By Ashley Grafton
 |
People who talk of texting as a ‘new language’, implying that the whole of the writing system is altered, are inculcating a myth. —David Crystal Image: ( cafepress.com) |
T |
echnology has become a driving force in our society today. From new types of computers that arrive on the market each month to the hottest new cellphone that everyone must have, gadgets have become commonplace in our lives. Along with these gadgets, a “new way”[1] of communicating has also arisen. The concept of “textspeak” has been (forever?) etched into the fabric of human society today. But what are the ramifications of such stylized shorthand? Can it, will it, have an effect on the way that we as humans communicate with one another on a deeper level? Along with concerns that many have about the effects of textspeak on language, can billions of texts that have been sent be considered literacy of any kind?
When home Internet access became available to virtually every home in the mid-1990s, so did the ability to chat with friends and loved ones using written words rather than voice to communicate. Email and then instant messaging made it possible to talk to anyone, anywhere, just with the touch of a keyboard. Along with ease of access, the world was also introduced to the idea of computer shorthand (i.e. “LOL”-laughing out loud; “LMAO”- laughing my ass off; and “OMG”- oh, my God). These shortened forms of popular exclamations allow, not only for a quicker way to express (per examples above) laughter or shock, but also allow for emotion to be “seen” through words. In the early 2000s, a new, new form of quick communication became available: the text message or SMS (short message service). Now the convenience of an instant message became even more convenient—people could send them on the go, from any cellphone with a texting plan. Crispin Thurlow, author of “Generation Txt? The Sociolinguistics of Young People's Text-messaging,” discusses the beginning of text messaging. “Initially intended for purely commercial purposes (Bellis, 2002), text-messaging is in fact yet another example of how the human need for social intercourse – a kind of ‘communication imperative’ – bends and ultimately co-opts technology to suit its own ends, regardless of any commercial (e.g. the telephone) or military (e.g. the internet) ambition for the technology” (Thurlow sect. 1.1). Sending text messages has seemingly become the preferred method of communication for many people around the world. “As of June 2008, over 75 Billion text messages are sent every month compared to just 18 Billion in December 2006” (“CellSign.com”). These figures are for the United States alone. Furthermore, “135 billion text messages sent worldwide during the first 3 months of 2004 (Cellular Online, 2004)” (Plester, Wood and Bell 137). While these statistics are astonishing numbers themselves, the numbers today continue to rise. This number only continues to rise exponentially. It is now estimated that “8 trillion text messages will be sent in 2011. But consumers are also embracing mobile email, IM and MMS rapidly” ("Global Mobile”). Mobile email, IM and MMS may cut down, some, on the number of text massages, the chances of text messages disappearing altogether is unlikely.
According to the New York Times, “Mobile text messaging, the same 160 - character dispatches first popularized by nimble fingered teenagers, may be the closest thing in the information - overloaded digital marketing world to a guaranteed read. . . . It’s also the one form of communication that many people are tethered to 24/7. Which helps explain why, at a time when in - boxes fill with hundreds of never - opened e-mail messages from direct marketers, 97 percent of all SMS marketing messages are opened (83 percent within one hour), according to the latest cell -carrier research” (Cohen, 2009) (Nielsen and Webb 18).
 |
| (Txtng The Gr8 Db8) |
With so many messages being sent every day (every hour, every minute?) it can easily be assumed that people would want to be able to quickly get their message across. For this reason, many of the shorthand phrases that were (are) used for instant messaging were carried over.
What do people fear from texting or textspeak in the first place? In reality, those who do fear what texting is doing to our society have developed backing points to their argument. These points—which I would label myths and/or fears—take many forms. In fact, there are many myths/fears about how text messaging will affect future generations. The myths/fears range anywhere from fears about school performance down to the ability to perform sentence level functions in a given language. According to David Crystal, author of Txting: The Gr8 Db8, these myths/fears include:
- This will inevitably erode children’s ability to spell, punctuate, and capitalize correctly – an ability already thought to be poor.
- They will inevitably transfer these new habits into the rest of their schoolwork.
- This will inevitably give them poorer marks in examinations.
- A new generation of adults will inevitably grow up unable to write proper English.
- Eventually the language as a whole will inevitably decline. (151)
Having said this, however, there have not been enough studies[2] done to know whether any of these myths/fears have any validity. The problem with fearing an overall change in the language is that the English language is always changing; English has never stayed exactly the same form of English for indefinite length of time. Since many people do have a fear of what effect textspeak has on spoken and written language, maybe the easiest solution to the problem is to create a standardized (as much as a language system can be standardized anyway) system of tech[3] language. “In her paper on the language of email, Baron (1998) sought to grapple with the idea that email might herald a new linguistic genre; her conclusion was ultimately that email language rather represented a creolizing blend of written and spoken discourse” (Thurlow sect. 4.2). Maybe having such thoughts about texting could act as a way to lessen fears that some people may have about the effects on the language. With the aforementioned myths/fears about the effects that texting may have on education, there is little left but to conclude that text messages have no place in our society as literacy. That assumption, however, is one myth that can be debunked.
To many, a text message—with its shorthand and informality—can hardly be considered any form of literacy. But people are proving that belief wrong. In 2002 The Guardian, a popular and highly regarded British newspaper, held a text messaging poetry contest. A poem as a text message? Unheard of. “The requirement was to write a poem within the 160-character constraint of the mobile phone screen. It proved a popular idea. In the first year there were nearly 7,500 entries” (Crystal 14). According to Crystal, two types of poems were submitted: ones that made use of texting shorthand and ones that used standardized English. The winner of the competition, Hetty
Hughes, uses textspeak to pen her poem:
txtin iz messin,
mi headn’me englis,
try2rite essays,
they all come out txtis.
gran not plsed w/letters shes getn,
swears i wrote better
b4 comin2uni.
&she’s African (Crystal 14).
However, the runner up in the competetion, Steve Kilgallon, does not:
Sheffield
Sun on maisonette windows
sends speed-camera flashes tinting through tram cables
startling drivers
dragging rain-waterfalls in their wheels
I drive on (Crystal 14).
 |
| (Txtng The Gr8 Db8) |
People who study, read or write poetry know that poems come in all forms and styles. Who can say that a poem that uses informal language or characters is any less of a poem? Both of the previous poems are able to say what the poet is feeling, regardless of the format that the words are written in. Poetry is not the only form of literature that has been translated for “textual” use. Cell phone novels have also been penned. Cell phone novels became popular among the Japanese due to long commutes on cramped trains that did not allow for room to open a book. “Lisa Katayman defines the Japanese cell phone novel as containing ‘between 200 and 500 pages, with each page containing about 500 Japanese characters.’… Cell phone novels are predominantly dialogue, very much like a graphic novel, but without the illustrations” (Clark 29). Not only have cell phone novels been written and read on cell phone screens, but the popularity of such books has translated them into print form. “Five of Japan's 2007 top ten bestselling books began as cell phone novels. Rin wrote If You, one of the bestsellers, when she was a senior in high school, while commuting to her part-time job… Nevertheless, her [Rin’s] novel, full of emoticons, published as a 142-page hardcover book, sold more than 400,000 copies as of early 2008” (Clark 29-30). While Clark points out that Rin’s novel contains emoticons, she does not mention whether any sort of textspeak has been used. If the trend were to catch on among American teenagers, which Clark suggests in her article, it would be safe to assume that some form of textspeak would be included—if only for a quicker way to write. No one would suggest that published poems and novels are not examples of literacy, but does (should) the format in which they are written have any effect on their qualification? Furthermore, if there can be a form of texting literacy can that also suggest that there can be benefits of texting on education and/or literacy?
What inherently is wrong with textspeak? From my research it can be concluded that the main problems with textspeak is its informality, the issues that surrounding meanings, and the appropriateness of use. Unless the reader is part of ‘Generation txt,’ there is a strong likelihood that the meaning of certain text abbreviations will be misconstrued. The inability to understand what is being said when textspeak abbreviations are being used is one of the main complaints as to why such abbreviations are a problem. Echoing this belief is John Humphrys, writer for the UK Mail Online, in his article “I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language,” fumes of text message ambiguity:
Then there's the problem of ambiguity. With my vast knowledge of text language I had assumed LOL meant 'lots of love', but now I discover it means 'laugh out loud'. Or at least it did the last time I asked. But how would you know? Instead of aiding communication it can be a barrier. I can work out BTW (by the way) but I was baffled by IMHO U R GR8. It means: "In my humble opinion you are great." But, once again, how would you know? (“I H8”)
Humphrys’ claim is valid: how are we supposed to inherently know what these abbreviations are intended to mean? (Humphrys’ article in its entirtiy can be read here). Does this automatically, however, mean that textspeakism should be excluded from society? No, it does not. Nevertheless, ambiguity of meaning is far from the only concern when it comes to textspeakisms. Children’s capacity to learn is also a concern. “Complaints are made about children’s poor literacy, and then, when a technology arrives that provides fresh and motivating opportunities to read and write, such as email, chat, blogging, and texting, complaints are made about that” (Crystal 157). This suggests that the true complaint lies with the medium (i.e. email, blogging, etc.) rather than what is directly being said—in whatever form—inside of the medium. Crystal goes further on to comment that “[t]he problems associated with the new medium – such as new abbreviation styles – are highlighted and the potential benefits ignored” (Crystal 157). If we can accept that there can be benefits to using a textspeak language, what could those benefits look like? One suggested benefit of using textspeak would actually be a higher intelligence. Crystal believes that people who use textspeak ‘correctly’ can be deemed as more knowledgeable of the uses of conventional English.
I do not see how texting could be a significant factor when discussing children who have real problems with literacy. If you have difficulty with reading and writing, you are hardly going to be predisposed to use a technology which demands sophisticated abilities in reading and writing. And if you do start to text, I would expect the additional experience of writing to be a help, rather than a hindrance. (Crystal 157)
 | |
| Image: (Txtng: The Gr8 Db8) When using text language or ’textisms’ children revert to a phonetic language, which it has been suggested may have a negative effect on literacy (Ihnatko, 1997), but equally, may not affect spelling (Dixon and Kaminska, 2007) Beverly Plester and Clare Wood |
This theory is echoed by a study carried out by Beverly Plester, Clare Wood, and others from Coventry University in 2006-7. Though the course of the study, Plester et al. discovered a “strong positive links between the use of text language and the skills underlying success in standard English in a group of pre-teenage children” (Crystal 161). In the study, “children were asked to compose text messages that they might write in a particular situation – such as texting a friend to say that they had missed their bus and they were going to be late. The more text abbreviations they used in their messages, the higher they scored on tests of reading and vocabulary (Crystal 161). In addition the same children “were better at spelling and writing used the most texting abbreviations” (Crystal 161-62). This study implies that in order to make the most out of textspeak, a user must first have a firm grasp in their home language. In theory, maybe, instead of criticizing or punishing those who frequently use textspeak, there could be a rise proper grammar, spelling and semantics education. Through the course of this education, there could be an explanation of why such knowledge is important—including the benefit of being a better texter. In a way, a new trend is beginning that may bring some grounds to this theory. In October 2011, Jossey-Bass Publishing released a book to help teachers learn how to and given ideas on how to integrate cell phones into their lesson plans. The 304 page book—titled Teaching Generation Text—provides everything from ideas on how to use cell phones as learning tools to how teachers themselves can use the various tools. Not only is the book (from the short one chapter excerpt I was able to read) filled with useful ideas, but it is very reasonably priced ($14.82 and $9.99 for hardback and Kindle versions respectively) at Amazon.com (for more information about the book, please follow the link provided).
 |
| (chris.pirillo.com) |
When I started writing this paper…article…creation of its own, I had a completely different mindset than I have at writing’s end. I very much thought that there would be a plethora of information on how teenagers are butchering the English language (and probably many other languages as well) by trying to incorporate textspeak not only into their everyday speak, but into academic writings as well. To my shock, most of the information that I compiled to cite in this writing told me exactly the opposite; or at least if it is happening, there has not been enough of it to publish on. Having said this, however, I am friends with enough people who use them to know that textspeak shortcuts ARE ending up in very day speak. A day does not pass when I don’t hear an “OMG” OR “LOLZ” from a number of them.
Some people dislike texting. Some are bemused by it. Some love it. I am fascinated by it, for it is the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt language to suit the demands of diverse settings. In texting we are seeing, in a small way, language in evolution. (Crystal 175)
 |
| (Teaching Generation Text) |
But is this really a concern to the whole of the English language? Probably not. This is because over the history of the English language, it has changed so many times that the original or pure English language is all but extinct. The ability to evolve has never hurt the English language; it has only acted as a way to make the language stronger. Who can say if textspeak will make the language stronger or if, eventually, it will have a negative effect; I’ll leave that ? up 2 U, my readr. Confused by some of the lingo in this essay? No problem!! MadhouseBeyond.com can help! In fact, you could turn this whole paper into textspeak if you wanted to…but why? But it can help you decipher those pesky text messages if you’re a bit lost.
Works Cited
"CellSigns - Company :: Mobile Statistics." CellSigns - Mobile Marketing, Mobile Real Estate Search, Mobile Newspapers, Text Message and Mobile Marketing Platform. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cellsigns.com/industry.shtml>.
Clark, Ruth C. "Cell Phone Novels: 140 Characters at a Time." Young Adult Library Services 7.2 (2009): 29-31. WilsonWeb Journal Directory. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.librarylink.uncc.edu>.
Crystal, David, and Edward McLachlan. Txtng the Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Kindle.
"Global Mobile Statistics 2011: All Quality Mobile Marketing Research, Mobile Web Stats, Subscribers, Ad Revenue, Usage, Trends… | MobiThinking." Home | MobiThinking. Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats>.
Humphrys, John. "I H8 Txt Msgs: How Texting Is Wrecking Our Language." Home | Mail Online. 24 Sept. 2007. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483511/I-h8-txt-msgs-How-texting-wrecking-language.html>.
Nielsen, Lisa, and Willyn H. Webb. Teaching Generation Text: Using Cell Phones to Enhance Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011. Amazon. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Generation-Text-Learning-Jossey-Bass/dp/1118076877/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322679411&sr=1-1>.
Plester, Beverly, Clare Wood, and Victoria Bell. "Txt Msg N School Literacy: Does Texting and Knowledge of Text Abbreviations Adversely Affect Children’s Literacy Attainment?" Literacy 42.3 (2008): 137-44. EBSCOhost. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
"Txt Speak Translator." Madhouse Beyond. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.madhousebeyond.com/?mode=txtspeak>.
Thurlow, Crispin. "Generation Txt? The Sociolinguistics of Young People's Text-messaging." Discourse Analysis Online 1.1 (2003). Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.mendeley.com/research/generation-txt-sociolinguistics-young-peoples-textmessaging/>.
[1] I use the phrase “new way” loosely. Of course Internet communication is nothing new now—to the current generation—but in the grand scheme of things, since the invention of the telephone, written communication has lost popularity. It can be argued that, in a way, text messaging has become the new letter; just faster and less eloquent.
[2] In the research phase of creating this essay, I did A LOT of my own research to see what had been published on the subject of texting/textspeek on literacy. While I was able to find quite a bit of information, most of them, in one way or another, quoted that there had not been enough studies to know whether there would be an effect on the education of children by texting. I can only assume that this is due to the relative newness of the popularity of texting. Texting “hit the scene” around 2002-2003, so we are just now hitting the 10-year mark. For all I know, there has been a long-term study in the works that no one has published to this date, or researchers did not notice a correlation until several years after the advent of texting. I’m sure that much more information will come out in the areas, not only of texting in general, but also in the link between texting and education/literacy.
[3] I am using the term ‘tech language’ here loosely. I do not want the term confused with technical language or technical jargon; however, I want it to take on its own characteristics to describe a technology based writing system. Possibly, the phrase could be used as a way to describe the various textspeeks that are found in text messages, IMs (instant messages) and emails.
