Influences of Texting
Influences of Texting
Does texting have an influence on our everyday language? David Crystal disagrees that texting will not destroy or impair our language in his article “2B or Not 2B”.He argues that text messaging could be beneficial to our language; saying that texting can actually “improve your skills to read or write, even with children” (345). Limiting what your text is going to say or look like depends on the creativity and the way you think to send the message. One other point that he makes is that when a person is texting they are also making sure that the receiver of the text can understand what is being said, and abbreviations are not as new as you think they are. Texting is just another form of communication with someone instead of picking up the phone, or sending a letter. So it will not corrupt the language we use today. It takes up too much time to sit down and write a letter then to send a text message (SMS). From my personal experiences I can confirm that texting does not corrupt or destroy the language. The way you text and the way that you would write an essay are two different types of language just put into different forms. He showed results on a test linking pre-teenage children between texting and literacy and the outcome out it was “the more abbreviations in the [children’s] messages, the higher they scored on the test of reading and vocabulary. The children who were better at spelling and writing used the most textism. And the younger they received their first phone the higher the scores” (345). His testing results support his theory that texting does not corrupt or destroy the use of language, but improves and help’s it. To first know how to abbreviate you have to know the language first then you can go from there once it is learned the correct way. Crystal then reminds the reads that abbreviations have been in for longer then we think, like using initials for whole words “gf” for
Does texting have an influence on our everyday language? David Crystal disagrees that texting will not destroy or impair our language in his article “2B or Not 2B”.He argues that text messaging could be beneficial to our language; saying that texting can actually “improve your skills to read or write, even with children” (345). Limiting what your text is going to say or look like depends on the creativity and the way you think to send the message. One other point that he makes is that when a person is texting they are also making sure that the receiver of the text can understand what is being said, and abbreviations are not as new as you think they are. Texting is just another form of communication with someone instead of picking up the phone, or sending a letter. So it will not corrupt the language we use today. It takes up too much time to sit down and write a letter then to send a text message (SMS). From my personal experiences I can confirm that texting does not corrupt or destroy the language. The way you text and the way that you would write an essay are two different types of language just put into different forms. He showed results on a test linking pre-teenage children between texting and literacy and the outcome out it was “the more abbreviations in the [children’s] messages, the higher they scored on the test of reading and vocabulary. The children who were better at spelling and writing used the most textism. And the younger they received their first phone the higher the scores” (345). His testing results support his theory that texting does not corrupt or destroy the use of language, but improves and help’s it. To first know how to abbreviate you have to know the language first then you can go from there once it is learned the correct way. Crystal then reminds the reads that abbreviations have been in for longer then we think, like using initials for whole words “gf” for