The Effects of Texting upon Effective Communications

. Is there anyone who lives in the modern world of technology who does not know what that expression means? This shorthand abbreviation for the term laughing out loud has become one of the most widely recognized terms from within the communications medium known as texting. Although texting in principle has been in existence since 1920, only since the beginning of the twenty-first century has it become ubiquitous to the point of having a dramatic influence on the way that we communicate in general. However, despite its many advantages and conveniences, nowhere has its effects been seen so dramatically as in the world of academia. One web article on the subject relates, Some teachers believe the abbreviations used in text messaging are assaulting written English. Middle and high school teachers report that papers are being written using poor punctuation, bad grammar and inappropriate abbreviations. Students sometimes do not realize they are using text lingo in their academic writing (Russell, 2012). Seeing that there are two completely different sides to the issue of textingthose that say it is a wonderful advancement in communications technology and others who say it is destroying our language the question begs to be asked: Has the modern convenience of texting ushered our society into a new age of a completely different form of communications, or is it just a temporary fad that is annihilating our ability to 1

effectively communicate? We will examine these issues and attempt to provide an answer. Perhaps the first facet of this question should be to establish whether there is actually a problem. In examining the previous quote pertaining to middle school and high school students, one would be inclined to observe that spelling, punctuation and grammar have always been subjects with which these students have struggled, and texting cannot be blamed for their more recent troubles. True concern would need to be based upon these communication issues being present within college-level students and the world of business. One education-oriented web site had an article on the subject that made this reference, In an article in The Canadian Press, staff writer Susanna Kelley interviewed faculty from several colleges about the subject. She quotes Rummana Khan Hemani, director of academic advising at Simon Fraser University: 'Little happy faces ... or a sad face ... little abbreviations, show up even in letters of academic appeal, says Khan Hemani. Instead of 'because', it's 'cuz'. That's one I see fairly frequently, she says, and these are new in the past five years" (Robbins, 2010). Relating to the post-college business environment, another communications web site article cited this data, According to a 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, employers are complaining about communication skills. Bosses say the biggest failing among college graduates and job applicants is an inability to speak and write effectively (Tabares, 2012). The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that texting does seem to be directly related to a very real problem of people not being able to communicate effectively. But the problem goes farther than simply not being able to effectively communicate in writing. A writer for the Huffington Post observed,

But many experts say the most successful communicators will, of course, have the ability to do both, talk or text, and know the most appropriate times to use those skills. And they fear that more of us are losing our ability to have or at least are avoiding the traditional face-to-face conversations that are vital in the workplace and personal relationships (Irvine, 2012). In other words, it is not just a matter of people today forgetting how to spell or compose sentences correctly; it is also a problem that people are beginning to prefer texting to other forms of more personal communication, primarily face-to-face, but also by telephone. When we dont participate in personal communications, we lose the ability to present ourselves in an effective and positive way. This in turn has a direct result in being able to first find employment, and then to be able to associate with superiors, co-workers, and customers. There are many who take a much more pragmatic approach to the issue, however. In Australia, there is a program currently being implemented that incorporates text messaging into a curriculum that actually teaches the comparison between standard English and texting in terms of spelling, syntax, grammar and other areas, thus approaching text messaging as a type of alternative language. What would be the benefit of such an approach? The explanation is, Since texting, email, and whatever the next form of electronic communication will be, are not going away, it makes sense to study it, and perhaps teach it (or at least teach about it) in schools (Riggio, 2012).

When we consider the concept of accepting the communication structures of text messaging as a new and different language all its own, another aspect of the issue comes to mind: Not only is the English language itself a type of cultural development out of much older Germanic and Latin-based languages, but the language has also endured many transformations over the centuries into what we know and understand today. In fact, looking at the development of language in general over the history of mankind, the modern English language is a very recent advancement. So is it possible that, rather than destroying the language, texting is bringing about the next logical transformation in the overall development of English itself? After introducing the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary included the texting abbreviations LOL and OMG in their revision of March, 2011, one linguistic author wrote, Consider that the two main purposes of language are to make sense of our surroundings and to engage in social relationships. Textism by function fit that definition (Huber, 2012). In other words, the purpose of language is communication, and if two individuals are using a mutually-agreed-upon set of rules by which to successfully communicate, then by definition they are utilizing a language, and who is to say what is correct or not? (But as a side note, is textisms a real word?) So is texting simply an alternative form of language and a valid, natural development in our modern languages? Or is it the death knell of positive and effective communications altogether? As in most quandaries in life, the correct answer is somewhere in the middle. To illustrate this, we will pose a situation taken from the Art of Eloquence web site: Suppose that you received this email message at work

 Nd U 2 gt rpt 2me by fri5. Bob. (My spell-checker just went nuts while I was typing that!) With most of us fairly fluent in textisms, we will probably all realize that this message is saying, I need you to get the report to me by Friday at 5 P.M. (Tabares, 2012). But what if one of us, or perhaps even more importantly, the recipient of this note, were not fluent texters? This is a very real possibility, since as of yet there actually is no universally-adopted system for text abbreviations and shorthand. In essence, until there is a system of texting language that everyone understands, and that can be taught with assurance to those who do not know it, there is actually not an alternative language of texting, and therefore texting can be detrimental to those who need to learn how to communicate well within a standardized language such as English. The conclusion should therefore be that, until some form of texting language has been established that is universally understood and teachable, we cannot realistically expect our students to learn how to communicate professionally until they learn such old-fashioned notions as spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other aspects of good, effective communication. There is an excellent quote from the business commentator Doug Firebaugh included within the Art of Eloquence web site that bears repeating and remembering, Communication is all anyone ever gets paid for ultimatelyand if you cannot effectively communicate, you will pay [and] not get paid! Tabares, 2012). Texting is not signaling the death of good communication, but it is a very good warning sign that, as our society relaxes with

the conveniences of modern technology, we cannot relax to the point that we are unable to use that technology in order to communicate efficiently, and therefore make our world a better place in which to live.

References Huber, Joe. (2012). Texting as language: Evolution or regression? Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://educatorstudio.com/articles/texting-language-evolution-or-regression Irvine, Martha. (2012). Text messaging: Is texting ruining the art of conversation? Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/03/text-messagingtexting-conversation_n_1566408.html Riggio, Ronald E., Ph.D. (2012). Has texting and email ruined students writing skills? Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edgeleadership/201203/has-texting-and-email-ruined-students-writing-skills-0 Robbins, Rose. (2010). Textspeak: Shortcut to illiteracy? Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://suite101.com/article/textspeak-shortcut-to-illiteracy-a241116 Russell, Lisa. (2012). The effects of text messaging on English grammar. Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.ehow.com/list_5828172_effects-text-messaging-english-grammar.html Tabares, JoJo. (2012). Influence of texting on communication skills. Web. Accessed 20 Oct. 2012. http://artofeloquence.com/articles/texting/