What Is Texting Killing Language

The video, “Txtng is killing language. JK!!!,” by John McWhorter uses language to persuade citizens. McWhorter speaks to persuade his audience to consider that texting is not killing language. In his speech, McWhorter also gives examples to why texting is not killing language. For example, he states that texting is a new language that young people of this generation use. How can texting be killing language if it is a completely new one? This persuades the audience to think that texting is not destroying language, and in fact, is a new one.

In the article “2b or not 2b”, David Crystal begins with discussing how others such as John Humphry argued that texters are “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago. They are destroying it” (335). This is also the common belief of most people. People often argue about the bad points of technology over our language. However, Crystal believes that texting can improve children’s ability to read and write rather than hinder their literacy as many people claim. He also argues that not all texting are done in abbreviated words. Complex messages and institutional messages are often texted in standard form of

Authors such as David Crystal along with language teachers like Shirley Holm supply Cullington with valuable experiences and opinions on why texting benefits young adults. Cullington picked up that texting allows students to have a “comfortable form of communication” (365) which aids them in their growth in the English subject. After the author gathered a great number of sources and opinions from either side, she then decided to conduct her own experiment to which she got her own results.

We as a society are evolving with each generation to come. We are getting stronger, faster, and smarter. Just as cell phones are no longer square blocks with numbers on them and TV’s are not in black and white, writing itself has also evolved. Once upon a time many wrote and spoke in a Shakespearean form of language and over the years it has evolved into something we call modern English. In recent years, technology has advanced greatly and cell phones have become one of our primary use of communication. With cell phones came a new form of writing called text messaging. Text messaging is used to send short, concise messages to anyone around the world. Often times text messages involve the use of abbreviations which stand for different things and also involves frequent use of emoji’s as a form of expression. This form of writing is now considered informal writing and is not acceptable in academic settings. In Michaela Cullington’s essay “Does Texting Affect Writing?” she touches on both sides of whether texting is hindering students writing or if it’s actually having a positive effect. She then makes is clear that she believes most students are educated enough to know when text speak is appropriate and when it’s not so therefore it has no effect on students. Although, I agree with her thesis, she lacks credibility due to her insufficient evidence. In addition, I also believe

Texting has fast become the preferred form of communication for young adults; however, students need to be dissuaded from texting during class because of the result in loss of valuable class time, lack of effective communication skills, and consistent use of improper English leading to a negative impact on students’ learning.

In the article “2b or Not 2b” by David Crystal, he explains why he thinks texting will not destroy language. He infers that texting adds a new facet to communication. Crystal starts by establishing an opposing argument in the introduction when he mentions John Humphrys’ “I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language” (335). One can deduce from the title of the article—and Humphrys’ description of texters as “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago.” (335)—that Humphrys does not support texting. Crystal goes on to mention John Sutherland, another man who describes texting as “bleak, bald, sad shorthand. Drab shrinktalk … Linguistically it’s all pig’s ear … it masks dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness. Texting is penmanship for illiterates.”

Recently I read ‘Feed’, by M.T Anderson, a dystopian novel about how advancement in technology is negatively affecting our society and the way we communicate with each other. The author led me to believe that these advancements, such as texting, are causing our language to deteriorate. Further research proves that texting may be improving and many are learning to accept. When the era of the written word dies, will we be left with an illiterate generation with poor grammar? Students are texting constantly. In and out of class, it is becoming a bigger and bigger part of their lives. Some might say that we are creating a less literate generation, but research shows that texting improves student literacy for three reasons. First, texting improves

After reading Texting and Writing, by Michaela Cullington, I do not agree with many of her viewpoints. Cullington argues that texting does not affect a students writing. Textspeak, the abbreviation and shortening of words like used when writing a text message, does affect the way a student writes because they use the abbreviations, and their writings tend to lack punctuation. When a writer uses excessive abbreviations on a regular basis they can get stuck in the writer’s head causing them to use them in all of their writings. Cullington did make good points of her own opinion on texting and writing in her piece, but I disagree with her and believe that texting and

Texting has become a common way of communicating between peers. It isn’t just used to chat with your friends, it has also become essential in the workplace, creating a bigger connection between work and your personal life. An article was published on The Liberal on the risks of texting, but I actually believe texting is great for us. It has made communication easier and its negative impacts are very avoidable. The risks mentioned in the article are the driving impairments, the physical injuries, and the effect it can have on your grammar. Although these risks seem dangerous, they can be avoided easily.

We hear a lot these days about texting - the ability to get/send a text message from/to anyone, anywhere, via wireless networks and some kind of portable device, which might be a fancy pager, a digital cellphone or a palmtop computer. The technology is here, though it doesn't work everywhere yet. We could argue about how affordable or reliable texting is, but we can't deny it exists and will probably become more widespread. But is this a good thing? In my opinion, there are certain ways in which texting affects many teenagers.

Society may say that texting is bad and causes kids to become disengaged from the world, and ruining literacy skills. However texting is the most common form of mobile communication. It has opened many doors forcing schools to incorporate technology into their academic work instead of ban it. Texting is here to stay and has a number of good and bad benefits.

When most people think about teen literacy, they refer to texting. Most people think that texting harms teenagers, but in reality it does not. Text messaging is perhaps one of the things people do most daily, especially teenagers. These days teens are nearly inseparable from their phones. Teenagers are growing with an increasing rate with these cell phones. Teens depend on their cell phones to get through day to day things dealing with personal and professional lives. Although when people think about texting, it is not a bad thing. It has its pros and cons, and to think it has more pros than anything. Texting is very much influenced by advancement in technology. Experts say that technology has put a new emphasis on writing and reading in today 's generation. Technology also adds new layers to understanding and what is means to be literate. It requires the combination of manual, visual, and cognitive attention. Texting helps our communication skills, language skills, writing skills, and classroom skills.

Will text-speak become harmful, or is it already harmful? LOL, no, but really no. In school, teachers teach the differences between formal and informal writings. Text-speak would be informal. Texting to a friend would be informal writing, in which text-speak is often used. An example of a formal writing would be a letter to the CEO of Nike. Examples of text-speak would be G2G for “got to go”, LOL for “laugh out loud”, and gr8 for “great”.

Texting does not kill language. In the speech by John McWhorter, I believe that with every generation come cries that texting is killing language with their newfangled slang. With the new slang used in texting is inhabiting kids from understanding how to write and speak “properly”. Language lovers might think that that statement is true, however language experts believe otherwise. In fact linguistics say that teens are not destroying language but are evolving language.

Texting has many effects. When I think of texting many dangerous and unethical behaviors come to mind. We all know texting has a brief history, many people prefer texting to talking on the phone, and texting has its own problems when misuse. When we are texting communication is lost and is in considered of others and mostly affecting people’s health.