Crystal Texting Case Study

We as a society are evolving with each generation to come. We are getting stronger, faster, and smarter. Just as cell phones are no longer square blocks with numbers on them and TV’s are not in black and white, writing itself has also evolved. Once upon a time many wrote and spoke in a Shakespearean form of language and over the years it has evolved into something we call modern English. In recent years, technology has advanced greatly and cell phones have become one of our primary use of communication. With cell phones came a new form of writing called text messaging. Text messaging is used to send short, concise messages to anyone around the world. Often times text messages involve the use of abbreviations which stand for different things and also involves frequent use of emoji’s as a form of expression. This form of writing is now considered informal writing and is not acceptable in academic settings. In Michaela Cullington’s essay “Does Texting Affect Writing?” she touches on both sides of whether texting is hindering students writing or if it’s actually having a positive effect. She then makes is clear that she believes most students are educated enough to know when text speak is appropriate and when it’s not so therefore it has no effect on students. Although, I agree with her thesis, she lacks credibility due to her insufficient evidence. In addition, I also believe

In the article “2b or Not 2b” by David Crystal, he explains why he thinks texting will not destroy language. He infers that texting adds a new facet to communication. Crystal starts by establishing an opposing argument in the introduction when he mentions John Humphrys’ “I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language” (335). One can deduce from the title of the article—and Humphrys’ description of texters as “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago.” (335)—that Humphrys does not support texting. Crystal goes on to mention John Sutherland, another man who describes texting as “bleak, bald, sad shorthand. Drab shrinktalk … Linguistically it’s all pig’s ear … it masks dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness. Texting is penmanship for illiterates.”

In David Crystal’s article “2b or Not 2b”, he disapproves the common belief that texting will destroy language. Crystal states that he thinks texting may even add a new dimensions to how we communicate and or improve our literacy skills. Pointing out the fact that no one has to actually know the proper form of language before using alternatives or abbreviations. Texting gives freedom and creativity to the person writing and an opportunity to experience a different way to interact with others. Crystal on page 341, simply concludes that no matter how much we are playful and powerful with texting it is just simply overall “fun”. Though, not all will agree, many feel it is a problem that needs to be removed.This came from a counter argument written

Recently I read ‘Feed’, by M.T Anderson, a dystopian novel about how advancement in technology is negatively affecting our society and the way we communicate with each other. The author led me to believe that these advancements, such as texting, are causing our language to deteriorate. Further research proves that texting may be improving and many are learning to accept. When the era of the written word dies, will we be left with an illiterate generation with poor grammar? Students are texting constantly. In and out of class, it is becoming a bigger and bigger part of their lives. Some might say that we are creating a less literate generation, but research shows that texting improves student literacy for three reasons. First, texting improves

After reading Texting and Writing, by Michaela Cullington, I do not agree with many of her viewpoints. Cullington argues that texting does not affect a students writing. Textspeak, the abbreviation and shortening of words like used when writing a text message, does affect the way a student writes because they use the abbreviations, and their writings tend to lack punctuation. When a writer uses excessive abbreviations on a regular basis they can get stuck in the writer’s head causing them to use them in all of their writings. Cullington did make good points of her own opinion on texting and writing in her piece, but I disagree with her and believe that texting and

In Michaela Cullington’s essay titled, “Does Texting Affect Writing?” the author tests the ongoing question of how today’s youth handles the effects of texting in the education system. Using successful evidence from both sides of the argument as well as participating in her own experiment, Cullington is able to fully demonstrate how texting does not interfere with today’s students and their abilities to write formally in the classroom.

“Does Texting Affect Writing” is about Michaela Cullington, the author, comparing two opposing perspectives. The perspective is whether texting hinders the formal writing skills of students or not. Millennials are a population that cannot go a day without looking at their phones so, due to the “increasing use of mobile phones, concerns have been raised about its influence on their literacy skills. No matter if it is sending or receiving a text or checking social media sites, technology has taken over the lives of the young generations. The essay “Does Texting Affect Writing?” in They Say, I say exposes how the significant action of texting and using textspeak, i.e. abbreviations and symbols, may be hindering the writing skills of teenaged students. People communicate using textese to “more quickly type what they are trying to say” (Cullington, 2017, p. 361). Textese is a “register that allows omission of words and the use or textisms: instances of non-standard written language such as 4ever” (Van Dijk, 2016). When these people use textese often, it can become habitual and transition into their school assignments. Michaela Cullington constantly repeats words and uses comparisons and abnormalities for the concerns about textspeak, the responses to the concerns, methods and the discussion of findings on the topic to be analyzed.

In her essay “Does Texting Affect Writing?”, presented on April 18th, 2010, Michaela Cullington describes the use of texting and how it effects peoples writing. With the suppressing matter in consideration of technology has had a mass effect on human society. Texting has the ability to send information within a short period of time. Using texting, communication has been a problem with talking face-to-face. There is a concern of absence with using full text of words and seems to be a continuous predicament and could potentially hurt the face of the English language altogether. The transition from face-to-face communication is a lost art with the advances with texting. Cullington provides factual evidence to support her claims to express the

In the article” Is Texting Killing the English Language?” from TIME, they start the article off with one critic referring to texting as the downfall for the written word. “Penmanship for illiterates,” The article goes not agree with the critic. The article explains that texting is the new kind of talking. In these times there is hardly any hand written correspondence. If you want to reach out to someone you send then an email or the most common is a text. Texting has made reaching out to someone so easy and convenient. If you have a thought, or an idea you grab your phone and send a text message. You usually have a response within seconds. I don’t think that technology is killing the written language; I feel that it is just making it easier to have quick communication with others. I feel that texting is like short hand you are abbreviating words to get your message across quickly. Our society is so rushed and

Texting is harming the ability for this current generation of children to write in a formal manner. “Digitalk” is what Kristen Hawley Turner of Fordham University calls, text-speak.For example, many teens will text “g2g” in replace of the actual words “got to go”.In my opinion, texting is ruining students’ abilities to write a formal essay,letter,etc.

Has our “text,” language ruined our actual language? The author of 2b or not 2b is written by David Crystal. Throughout his article Crystal argues about the benefits of texting and how texting is not a new thing. David Crystal uses two rhetorical strategies to prove his argument, one being humor to compare two types of poems that were sent through text message, the other using analogy to compare schooling, and texting, and the last his using analogy to compare abbreviations that are used today, were used in history.

“Texting is developing its own kind of grammar and conventions.” said John McWhorter. In John McWhorter’s speech, he provided facts that logically texting and writing is two separate language. I presented earlier that my opinion is that texting is a new genre of language, so I grouped it as foreign language. Some people like myself might have a second language, but when I’m writing essay or any formal documents, I don’t uses them. Technically, we are taught to determine the environment and our audiences before writing, so texting will not make you unintelligence or cause confusion toward literature

One type of technology that is different in today’s world is text messaging. For starters, parents like to spell everything out, use

In the article “2b or not 2b”, David Crystal begins with discussing how others such as John Humphry argued that texters are “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago. They are destroying it” (335). This is also the common belief of most people. People often argue about the bad points of technology over our language. However, Crystal believes that texting can improve children’s ability to read and write rather than hinder their literacy as many people claim. He also argues that not all texting are done in abbreviated words. Complex messages and institutional messages are often texted in standard form of

Texting is a fairly new form of communication that has taken the world by storm. It became popular around 2001, and originally had its limitations, such as the 160-character limit. But now that technology has advanced, texting has followed along and is now a convenient, casual, and a more immediate way of communicating. So naturally, texting has evolved also in terms of the language used within it. We see this mostly in the form of abbreviations and short hand spelled words. Some people argue that texting has ruined the English language. Studies and observations have shown that the benefits of texting and cyber speak are much more broad then expected. Textisms have been shown to increase phonology skills, brain activity, creativity and provide a relatable outlet for students in education.