You are on page 1of 6

Michaela Cooper Sue Briggs English 1010 18 November 2013 11:30 Synthesis/Exploration You young people and your

fancy devices! Do you ever actually have face-toface conversations anymore? If Im ever caught shooting off a quick text or email by my grandfather, this is the kind of outburst I can almost always expect to receive. Hell rant for ages about the ever-decreasing writing and communication skills of the younger generations and how the English language is going to potall the evils that come along with electronic communication. At times I cant help but think, is he right? I mean, I know there are obvious changes due to new (and some not-so-new) technology, but are these changes really all bad? Would we be better off without them? Or are they not as bad as some would make them out to be? The piece that led me to begin researching this topic was David Crystals article, 2b or Not 2b. Crystal begins by pointing out that new technology has always aroused suspicion, but people have always eventually warmed up to those devices. He claims that the popular beliefs people have about the written language as seen on mobile phone screens are wrong. In fact, Crystal states, There is increasing evidence that it helps rather than hinders literacy(337). He explains that the abbreviations found in SMS language have actually been used long before the cell

phone was even invented. He goes on to say that texting is really just language in evolution.

I found Crystals piece rather intriguing, considering the only remotely positive views toward texting I had come across up to that point had been from fellow teenagers, not successful, well educated adults. Before reading this, I had no idea that abbreviations had been around for that long, but it makes perfect sense to me now they didnt just magically appear when texting did. People had to have known about them beforehand. It was also surprising that texting seems to improve literacy. While that may be true, does it help with writing as well? The next piece I looked at was I H8 Txt Msgs: How Texting Is Wrecking Our Language by John Humphrys. I decided to check out this article because it was what David Crystal had been responding to when he wrote 2b or Not 2b, and I figured I should educate myself on more than one viewpoint. Humphrys starts out his article by complaining about how recent volumes of English dictionaries have ditched the hyphen because, according to the editor of the Oxford English dictionary, Angus Stevenson, people nowadays simply dont have the time to hit the hyphen key. Humphrys responds to this explanation with, Have you ever heard anything quite so daft?(pp2). He goes on to accuse texters of Destroying [our language]: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences, raping our vocabulary(pp2) He feels very strongly that the written language is going severly downhill because of texting and SMS language.

I would agree with Humphrys that the reasoning for getting rid of the hyphen is a little absurd there isnt time to hit one measly little button? Itll take two seconds. Whats next, no more commas? No more capital letters? However, I also thought he was greatly exaggerating when it comes doen to the overall effect texting has on our language. He did not take into consideration, as Crystal did, that people actually do know that they need to be understood, and they formulate their messages accordingly. The English language is changing, no doubt, but saying it is being destroyed seems to me like a bit of a stretch. Another piece I looked at during my research was Megan Gannons, Texting May Lead to Bad Grammar. This piece mainly focused on the connection between language skills and techspeak. Gannon describes a study done by Northwestern researcher, Drew Cingel: a grammar assessment test was given to a group of middle school students, as well as a survey asking them to detail the number of texts they send out and receive and other similar questions. The results of this study indicated that there is a direct link between frequent texting and poor grammar scores. In addition, how poorly students performed on the grammar assessment test was also seemingly affected by both sending and receiving text messages full of techspeak. Researchers also noticed that students seemed to have difficulties switching between techspeak and formal grammar rules in their writing. This piece seemed to be more informational than opinionated or persuasive. It also made me give John Humphrys opinion a little more consideration because at that point I had seen evidence to support it. If children are so fully exposed to SMS

language, how can their writing be any different? Would my own writing suffer if I had been texting at an early age? OMG, LOL: texting helps language evolve, by Natasha Davis, was the next piece I looked into. Davis begins by introducing the issue: Recently, there is a fear that texting is slowly but surely killing the English language. Her next statement gets straight to the point with her thesis, which is, texting should be considered an evolutionary step in English vocabulary(pp1). She goes on to say that language has become increasingly complex, and that texting is an example of that complexity. She continues by pointing out that texting allows us to communicate with much more efficiency. Davis also mentions that critics claim that texting kills language via emotional stagnation. She counters this by arguing that because texting doesnt allow for facial expressions or voice inflections, texters learn to use words to articulate exactly how they feel or use symbols to convey their emotions. Additionally, Davis claims that people are able to remain more connected with one another through phones and computers, not less. She says that languages must change along with culture, and that texting doesnt automatically deprive us of anything. According to Davis, it allows for more options to be explored, and it allows for us to maintain our current language while adding new words to the mix(pp2). This piece reminded me of David Crystals article because they both emphasize the positive things that come from texting. In addition, both authors state that texting is language in evolution, and not language in destruction, as John

Humphrys would suggest. With so many positive attributes of texting presented to me, I wondered: do the pros of texting outweigh the cons? So far, they seem to do so. Palash Ghoshs article, Texting: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, which was both informational and opinionated, took a slightly different approach. Ghosh states, In any case, text messages are far superior to actual voice transmitters for a number of reasons one has to get to the point quickly and write concisely. Too many people ramble on endlessly and fail to express themselves clearly and logically when they speak. When one is forced to write a message, they lose the luxury of abusing the English language and of pointless meandering(pp1). He also says, But there is of course a darker side to this texting craze(pp1). Rather than taking sides claiming good or evil, Ghosh portrays texting as useful in todays world, just not in every way. Like the title says, it tells of the good and the bad of texting. The good: its convenient, comfortable, and concise. The bad: it can be addictive, alienating, and many messages are inane and pointless. Ghosh himself considers texting to be useful, but he wishes people wouldnt use them so much. This piece caught my attention because unlike most of the other articles, it has both positive and negative points. Instead of leaning more toward one side or the other, its fairly close to the center. I thought Ghosh was very accurate in his portrayal of texting. It, like most things in life, can be good, but also flawed. The point Ghosh made that captured my attention more than anything else was a point none of the other sources even hinted at speaking can butcher the English language just as much as texting can. So why are people so concerned with texting when some dont even use proper grammar when speaking?

While all of the articles I studied have good, sound points, I would have to say that I agree the most with David Crystals article, and I liked Natasha Davis as well. Language has changed so much over the years and it will continue to change as time goes on. The positive things like reading comprehension increase, concise writing, and our increasing connection with others outweigh the negative things by far. While not everything about texting is great, its definitely a positive change in language

You might also like