Why Some of Us Still Don't Use Twitter

When I discovered Twitter, several years ago, I did not find it appealing at all and therefore did not subscribe to it. I was already using Facebook for social networking and LinkedIn for professional networking. Twitter presented itself as a mere distraction in comparison, a redundant tool that would waste my valuable time. It also looked and sounded dry: not much in terms of pictures, stories or jokes; no “friends” – just “followers” and followees. Besides, the idea of being a “follower” of others did not appeal to me (doesn’t the word carry connotations of subservience, stalking, or both?). Nor was I excited by the prospect of being “followed”. Besides, from an English teacher’s point of view, I was discouraged by the abbreviated language of Twitter, which defies spelling, grammar and punctuation conventions. Why would an English teacher want to be involved in such an environment when we are supposed to set a good example of Standard English, including complete sentences and well-developed paragraphs? My initial impression was that Twitter was for those who don’t know how to write!

My view of Twitter has changed only slightly over the years. Knowing that many highly educated people use it, including public figures, I now see it as a tool for three categories of people: those who don’t need to set a good example language-wise, those who don’t have the time to write properly or at length, and those whose writing is not presentable in the first place. One can see the wisdom of valuing content and meaning over style, yet how much content can you squeeze into 140 characters, and how much depth, analysis or synthesis can go into that? Twitter is an excellent tool for brief announcements and comments. Beyond that, I believe Facebook and LinkedIn are superior – and so is proper, old-fashioned blogging. In this regard, I agree with Devin Coldewey, a Seattle-based writer and photographer, who said in 2009, “…if someone is so regularly finding content of merit, why don’t they have a blog where the content can be given context, discussion, and perhaps a preview so people aren’t going in blind? I like reading interesting blogs. I don’t want to receive links every time someone finds something they think everyone should see. Twitter just adds another layer to the equation — and I don’t like layers” (“Why I Don't Use Twitter”). A large scale study conducted by the data analytics provider Pear Analytics actually concluded that 40% of tweets were “pointless babble”, more than a third were “conversational”, and around 9% had only “pass along” value (Mashable).

From a business point of view, companies are using social media for public relations purposes. People like to see what CEOs think, and they can now find some of them on Twitter. Ellen Roseman of the Toronto Star hopes that Twitter “sticks around forever” if it truly connects corporate leaders to customers more effectively (“Why Smart Consumers Should Use Twitter”). On the other hand, if – like me – you are neither a company CEO nor a particularly worried “consumer”, why would you join Twitter over and above other online networking tools? For news gathering and information on current events? If you already use Facebook, you would need extra time for Twitter and you might end up finding the same information there in any case; besides, you can always go to news sources directly rather than waiting for others to share, layer upon layer. So many tools, so little time to juggle!

Researching “Research”

On the occasion of National Grammar Day in the U.S., this posting focuses on a puzzling grammar point.

Recently, I managed to provoke an online discussion in our English Communication Skills Program at AUB about a controversial grammar issue. The subject of the discussion was “Students Pluralizing ‘Research’: Right or Wrong?”. What triggered my initial posting was my disappointment with students pluralizing the noun “research” even after I had explained that it is better not to pluralize it because it is generally uncountable – plus the fact that, to my dismay, some of the best known dictionaries have started accepting the usage.

After seeing the Macmillan Dictionary’s entry on “research” , which makes perfect grammatical sense, providing examples of usage “errors” in a "Get it right" section, along with corrections, it was surprizing to find that a number of other dictionaries, including the Wikipedia Wiktionary and the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries, accept the countable form of research –  “researches”. This plunged me into a deep depression, but I guessed that, since the better dictionaries depend on statistics – aiming to be descriptive rather than descriptive – it is hard to argue with them. (Here is more information on how words enter dictionaries from a previous blog post of mine, “How DictionariesCope With Language Change” ; the post also happens to include a link to “How a New Word Enters the Oxford Dictionary”).

In any case, based upon the solicited input of fellow English Communication Skills teachers on how they handle the matter with their students, it was clear that the instructors were divided in their opinions. Out of the six colleagues who contributed to the discussion, two seemed to be in favour of accepting the plural, or at least not penalizing students for it. One appeared to be between the two extremes, though her answer was somewhat vague, and the remaining three were vehemently opposed to the usage. Here are extracts from what they said:

·     “I usually (if not always) cross out the 'es' when students pluralize' research' - I like the examples/samples listed in Macmillan dictionary and their complete rejection of the plural form.” (Rima Shadid)

·     “I automatically cross out the  ‘es’ and replace it with ‘studies’ as I mark my students' papers...’research studies’...I do so not necessarily because ‘researches’ sounds a little odd to me, but rather simply because ‘research studies’ is usually more accurate.” (Missan Laycy Stouhi)

·       “With regard to dictionaries:  Just because a dictionary does not set a particular standard, this does not mean that the standard does not exist (dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all of language use)…. If American society still equates nonstandard with substandard after all of this effort, how can we expect an individual here or there who uses nonstandard English to have much impact…?” (Kathryn Lincoln)

Apparently, we are not the only people in the world (or on the web) debating this grammar point. Take a look at this forum, for example, where someone asks, “I am not sure about the plural of research. Can you help me?”: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1828694

·         One person replies “researches”.

·         Another person says, “No, I would argue ‘research’ is uncountable because it doesn't sound right to say ‘Yesterday I did three researches.’ It would either be ‘Yesterday I did research’ or ‘Yesterday I did three research assignments/cases/files’ etc. The only time you would have ‘research’ in plural is to refer to the person who does research or their job title. i.e. ‘We have three researchers.’ (Note the spelling- not ‘researches’)."

·         Yet another comments, “Sorry, Jack. It can be a countable noun in some cases or, at least, it's starting to be used that way…. (Definition of research noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary).”

·         The final comment on the thread is, “This is an excellent example of the difference between what one finds in the dictionary and how one speaks. With respect to modern spoken English (at least in AmE), Jack is absolutely right: we do not use the plural ‘researches’. The fact that it's in the dictionary is secondary to modern usage.”

Teachers – and students – out there, what do you think? My advice is that, if something is going to sound jarring to your readers or listeners, use a safer alternative – never forget the audience. Besides, in this case, if you still see research as a process rather than a product or an object, why pluralize it?