To think this text from the opticians is very unprofessional?

[MothershipG]

This is exactly as it was received...

"goodmorning dear customer i am regret to inform you your optician oppt been cancelled today please call to rebook sorry for inconveniece caused thank you"

No caps, no punctuation at all. Dodgy spelling and grammar.

Obviously it satisfactorily conveys its intended message so AIBU to think that this sort of lazy texting is not appropriate for a business communication? Or am I just an old fogey, unnecessarily hung up on outdated use of English?

Yes you're being unreasonable. The only purpose of language is to convey meaning. Beyond that, it makes no difference.

You understood the meaning perfectly.

I'll never forget during my PhD (not linguistics) being told that "Linguists understand that languages change but it doesn't matter and is, in fact, a wonderful phenomenon. Let the rest of the world fret about it."

Purely guesswork as to if it's applicable, but another mis-remembered quote about not mocking anyone with pigeon English because "they've already mastered one language" seems fairly apt here and the message you received seems to have many markers of the sender being a native speaker of a romantic language and you're being quite sneering OP.

At my opticians customer services consists of the woman at the desk who books appointments.

I wouldn't go back. If, as a business, they're that sloppy with their communication I'd be worried about the quality of all their staff.

I do think they should have tried calling to cancel the appointment first. Fair enough to send a text message if they weren't able to get through or that was the customer's
preferred method of contact, but that doesn't sound like the case here.

Shocking! And depressing.

NewUserNameHere Yes you're being unreasonable. The only purpose of language is to convey meaning. Beyond that, it makes no difference.

There's an entire area of linguistics called pragmatics that deals with the messages conveyed "between the lines", as it were - and that includes unintentional meanings. Like it or not, language does far more than convey meanings - it conveys ideas of competence, age, experience, reliability, and far more besides.

You understood the meaning perfectly. I'll never forget during my PhD (not linguistics) being told that "Linguists understand that languages change but it doesn't matter and is, in fact, a wonderful phenomenon. Let the rest of the world fret about it."

PhD in Linguistics. We also talk about linguistic norms and appropriacies for given contexts and purposes. You would (quite reasonably) be staggered if you received an email diagnosing you with a life-ending illness. You would also be horrified if your wedding invites cam back from the printers littered with typos. You probably wouldn't use really taboo language in front of children. It's not unreasonable for OP to expect the standard of English in a text from a medical business that she pays to reach some basic level of formality and standardness and to judge it accordingly if it falls short.

Purely guesswork as to if it's applicable, but another mis-remembered quote about not mocking anyone with pigeon English

Based on a single text that's a pretty brave conclusion. I'd like to see your evidence that this is pidgin English. I don't see any L2 in there.

because "they've already mastered one language" seems fairly apt here and the message you received seems to have many markers of the sender being a native speaker of a romantic language and you're being quite sneering OP.

Also interesting. Native-language identification of an L1 from an L2 is an interesting area in linguistics. What tells you that this person speaks a Romance language, and wasn't just rushing? It could have started as "I am texting to inform you" (ergo the grammatical error tells us nothing there) and "sorry for inconvenience" also tells us nothing because it's common to drop determiners in shortened messages. What are these many markers you're seeing?

I see at least two possibilities. (1) The person sending the text is a native speaker of English, rushed this out, and/or doesn't care about the presentation anyway. (2) The person sending the text is a non-native speaker of English with a wide range of possible L1s, and should have had their message checked before sending, or shouldn't have been given this task in the first place.

In either case, OP still has the right to form her own judgements.

Odds are that many people wouldn't see the text before they set off for the appointment. A cancellation that does not allow time for a letter should be phoned.

That's terrible.

I'm with you, NewUser. It's not life and death; it's a message that was likely sent from a low wage, poorly educated OR individual who speaks English as a second language. The texts that were sent out were merely trying to stop the customers from wasting their time coming in when their appointments had had to be cancelled for whatever reason. The OP understood the message.

The text has very clearly (IMO) been composed by someone who doesn't speak English as their first language - the "I am regret to inform you" is a dead giveaway there. So I'd give a pass on the awkward construction, although it would bother me.

The idea of cancelling an appt by text with very little notice is a different issue.

In either case, OP still has the right to form her own judgements.

Good ending.

Good rest of it too.

I'm with you on this one. If I received a message like that from a 'professional', they wouldn't see me again

You do know that it wasn't the actual optician who sent that don't you? Most likely it was member of staff who was on minimum wage.
I have worked for all the major chains of opticians and although I personally wouldn't send a text like this I'm not surprised by it.

It's BH Monday. The manager won't be in today I wouldn't think. Chances are that the optician called in sick and they had to get a message out to all the customers as quickly as possible to cancel. Text is the quickest way. Otherwise you start phoning people which mens that you have one member of staff tied up on the phones for the best part of an hour. As it is a BH you are most likely on reduced staff numbers anyway so this has a serious implication on the staffing of the store. Even if you aren't testing you will still have people coming in to collect, buy glasses from an existing prescription and book appointments.

Yes the text wasn't ideal method of communication and the grammar was poor but you understood it.

It's clearly from someone for whom English is a second (or third or fourth) language.

Are you normally so harsh?

For the ones saying it's clearly from someone with English as a second/third/tenth language, no, it really isn't clearly so. It could be, but both of the most egregious errors (i am regret to inform you, sorry for inconvenience) can be readily explained by other factors. The first might have been intended as "I am texting/writing to inform you" and missing "the" out of messages is not remotely surprising.

There is simply not enough evidence to conclude either way.

They probably got their work experience person to do the text.

@Crapuccino

My PhD was in Natural Language Processing but with a heavy slant on the coding side as opposed to the linguistic side. So whilst I'm aware of pragmatics and other areas of linguistics (but thanks for the little intro of yours), it isn't my speciality.

As to arguing about indicators of L1 language in written or verbal L2, I really have better things to do with my time than write about such trivialities with a random person on the internet who doesn't. I had to do a similar task decades ago and it was as boring then as it is now.

Oh Crapuccino I wish I had your knowledge. Very clear explanation, thank you.

Sorry, I meant to address

I see at least two possibilities. (1) The person sending the text is a native speaker of English, rushed this out, and/or doesn't care about the presentation anyway. (2) The person sending the text is a non-native speaker of English with a wide range of possible L1s, and should have had their message checked before sending, or shouldn't have been given this task in the first place.

Of course, as someone with a PhD in Linguistics, you could write 20,000 words discussing this and get nowhere.

I'd write 200 lines of code and give you statistical probabilities as to each scenario but, of course, those in social sciences always consider their brand of non-facts slightly superior (IME).

Yes you're being unreasonable. The only purpose of language is to convey meaning. Beyond that, it makes no difference.

And one thing you didn't learn in your PhD was that standardised spelling and grammar is the root of how we convey meaning, in a way that will be understood, in written language...?

NewUserNameHere - My PhD was in Natural Language Processing but with a heavy slant on the coding side as opposed to the linguistic side. So whilst I'm aware of pragmatics and other areas of linguistics (but thanks for the little intro of yours), it isn't my speciality.

You're welcome.

As to arguing about indicators of L1 language in written or verbal L2, I really have better things to do with my time than write about such trivialities with a random person on the internet who doesn't. I had to do a similar task decades ago and it was as boring then as it is now.

Always good to know that another random stranger on the internet is willing to reach matter-of-fact conclusions on a specialist topic without being a specialist in it, and without being willing to provide evidence for those claims.

Of course, as someone with a PhD in Linguistics, you could write 20,000 words discussing this and get nowhere.

Another remarkable conclusion given that you don't know what I specialise in. As it happens, some of my work also branches into NLP so I'm only too familiar with literally hundreds of thousands of words written in this field that has also gone absolutely nowhere. No scientific field is without its waffling bollocks.

I'd write 200 lines of code and give you statistical probabilities as to each scenario but, of course, those in social sciences always consider their brand of non-facts slightly superior (IME).

Ah, the old social versus hard sciences snobbery. Oh well. As it happens, I think each field (linguistics versus NLP) has its own strengths and weaknesses. I think the black-box algorithms that characterise some parts of NLP are highly problematic. However, I also think that the cherry-picked non-represenative samples that characterise some parts of of linguistics are highly problematic. I write neither field off, but I also don't think either is flawless. If there is a sense of superiority being conveyed here, it's probably coming from the person who feels that 200 lines of code and statistical probabilities are more likely to arrive at The Answer when dealing with something as messy as language.

Apologies to OP for the derailment.

are they @threelegedhaggis

so you were left entirely bemused by the message?

PhDs are extremely specific (I get the impression I'm addressing someone without one) so I can quickly tell you that whilst I am entirely aware that standardisation of spelling and grammar are very important and need intensive academic study when implementing any form of NLP, they are not the root of how we convey meaning and whilst crapuccino clearly out linguists me, I'm sure they agree with me here.

Hope that helps.

If there is a sense of superiority being conveyed here, it's probably coming from the person who feels that 200 lines of code and statistical probabilities are more likely to arrive at The Answer

I'm so pleased we could come to a conclusion.