Effect on verbal language use and literacy
According to research done by Dr. Nenagh Kemp of University of
Tasmania, the
evolution of ‘textese’ is inherently coupled to a strong grasp of grammar and
phonetics. David Crystal has countered the claims that SMS has a
deleterious effect on language with numerous scholarly studies. The findings
are summarized in his book Txtng: the Gr8 Db8.
In his book, Crystal argues that:
In a typical text message, words are not abbreviated as frequently as
widely thought.
Abbreviating has been in use for a long time, and thus is not a novel
phenomenon only found in SMS language. Furthermore, some words such as 'sonar'
and 'laser' that are accepted as standard words in the dictionary are actually
acronyms.
Both children and adults use SMS language, so if adults do not display the
errors seen in children's written work, they cannot be attributed to SMS
language alone.
Use of abbreviations in written work and examinations is not that prevalent
among students.
A prerequisite to using SMS language is the knowledge of spelling, so use
of SMS language does not necessarily imply low literacy.
He further observes that this is by no means a cause for bad spelling,
where in fact, texting may lead to an improvement in the literacy of the user. There
are others who feel that the claims of SMS language being detrimental to English
language proficiency are overrated. A study of the written work of 100 students
by Freudenberg found that the actual amount of use of SMS language found in the
written work was not very significant. Some features of SMS language such as
the use of emoticons was not observed in any of the written work by the
students. Of all the errors found, quite a substantial amount cannot be
attributed to use of SMS language. These included errors that have already
appeared even before the advent of SMS language.
There are also views that SMS language has little or no effect on grammar.
Proponents of this view feel that that SMS language is merely another language,
and since learning a new language does not affect students' proficiency in
English grammar, it cannot be said that SMS language can affect their grammar.
With proper instruction, students should be able to distinguish between slang,
SMS language and correct English and use them in their appropriate contexts.
Efficiency and economy
According to a study, though SMS language is faster to write, more time is
needed to read it compared to conventional English.
Effect on verbal language use and communication
Although various other research supports the use of SMS language, the
popular notion that text messaging is damaging to the linguistic development of
young people persists and many view it as a corruption of the standard form of
language.
Welsh journalist and television reporter John Humphrys has criticized SMS language as "wrecking
our language". The author cites ambiguity as one problem posed, illustrating with
examples such as "lol", which may either be interpreted to mean
"laughing out loud", "lots of love", and "little old
lady" depending on the context in which it is being used. However, it
should be noted that ambiguous words and statements have always been present
within languages. In English for example, the word "duck" can have
more than one meaning. It could be referring to either the bird or the action,
and such words are usually disambiguated by looking at the context in which it
was written. The proliferation of SMS language has been criticized for causing
the deterioration of English language proficiency and its rich heritage.
Opponents of SMS language feel that it undermines the properties of the English
language that have lasted throughout its long history. Furthermore, words
within the SMS language that are very similar to their English-language
counterparts can be confused by young users as the actual English spelling and
can therefore increase the prevalence of spelling mistakes.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language
By Sandra Barranco Aguilar
