Text Messaging and Literacy

Many of us fear that text messaging and the use of “textese” may be adversely affecting children and adults’ use of Standard English.  The media has promoted these fears with anecdotal reports given by educators of children using textisms in their formal writing, and, in some cases, by supervisors showing concern for their employees’ use of these abbreviations in their professional writing (Lee, 2002; Barker, 2007; Rogers, 2008). According to recent research on the topic, these individuals may be the outliers, and texting and textisms may actually serve as a way to increase reading skills, literacy, and spelling fluency.

Or does it? 

What is textese? What is a textism?

  Textese is an abbreviated vocabulary that includes initialisms, letter/number homophones, contractions or shortenings of words or phrases, emoticons (symbols for representing emotions such as L for sad), and the deletions of unnecessary words, vowels, punctuation, and capitalization (Thurlow, 2003; Carrington, 2004; Varnhagen et al., 2010). This vocabulary stems from text messages originally only being able to contain up to 120 characters, and forcing users to form a more economical mode of communication within this limitation. Abbreviations such as “2nite” for tonight and “gr8” for great are common occurrences in this abbreviated language. The language does not end with just words, but some of the most common “textisms” are often whole phrases, such as “lol” for laugh out loud, “C u l8r” for see you later, or even “omw” for on my way. These abbreviated phrase can even be as complicated as “idc wots ur add cwot” meaning I don’t care what your address is – complete waste of time.  Maybe phrases such as this one are why scholars deemed to give these communications the name textese, because it reads almost like a language of its own.

            To some these may seem quite foreign and a complete bastardization of the language we speak on a daily basis, but increasingly it is becoming more and more common for people to communicate using these textisms. Text messaging surpassed voice calls in popularity as a means to communicate while mobile in 2008, and has been on the rise ever since (Reardon, 2008; Drouin, 2011).

Research Theories

            The research having been done on texting and literacy is not vast, nor clear cut. There are several theories that attempt to explain the impact that texting and the use of textese is having on adults and children’s reading, spelling, and language fluency. Some theories related to psychological theories on memory.

Drouin and Davis (2009) suggested that the theories of retroactive interference and decay may be at play. This was hypotesized when the research was assumed to follow the anecdotal evidence provided by the media. Retroactive interference suggests that information presented at a later time may interfere with information presented at an earlier time (McGeoch, 1932; Britt, 1935). Meanwhile, decay theory states that learned information that is not accessed may be less accessible over time (Brown, 1958). Dourin and Davis (2009) applied this to the scenario of textisms and hypothesized that exposure to the textism might make is more difficult to remember the Standard English spelling of words. Alternatively, in cases where the Standard English version of a word is not accessed over a long period of time, it would become more difficult to remember.  There theory gained initial support for previous research examining processes with regard to spelling in adults has shown that even a single exposure to a misspelled word can have a detrimental impact on future spellings of that word (Jacoby & Hollingshead, 1990; Dixon & Kamiska, 1997; Kratz & Frost, 2001). Further, this effect is especially pronounced when a misspelled word is a plausible phonological alternative (or it looks the way it sounds) (Kratz & Frost, 2001). Thus, it could indeed be possible that continued exposure to textism (interference) could lead to forgetting (or decay) of the Standard English presentation.

However, recent research has not been able to lend support to these theories of memory interference, and, in fact, it has shown just the opposite to be the case, text messaging may actually be positively associated with children and adult literacy (Plester et al., 2008, 2009). There have been two broad theories to explain these findings. First, Plester et al. (2009) suggested that texting can allow people access to a form of written language which is not constrained by standard grammer and spelling or produced for the purposes of formal learning practice in school, but rather as a means of easy communication with frieds. Crystal (2008) and Leake (2008) further hypothesized that this freeing from conventional constraints and the additional necessity of brevity to fall within the character limit allows children and adults to use reading and writing in a much more playful way.  

            These theories postulate that there may be something about the very nature of texting and textisms that help with literacy (Powell & Dixon, 2011). In order to read or produce textisms, one has to have a good level of phonological awareness, that is, sensitivity to the underlying sound structure of spoken language. The fact that texting could be mediated by phonological processes suggests that it may be linked to phonological awareness, which had been repeatedly shown to predict literacy measures (Powell & Dixon, 2011; Adams, 1990).

Two Research Studies

            Dixon and Powell (2011) conducted a study using 94 undergraduate students where participants were exposed to misspellings, correct spellings, and textisms. Participants were given a pre- and post- test measure on spelling ability. During this one exposure, significant positive effects on posttest scores could be seen in both the correct spelling exposure group and the textism exposure group. This study provides experimental evidence that even a single exposure to textisms can have a positive effect on knowledge of words and standard spellings.

            Drouin (2011) conducted another study that had some other interesting findings. In this study, 152 undergraduate students engaged in grammar exercises, literacy tasks measuring reading, reading fluency, and spelling, followed by a survey on the use of text messaging, textese use in different contents, and access to social networking sites. The results show that participants in this study reported using textese more often as compared to previous research by Drouin and Davis (2009). However, although the overall use of textese may have increased in the past couple of years, they continued to mediate use of textese by context. For example, participants reported using textese more often in text messages and emails to friends, but rarely on social networking sites and in emails to professors (Drouin, 2011). These results suggest that people are making conscious decisions on whether or not to use textese.

            This study supports an interesting notion: that people are constantly able to make the conscious decision to switch between textese and Standard English without one interfering directly with the other. Some have suggested that this is the equivalent of a bilingual person switching between two languages, while there may be some crossover an individual is easily able to correct any mistakes (Drouin, 2011).  It may also help to note that most of the crossover experienced by bilingual person is in speech, and as textese is almost a purely written language these effects should be limited.

            So why are we still seeing textese in formal writing and in emails to professors? In Drouin (2011), there was a significant correlation among participants that used textese more on social networking sites and in emails to professors and lower reading accuracy scores. This suggests that those without a comprehensive understanding of Standard English are the ones most likely to commit these context faux pas. Additionally, this mediated use by context supports another interesting notion. Participants reported that their reason for not using textese on social networking sites or in emails to professors was that the context was not appropriate. Therefore, those who do use textese in these contexts may not view them as inappropriate, indicating a more limited pragmatic knowledge (Drouin, 2011).       

            These research finding show that it is not texting or textese itself that is causing a decline in language standards, but maybe a more fundamental educational flaw. These results support that if a child or adult has a strong basis in Standard English it is hard to reverse that knowledge with the use of textese. Additionally, it may actually be beneficial for remembering the correct spelling of a word, and continuing in lifelong reading fluency skills. There is also research that supports texting and textism as a basis for teaching the founding principles of Standard English, but more on that later.

Sources

Adams M.J. (1990) Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learn- ing about Print. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Barker, I. (2007). Txts r gr8 but not in exams. Times Educational Supplement 4723, 20. 9 Feburary. Retrieved from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2341958

Britt S.H. (1935) Retroactive inhibition: a review of the litera- ture. Psychological Bulletin 32, 381–440.

Brown J. (1958) Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 10, 12–21.

Carrington, V. (2004). Texts and literacies of the Shi Jinrui. British Journal of Sociology Education 25, 215-228. Doi: 10.1080/0142569042000205109.

Crystal D. (2008) Txting: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Dixon M. & Kaminska Z. (1997) The spell of misspelled words: susceptibility to orthographic priming as a function of spelling proficiency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisci- plinary Journal 9, 483–498.

Drouin M. & Davis C. (2009) R U txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41, 46–67.

Drouin, M.A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese, and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 67-75. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x

Jacoby L.L. & Hollingshead A. (1990) Reading student essays may be hazardous to your spelling: effects of reading incor- rectly and correctly spelled words. Canadian Journal of Psychology 44, 345–358.

Katz L. & Frost S.J. (2001) Phonology constrains the internal orthographic lexicon. Reading and Writing: An Interdisci- plinary Journal 14, 297–332.

Leake J. (2008 May 25) Texting boosts children’s literacy. The Sunday Times. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3998970.ece

Lee, J.  (2002). Nu shortcuts in school r 2 much 4 teachers. The New York Times 19 September. Retrieved from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technology/circuits/19MESS.html#

McGeoch J.A. (1932) Forgetting and the law of disuse. Psychological Review 39, 352–370.

Plester B., Wood C. & Bell L. (2008) Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbrev- iations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Lit- eracy 42, 137–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008. 00489.x.

Plester B., Wood C. & Joshi P. (2009) Exploring the relation- ship between children’s knowledge of text message abbre- viations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27, 145–161. doi: 10.1348/ 026151008X320507.

Powell, D. & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 58-66. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00403.x

Reardon M. (2008) Text messaging explodes in America. CNET Tech News. 23 September. Available at: http:// www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/tech/cnettechnews/ main4471183.shtml

Rogers, D. (2008). We know what u mean, m8. Innit? The Times Educational Supplement. 12 December. Retrieved from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6006244

Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. Retrieved from: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html

Varnhagen C.K., McFall G.P., Pugh N., Routledge L., Surnida-MacDonald H. & Kwong T.E. (2010). Lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing: An Interdisiplinary Journal 23, 719-733. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9181-y.