Could Texting be Destroying Your Grammar?
Today, almost everyone in America texts. The number of texts sent each day surpasses the population of the world. IM, Email, and other forms of digital communication are also very prevalent. Could it be possible that activities that are so common are hurting the grammar and spelling abilities of the people who do it? If you are in school, that may be what your teacher is telling you, but do not believe it. The idea that digital messaging will hurt you ability to do formal writing is a false construct.
Constructs, as described in Writing on Writing are "mental frameworks that people build in order to make sense of the world around them"(35). In other words, they are misconceptions about writing that are often believed or even taught in schools.
Multiple studies have been carried out suggesting that there is no negative relationship between texting quality and formal writing quality in native English speakers. In the article written by Latisha Asmaak Shafie, Norizul Azida, and Nazira Osman "SMS Language and College Writing: The Language of the College Texters", they describe a study at Universiti Teknologi Mara in Perlis, Malaysia. They examined texts sent in English and how they correlate to spelling and grammar in formal writing. 264 texters participated in the study, 94 being male and 170 being female. They were ages 18-22. They conclude that "There was not significant differences in grammar and spelling which revealed that frequency of texting had no effect on their grammar and spelling. Frequency of texting only had effects on grammar and spelling competencies on students whose language and communication skills at beginner level"(30). The study, being undertaken in Malaysia, contained speakers native to English and those not native to English. This conclusion supports that people who already know the rules of a language will not forget those rules because of texting.
In the article "The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children's reading, spelling and phonological processing skills" the authors C. Wood, E. Jackson, L. Hart, B. Plester, and L. Wilde narrate a study conducted by Coventry University in which 9 and 10 year old students were give mobile phones with only texting service for 10 weeks, only to be used on weekends. With periodic English exams, the children with the phones did not on average score any lower than the control group, children without mobile phones.
This study backs up Naomi S. Baron's article "Instant Messaging and the Future of Language" where she states that "Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of their [students nine or 10] teachers, not wanting to be branded as troglodytes out of touch with contemporary culture, tolerate IM novelties in classroom written assignments"(31). She continues to write that that means "No harm, but only if these same teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well"(31).
On this second point I disagree with Baron. Even at a young age students need to grasp the concept of discourse community (not necessarily knowing the word and its meaning but knowing who you are writing for and how they will judge your writing). Discourse community, as defined by James Porter is "a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated"(WAW 91). In other words, whoever that will read, judge (grade), or discuss your document is the discourse community that you are writing for. When texting (unless you are texting about a formal matter) your discourse community is whoever you are texting. What students of all ages need to learn is to change how they write based on what discourse community they are writing for.
Teachers telling young children that it is alright to use digital messaging slang in school writing could lead to those students not learning the proper rules and spellings of words in the English language. Getting in the habit of using improper spelling and grammar in formal writing at a young age could have severe negative affects on someone's writing ability in the future. Using improper spelling and grammar in digital messaging will only not affect language abilities if you already have a firm grasp on the language and can draw the line when switching between discourse communities.
Multiple studies have been carried out suggesting that there is no negative relationship between texting quality and formal writing quality in native English speakers. In the article written by Latisha Asmaak Shafie, Norizul Azida, and Nazira Osman "SMS Language and College Writing: The Language of the College Texters", they describe a study at Universiti Teknologi Mara in Perlis, Malaysia. They examined texts sent in English and how they correlate to spelling and grammar in formal writing. 264 texters participated in the study, 94 being male and 170 being female. They were ages 18-22. They conclude that "There was not significant differences in grammar and spelling which revealed that frequency of texting had no effect on their grammar and spelling. Frequency of texting only had effects on grammar and spelling competencies on students whose language and communication skills at beginner level"(30). The study, being undertaken in Malaysia, contained speakers native to English and those not native to English. This conclusion supports that people who already know the rules of a language will not forget those rules because of texting.
In the article "The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children's reading, spelling and phonological processing skills" the authors C. Wood, E. Jackson, L. Hart, B. Plester, and L. Wilde narrate a study conducted by Coventry University in which 9 and 10 year old students were give mobile phones with only texting service for 10 weeks, only to be used on weekends. With periodic English exams, the children with the phones did not on average score any lower than the control group, children without mobile phones.
This study backs up Naomi S. Baron's article "Instant Messaging and the Future of Language" where she states that "Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of their [students nine or 10] teachers, not wanting to be branded as troglodytes out of touch with contemporary culture, tolerate IM novelties in classroom written assignments"(31). She continues to write that that means "No harm, but only if these same teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well"(31).
On this second point I disagree with Baron. Even at a young age students need to grasp the concept of discourse community (not necessarily knowing the word and its meaning but knowing who you are writing for and how they will judge your writing). Discourse community, as defined by James Porter is "a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated"(WAW 91). In other words, whoever that will read, judge (grade), or discuss your document is the discourse community that you are writing for. When texting (unless you are texting about a formal matter) your discourse community is whoever you are texting. What students of all ages need to learn is to change how they write based on what discourse community they are writing for.
Teachers telling young children that it is alright to use digital messaging slang in school writing could lead to those students not learning the proper rules and spellings of words in the English language. Getting in the habit of using improper spelling and grammar in formal writing at a young age could have severe negative affects on someone's writing ability in the future. Using improper spelling and grammar in digital messaging will only not affect language abilities if you already have a firm grasp on the language and can draw the line when switching between discourse communities.
Works Cited
Baron, Naomi S. "Instant Messaging And The Future Of Language." Communications Of The ACM 48.7 (2005): 29-31. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.
L Wilde, et al. "The Effect Of Text Messaging On 9-And 10-Year-Old Children's Reading, Spelling And Phonological Processing Skills." Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning 27.1 (n.d.): 28-36. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.
Shafie, Latisha Asmaak, Norizul Azida, and Nazira Osman. "SMS Language And College Writing: The Languages Of The College Texters." International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning 5.1 (2010): 26-31. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.
Wardle, Elizabeth and Downs, Doug, eds. Writings about Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. Print.
Hi Roland,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good draft of the Intro/Conversation for your project. I think your intro does is pretty effective and setting the territory and inviting the reader to consider your topic and your conversation deals with a number of sources that support the argument you want to make. Some issues with quoting / formats, but we will talk more about these in class, esp. during the workshop coming up. I really like that you're pulling in all these quotes. One thing you need to think about. If you want to demonstrate the "conversation" - what sources support a position that might be in disagreement with your own (and with the sources you cite)? Do we get a sense of the full conversation if every source you examine seem to be saying similar things? I'd like you to try to find some sources dealing with some different perspectives to round out and add tension to your argument.
I really like how you bring in the concept of discourse community. It might make sense to talk about technology too. And how that plays in to the different conventions of texting. I think a "discourse community" can be very much governed by the types of writing technologies, media, and genres that are common to that as well. So try to think beyond just audience. The cellphone/smartphone itself is a significant agent in determining what is conventional for this type of discourse.
A couple of sources you might play with from the book besides Porter.
Swales "The Concept of Discourse Community" (in WAW)
Baron "From Pencils to Pixels" (in WAW)
Good work so far. Keep it up.