1. Parsons 1
Rebekah Parsons
English 101
Professor Bolton
October 18, 2012
The Real Influences of Texting
David Crystal disproves the common belief that texting will destroy language in his work,
“2b or Not 2b.” Crystal states that texting can in fact improve literacy skills. He points out the
fact that one has to actually know the standard language before one can use alternatives or
abbreviated forms. By texting, people also have the opportunity to play and experiment with
language, and according to Crystal, “it’s fun” (341). Another point Crystal makes is that the goal
of the person texting is to be understood, and so alterations to words tend to normally be
minor or easily readable. He includes the reminder that abbreviating words is not a new idea as
an additional example of how texting will not destroy language. Crystal explains that texting is
just another form of communication; therefore, language will not decline or be destroyed. I
agree with Crystal that the language used in text messaging will not destroy standard language
because my personal experiences confirm it.
Through my personal experiences, I am able to verify Crystal’s claim that texting can
help language and improve reading and writing skills. Crystal discusses different studies on the
links between texting and literacy in pre-teenage children. The results showed that “the more
abbreviations in [the children’s] messages, the higher they scored on tests of reading and
vocabulary. The children who were better at spelling and writing used the most textisms. And
the younger they received their first phone, the higher their scores” (Crystal 345). He uses the

2. Parsons 2
results from the studies as additional support for his assertion that texting improves literacy.
Also, in order to be able to play with abbreviated forms, one has to have a sense of how the
sounds of words relate to the letters. According to Crystal, knowing that there is a standard is
necessary in order to use unconventional language. Personally, I know I would not be able to
use texting abbreviations if I did not know what the correct form was supposed to be. This is
true in soccer as well; the rules have to be understood first. For example, I have to know that I
cannot use my hands before I can explore the different ways of dribbling the ball. Then, I can
discover creative ways to move the ball with my feet, head, or other body parts besides my
hands. Texting also improves spelling because the textism sepr8 sets up “the orthographic
[representation] of the correct [form], and… [focuses] attention on words’ phonological
structure” (Kemp, par. 8). Texting helps language rather than destroy it and can improve
literacy as well, which is shown through my personal experiences.
I can also confirm, by my personal experiences, that texting will not destroy language
because abbreviations have been around for a long time. Crystal reminds the reader that the
use of initial letters for whole words (gf for “girlfriend” and cmb for “call me back”) is not a new
concept. IOU is a familiar phrase, and the only difference between the modern “lol” (laughing
out loud) and the older generation’s “swalk” (sealed with a kiss) is the medium of
communication. People have been abbreviating words ever since the English language has
been written down, but interestingly enough, the English language is unique in its use of
abbreviations. Evidence offers that “the English orthography is quite irregular… and any
relationship with other literacy skills, might be rather different in other languages” (Kemp, par.
6). The fact that English is one of the few languages that abbreviates words shows that

3. Parsons 3
language will not be destroyed. Anyhow, Crystal explains that abbreviating words saves time
and energy. Some abbreviated words, such as exam, fridge, and bus, are so familiar that they
have become new words. From experience, I know that abbreviating words actually does save
time and energy. However, I need to be positive that the person who receives my text will be
able to understand me and know what I am talking about; therefore, I have to make sure the
abbreviations are familiar and readable. Also, before I had a cell phone, I used instant
messaging and e-mail to communicate with my friends; even then I used shortened versions of
words. Abbreviations come in handy when I am taking notes in class or writing a note to myself
as well. The altered words used in text messaging will not destroy language, and my personal
experience confirms that idea.
I agree with Crystal that conventional language will not be destroyed by the language
used in texting because I can verify his opinion through my personal experiences. The idea that
texting improves literacy skills is logical. Using soccer as an example, I recognize that one has to
know the standard way before being able to do it differently. Additionally, abbreviations have
been around for a long time; language has not already been destroyed, and will not be
destroyed now because the medium has changed. Finally, it is clear that “exposure to textese
does not result in the deterioration of conventional reading, writing and other language skills.
On the contrary, the relationship between textese use and literacy skills seems to be
overwhelmingly positive” (Kemp, par. 9). Texting will not destroy language; it is simply the
modern means of communication, and it is actually language evolving.

4. Parsons 4
Works Cited
Crystal, David. “2b or Not 2b.” They Say I Say with Readings. Second Eddition. Ed. Gerald
Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. W.W. Norton and Company, 2010. 335-345.
Kemp, N. "Mobile technology and literacy: effects across cultures, abilities and the
lifespan." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Feb. 2011: 1+. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 12 Oct. 2012.