Txting and ur Speech Skillz (lol)

Cn u read dis sentence w/o ny prob?

If so, then you are at least somewhat familiar with abbreviations and lingo used in today's text messaging or SMS (Short Message Service) communication. As you can imagine, the above sentence would most likely not be used in a formal, written document. Texting lingo as seen above is considered by many to be improper English and its use hinders and deteriorates people's formal writing and speaking skills. But is this assumption true?

 In one study, kids aged 10 to 12 were tested to see if a relationship exists between a persons use of texting and their ability to spell words. It was found that there was no relationship between a person's overall texting use and their ability to spell. It was found however, that kids who were familiar with texting had a better phonological awareness, or ability to recognize words based on their spoken sound rather than visual reading (e.g. "2day" sounds like the word "today") [1].
This brings up an interesting thought. Would someone with less than average language skills be more or less skilled at texting? In one sense, to be able to text requires a slightly deeper understand of the language the "texter" is using. To be able to recognize, understand, interpret and use texting abbreviations requires a user to have a basic, if not advanced understanding of their language. Another point of view is to consider is the length of the text messages themselves. As with the character limit on "Twitter" posts, a user may only enter so many words or letters into a single text. This forced the user to strongly consider what they are trying to say and how they say it. It forces the user to "write economically, inventively and playfully" and allows users to "play with the construction of language that they are learning about" [1].

Perhaps texting should not be seen as a fad that is destroying language, but as the next generation of communication. Languages, such as English, have evolved over time and this may simply be the next step in that process. But should texting be embraced as acceptable formal writing? The answer is no. Since many formally written papers are designed to be read and understood by a wide variety of people, they need to be written in a format that is universal. Until the abbreviations of texting are more widely known and accepted, formal language should be used. It is up to teachers and parents to teach people about the use of texting lingo. They should not teach that it is wrong and unacceptable, but instead that it should simply not be used for formal writing. There is a time and a place for texting.

Texting is not responsible for the belief that "youth have absolutely lost the skills of communication", but the next step in language evolution [2]. Texting is not going anywhere. Its use will continue to rise as the affordability of cell phones and texting plans increase. Until it is more widely known, texting lingo should be used in some cases and not in others, such as research documents. But it is certainly an acceptable form of communication and is quite effective at communicating ideas, emotions, and questions from one person to another. And isn't that what a language is supposed to be?

------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Vaidyanathan, L., & Latu, S. (2007). Social consequences of cellular (cell) phones. Retrieved from http://www.acis2007.usq.edu.au/assets/papers/93.pdf

[1] Vosloo, S. (2009). The effects of texting on literacy: modern scourge or opportunity? Retrieved from http://vosloo.net/wp-content/uploads/pubs/texting_and_literacy_apr09_sv.pdf