Instant messaging gave birth to a new form of expression culturally known as ‘texting’. A common argument against texting is that our society’s writing abilities are declining. Texting encourages rapid-fire and single-sentence thoughts, as well as prominent use of abbreviations, which have been criticized for taking away the eloquence of language. This is known as “textspeak”, which differs from traditional English yet it influences it and has an impact on how people use language. Critics argue that “textspeak”, which is supported by quick text and character limit functionalities in communication technologies, violates traditional grammar and spelling rules and leads to a deficiency in literacy and interpersonal development.
Is this really true? In the video below, American Linguist John McWhorter posits that there’s much more to texting that it seems, both linguistically and culturally. To begin with, he argues that texting is different from writing. Writing often does not mirror how we speak casually because speech is much looser, telegraphic, and less reflective. On the other hand, texting is, according to McWhorter “fingered speech”, allowing us to write as we talk, and this is an emergent communication approach that has a different structure.
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for sharing your ideas on texting. Speaking from personal experience, I feel like texting is a more casual way of communicating with people, yet a faster way of getting a response. For instance, if your boss needed you to get coffee during lunch break, is he/she more likely to send you a text message or write you an email? Probably more likely to text you for an immediate response. That intentionally means texting can be brief and comes with fewer grammar expectations. Formal ways of written communication like email and newsletters follow a more strict framework of writing. Undoubtedly texting has made asynchronous communication extremely convenient. I do share the same concern with you that texting may have cast some negative effects on written communication. I am prone to argue that texting has more benefits than its drawbacks. In a global era, instant messaging is inevitable, and it has indeed sped up our communication span.
Hello Vera. Thanks for sharing your ideas. Yes, I agree that the instantaneous and less formal quality of texting makes it more practical for certain types of communication. I think that it has a more natural quality as well if compared to other forms of writing, and that can lead to more empathic communication. Last semester in ETEC 511 all communication took place in Slack instead of Canvas’ discussion boards, and the interactions felt more natural. However, it is interesting to also compare how texting is different from face-to-face communication. Generally speaking, in face-to-face communication there is more sensory information being shared and it requires more attention. I think that finally all of these are different ways of communication with specific pros and cons, and it’s good to be aware of how to make use of the pros for each one.