Abbreviation Nation
Sending text messages is an ordinary part of the modern person’s daily life. Some people send and receive thousands of messages a month. How many of these messages are sent using proper grammar and punctuation? Does using improper English while texting negatively affect the one sending the messages? In his article “2b or Not 2b?”, David Crystal, professor at the University of Wales, discusses the concerns about using shorthand language in text messages. His overall claim is that using “text talk” does not make a negative difference in the lives of those who use it, and it will not be detrimental to future generations. In fact, Crystal points out that talking in shorthand allows for more creativity. Though I disagree with the claim that texting causes illiteracy, I agree that abbreviation is not a new form of language, and should not be considered a problem for the future.
Using shorthand while texting is thought to be a detriment and a cause of illiteracy. John Sutherland, from University College London, writes in his paper that “...[texting] masks dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness. Texting is penmanship for illiterates” (qtd. in Crystal 335). This professor feels that using “text talk” is inappropriate and helps people hide their literacy issues. Though I concede that using shorthand is not appropriate in all writing, I still insist that Crystal’s analysis is correct: texting can be used as a helpful tool. I do not feel that choosing to use slang in text messages “masks poor spelling” or endorses the use of “text talk” in any formal writing. Having the ability to communicate through text message is an incredible technological advancement. Texting is convenient when in need of instant communication, but not the ability to physically talk at that time. However, understanding the use of shorthand in a text message is not the same as endorsing the use of this form of language in a formal piece of writing such as a letter or essay. Overall, texting should not be considered as a “mask” for lazy writing.
Though it is believed that shorthand is a new form of language, it has been around for years. Crystal feels that shorthand language is common and useful: “People have been initialising common phrases for ages… There is no difference, apart from the medium of communication, between a modern kid’s ‘lol’... and an earlier generation’s ‘Swalk’...” (Crystal 338). Using abbreviated forms of words has been around for years. I agree that shortening words for convenience in texting is not a new practice, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that it is the laziness of our generation. Typing in shorthand does not necessarily mean that people are lazy; it is more convenient and saves time when in a crunch, and it is a practice that has been around for decades. In fact, there is a dictionary that is completely made of abbreviations that was made in 1942 (339). Words have been abbreviated for years and will not suddenly start negatively affecting those who use the shorthand.
Using shorthand is a way for creativity to show and should not be considered an issue. Crystal writes that “... it is merely the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt the language to suit the demands of diverse settings. There is no disaster pending” (345). Being able to write in a way that is unique to an individual is an advancement that this generation celebrates. Crystal’s theory that using shorthand in text messages will not change the future in a negative way is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of people believing that texting will cause the upcoming generation to be illiterate. Using shorthand in texting allows users to be creative with the way they talk. Using this type of language should not be considered a problem.
Though I feel that texting has no correlation with illiteracy, I do agree that abbreviation has been around for years, and using shorthand should not be considered a problem. David Crystal clearly shows his views on texting in his article “2b or Not 2b.” He believes that a lack of grammar in a text message will not change the literacy of a person or make a negative impact on the next generation. People should go on sending thousands of text messages and using whatever form of language they choose.
Using shorthand while texting is thought to be a detriment and a cause of illiteracy. John Sutherland, from University College London, writes in his paper that “...[texting] masks dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness. Texting is penmanship for illiterates” (qtd. in Crystal 335). This professor feels that using “text talk” is inappropriate and helps people hide their literacy issues. Though I concede that using shorthand is not appropriate in all writing, I still insist that Crystal’s analysis is correct: texting can be used as a helpful tool. I do not feel that choosing to use slang in text messages “masks poor spelling” or endorses the use of “text talk” in any formal writing. Having the ability to communicate through text message is an incredible technological advancement. Texting is convenient when in need of instant communication, but not the ability to physically talk at that time. However, understanding the use of shorthand in a text message is not the same as endorsing the use of this form of language in a formal piece of writing such as a letter or essay. Overall, texting should not be considered as a “mask” for lazy writing.
Though it is believed that shorthand is a new form of language, it has been around for years. Crystal feels that shorthand language is common and useful: “People have been initialising common phrases for ages… There is no difference, apart from the medium of communication, between a modern kid’s ‘lol’... and an earlier generation’s ‘Swalk’...” (Crystal 338). Using abbreviated forms of words has been around for years. I agree that shortening words for convenience in texting is not a new practice, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that it is the laziness of our generation. Typing in shorthand does not necessarily mean that people are lazy; it is more convenient and saves time when in a crunch, and it is a practice that has been around for decades. In fact, there is a dictionary that is completely made of abbreviations that was made in 1942 (339). Words have been abbreviated for years and will not suddenly start negatively affecting those who use the shorthand.
Using shorthand is a way for creativity to show and should not be considered an issue. Crystal writes that “... it is merely the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt the language to suit the demands of diverse settings. There is no disaster pending” (345). Being able to write in a way that is unique to an individual is an advancement that this generation celebrates. Crystal’s theory that using shorthand in text messages will not change the future in a negative way is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of people believing that texting will cause the upcoming generation to be illiterate. Using shorthand in texting allows users to be creative with the way they talk. Using this type of language should not be considered a problem.
Though I feel that texting has no correlation with illiteracy, I do agree that abbreviation has been around for years, and using shorthand should not be considered a problem. David Crystal clearly shows his views on texting in his article “2b or Not 2b.” He believes that a lack of grammar in a text message will not change the literacy of a person or make a negative impact on the next generation. People should go on sending thousands of text messages and using whatever form of language they choose.
Works Cited
Crystal, David. "2b or Not 2b?" They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 335-345. Print
Crystal, David. "2b or Not 2b?" They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 335-345. Print