Samuel Pepys spoke based on his diary.
...good grief, I'm rehashing Duckie's lectures now. HELP I'M BECOMING A WATERFOWL
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 11:28 pm (UTC)That's about how we were-- Ruka says that copying is an essential part of the evolution of a writer, and any writer who claims they don't is lying. ;) We liked TV/video games/etc, but were also inclined to using good spelling/grammar when we wrote about them because we wanted to honour the things we liked.
What I've always said is that when you come across someone who should be old enough to know better using atrocious spelling and grammar, take a look at how their parents write-- or their teachers. Sad as it is, we've had some teachers who didn't know proper grammar or the correct spelling of some basic words (and marked us wrong for spelling them correctly).
We too remember at least a somewhat higher standard of writing (and of politeness) on Usenet et al back when we first got online. I think a lot of it is just the increasing availability of the Internet-- it lost that sense of community it had in the beginning.
Of course, when we first got online, we weren't thinking of ourselves as multiple and so didn't seek out any of the websites, messageboards, etc. However, we have been told by various systems that 'lilspeak' evolved over the mid-90s-- it became more and more incoherent as things went on. I haven't ever seen it used outside the Internet (of course, I haven't seen the word 'littles' used outside the Internet either-- the youngest person we have who's interested in using the computer is Susan, who is 8; she says that she is not little, and that it's okay for people to call her a kid or a child, but never a little.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 12:13 am (UTC)I've been gaming since the days of the Atari and the Commodore 64, so yeah, I know how that is. At the same time, though, I had experience with text adventure games, and writing my own games and widgets in Pascal and other early programming languages, and in text games and programming, spelling and grammar can be the difference between being stuck with endless error messages and blazing through in a cloud of FUN. So there's that to be considered too. Heck, that's how come I remember the spelling for "procedure" at 9. I kept spelling it with two "e"s and the compiler would sputter over it. But I went years before learning that "counterfeit" ended f-e-i-t and not f-i-t... and as for grammar, you can't really make a good madlibs story program without knowing your grammar.
I wonder if there are any floppy backups of those old Pascal programs. If I found them, I could re-work/re-word them into Javascript or Z-Code for the heck of it. That'd be kind of fun.
I think a lot of it is just the increasing availability of the Internet-- it lost that sense of community it had in the beginning.
Yeah, I tend to refer to what happened as the "AOL Boom", because I think AOL made it easier for a lot of people to get online who might never have considered it otherwise. Not a bad thing, necessarily, but it's like the difference between a tiny private school and a huge public school, y'know?
...wait, that would explain so much about the internet. Haha, crap, why didn't I think of that sooner?
it's okay for people to call her a kid or a child, but never a little.
Cira tolerates the term "little" because she's short, and nobody's used it to dismiss her or anything like that (like, say, "Oh, you wouldn't know, you're too little"-- I HATED THAT AS A KID, RARRRR). But then she asks questions like, "Why aren't short adult people called littles too? They're as little as I am, right?" And then we all go buhhhhhh until Bao comes up with a really funny but totally bullshit answer that Nomiya will kick his ass over.
...you know, come to think of it, we're terrible bad influences. She's going to grow up believing that lawyers are born as homonculi from dented cans of pea soup or something at this rate. (Quick! We have to find an Other World where there's intelligent botulism, STAT! ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 12:28 am (UTC)Do you mean to tell me that they are not??? But
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:22 am (UTC)Grr. Stupid people.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:43 am (UTC)That's a pretty assy thing for someone to do, really, to a little kid or anybody. I mean, what the hell? Yelling at someone over candy? There are probably stupider things to yell at someone over, but I'll bet it's a short list.
Personally speaking, I think avoiding being told that you're not real by adopting certain behaviors is a wasted effort. We're pretty much resigned right now to the fact that anything we do, adaptive or otherwise, is going to be used as evidence against us in a court of public opinion, and it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that's the case for other people too. I mean, if you admit to being a multiple system, you've already got a bunch of singlets who don't know you but will use every minor personal detail to try and prove you're making it all up for attention.
The sad fact is that a lot of multiple systems seem to end up doing that too, and I sure as hell don't know why, as I really don't care enough about Lilspeak to see why it should matter so much whether a kid uses it or not. I think it's dumb and hard to read, yeah, but that's personal opinion, and it doesn't reflect on what I think of the kid using it, even if the grammar does set off certain alarms.
Generally, when I run into really thick Lilspeak, the scenario my brain comes up with is that of an adult member influencing the typing to be more 'cute', not that of a scheming con-artist or something like that. I wonder how much of the Lilspeak came from the kid, and how much came from a well-meaning but old-fashioned 'typist'. It's annoyance over the difficulty of reading the phonetic spelling (Hooked on Phonics DID NOT work for me) and suspicion about the level of alteration and censorship due to the possibility of a editor-middleman.
Plus, and I might get flamed the heck out of me for this one, Asperger's makes understanding the subtext of normal speech hard enough. Lilspeak can sometimes totally blank out what little understanding I have of context-specific "unspoken rules of socialization" because then I have no clue what rules apply. (e.g., "Is this kid joking or being serious? I can't tell! If an adult was saying this, it'd probably be a joke, but this kid isn't tossing any Joke Markers...") This probably sounds idiotic, but that part of the Lilspeak misunderstanding might be improved by liberal use of non-ironic smilies. (Smilies are useful and only dumb when used to muddy up the waters instead of clearing them. That's my take, anyway. I think they ought to be used on all ambiguous statements in colloquial use. But I'm just a freak, anyway.)
So, in conclusion, people who point-blank tell a kid they're not real because they use or don't use Lilspeak are jerks. But Lilspeak does cause communication problems of a fundamental sort with people who aren't fluent in it, and kids should know that too before they choose it as a permanent way of writing online.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 07:23 am (UTC)~Adryssa
Well put!
Date: 2005-06-30 06:35 pm (UTC)I believe that if a little wishes to use lilspeak, someone should explain to them the drawbacks of explicitly adopting certain jargons, because it comes from some. It deserves mentioning that IME that one's vocabulary can affect input processing, and deliberate shifts in your vocabulary, can shift how you are able to process your thoughts. This is something that is extremely important. The effects may not be localized to one's speech. This is why I have a problem with pressured lilspeak, in that you have to speak, or think, this way, in order to qualify as a child in-system.
Educating yourself is not tantamount to adulthood, and that pressure should not exist. In some environments, there seems to be an unspoken peer pressure in that direction. In certain environments, it is considered conventional, and normal. Many people, adults and children, are not comfortable being the wierd or different one. Some would argue that this aversion is more present in children than adults, but I feel that it simply manifests differently.
If a child understands this, and still wants to use the language, then it is their choice and responsibility, IMO. Others might disagree, on the grounds that a child in system should have diminished rights and responsibilities, as is the cultural norm. I don't always feel that this is the case.
--Me
what about typing? And non-standard people?
Date: 2005-07-01 12:58 pm (UTC)Obvuisly systems like us wher we are all dyslexic and dyspraxic and autisric will have non-standard langage acquisiton and i guess some people from like otherwise neuro-tpical systems might be dyslexic or autistic or whatever so they would be non-standard too.
I think all of us in this system do type age-approately for us but i think to some outside people it might look like we were trying too hard to be "little" or "wierd" or something.
Anyway the main think i was wondering is - do you or anyone else know whether/how childrens wrting is different when they are typeing instead of wrting by hand. A lot of people have said stuff about double letters and it seems to us that missing or adding double leters is often a typing mistake that a person would prolly not make if they were writing by hand. And i wondered who much that knd of thing had been studyed.
Re: what about typing? And non-standard people?
Date: 2005-07-02 01:43 am (UTC)It's kind of fascinating, language acquisition - although I think there certainly can and I'm sure are exceptions, it's such an important *human* thing that it appears to all extents and purposes to be pretty hard wired provided there are other humans around at all.
But I don't know about any studies around writing vs. typind, and I think it's a good distinction.
We used quite a bit of typing in the learning centre where I worked. I don't remember there being a lot of double letters in that, but I wasn't at the time looking for anything to do with lilspeak so I can't say for sure.
What *was* really common was leaving letters out, especially vowels (I remember that 'cause we would try to emphasize that every syllable has a vowel, which is one way to check). That's totally not-phonetic whereas a lot of lilspeak is *extremely* phonetic. I think that's one reason why, although we hadn't thought it through much, when we came across lilspeak on the 'net, we adults were generally a bit suspicious.
To the broader question - I wouldn't try to evaluate a specific system on their typing ability no matter what. And I do believe that people in different systems can display different abilities and disabilities - but I also think that if only the kids type one way and only the adults type another, that is probably more the acquisition of Lilspeak as a dialect than something like a learning difficulty or non-standard acquisition.
In other words there are so many systems out there where the adults type fine and the kids type lilspeak that I don't think specific other factors are probably all that relevant. Not scientific though. :)
Just on a personal note, one reason I got into all this before, actually, being selves-aware is that we had a really bad accident when our body was 14 and we became learning disabled in a very odd way.
We got studied because it was so specific - the brain damage could be traced to a specific area and so learning disability researchers were all over it. For us it created a real division in our life because certain things that were easy before are difficult or close to impossible now.
(For example, if I take off my rings, I cannot tell my left from my right and can't figure out which hand to hold the pen in, despite still being strongly right-handed; if I end up with the pen in the wrong hand I can't figure out why it doesn't work, except for telling myself "if it doesn't work /change hands/ you dummy"... see, wierd stuff. And it's not just me, it's across our system as far as I know. :))
So for me personally I have a slight bias that there is a biological basis for a learning difficulty.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 03:46 pm (UTC)autistic spectrium disorders tend to shoe up in pragmatic sematic langauge use probelms.
we (in the system) all have the same learning problems so they maust be biological for us too, we seem to have been born with them although the audidtory processing disorder was made worse by a perforated ear drum and them lots of recurrent infections when we where tiny and just learning to listen to languauge/speak. We have probelms with left and right too - but not as bad as you describe. I don't like totally understand how some people in a system can have a learning difficulty and not others but we've been wondering if it has to do with useing different neural pathways?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-04 01:52 am (UTC)I personally believe different people in a system do use different neural pathways, but I also think if the neurons don't exist at all (as in our case, with the brain damage) they can't be accessed. Maybe a biologically younger system could have compensated, but we couldn't, except to go through the process of learning how to work around things.
It might depend on the exact reason for a difficulty. Sort of like - it can be the equipment that's not working, and then it just wouldn't work, or it can be signal that's scrambled, and that could be more specific to an individual. But who knows really.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 04:57 pm (UTC)Can you link to any examples of Lilspeak? I would be very interested in seeing it in action as well as comparing it to, as you mentioned, the grammatical forms of developing children in a singlet system.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-04 01:53 am (UTC)http://www.mosaicminds.org/Community/Suburbs/TheKastle/