With our children’s increased use of mobile phones and texting as a major form of communication, there is widespread concern about the impact that texting may have on children’s literacy development.

In earlier years, abbreviations and acronyms were often used out of necessity due to the character limit on text messages.  However, in today’s world of social media and instant messaging, there is no need to be overly concise.  So, why do we continue to use so-called text-speak?

Did you know that more than half of teen texters report texting on a daily basis and 1 in 3 teens report sending more than 100 messages per day?  (That's about 3,000 texts a month).

Experts believe that, as texters can’t rely on linguistic cues (such as tone of voice and pauses) or body language (such as facial expressions and hand gestures), other compensatory measures are taken to fill in these communicative gaps. 

Text-speak is mostly characterised by the use of short-word slang.  In fact, using a longer word in place of the more commonly used shortened version can reflect the importance of what one is trying to say.  However, there are many other aspects to ‘textiquette’.  For example, typing in all capitals is considered shouting and using quotation marks or exaggerated spelling gives emphasis to a particular word.  Even alternative punctuation can include social information – such as multiple punctuation marks (???), initialisms (lol) and kisses (xx) in place of conventional punctuation.

Recent studies have even found that a text message that ended with a full-stop were perceived as less sincere – it seems to add sarcasm and abruptness.  Another study also looked at the word ‘OK’ versus ‘K’; people viewed ‘K’ as significantly more rude and harsh.

Many people claim that texting is fostering bad literacy skills, and worry that this text-speak will ultimately leak into the exam room.  However, findings from several studies dispute these claims: results show that children who used text-speak frequently performed better on tasks measuring literacy abilities than children who did not.  In short, texting does not damage children’s ability to read and write.

In fact, recent studies from Conventry University found that children’s use of text-speak can actually improve in literacy skills, especially spelling.  Some experts say that this is because text abbreviations (like ‘thx’ and ‘gr8’) require children to sound out words and think about them phonetically, which can help them when writing.  School children as young as eight are also practising rearranging words while maintaining meaning or adding literary techniques to convey emotion on a daily basis, which enables children to develop a deeper understanding of the English language.

Experts have also said that children read and write even more than they did 20 years ago, and it could be that this additional exposure to print on a regular basis that improves their linguistic skills.

What is important is that young people remain able to discern the right context for casual language, and are aware of how to use technology in formal, professional contexts.

Despite these results, adults are still anxious about the growing prevalence of text-speak.

Elaine Lawford, mother of two, says: ‘Sometimes its like there’s a language barrier between me and my children.  When I read their texts, I can’t understand half of it.’

But are we really so different from the generation of ‘screenagers’?

Since the very beginning, the English language has had abbreviated words.  We have all scribbled down an ‘&’ in place of an ‘and’, or a ‘pto’ instead of ‘please turn over’.  Anglo-Saxon scribes used abbreviations of this kind.  In fact, words such as exam, vet, fridge and bus are so familiar now that they have effectively become new words.  The word ‘goodbye’ can even be viewed as 16th century text-speak, as it was a contraction of the phrase ‘god be with ye’.  In fact, the Dictionary of Abbreviations was first published in 1952 – 50 years before texting was even invented.  An emoji can even be viewed as the modern-day version of a caveman’s pictures, drawn to convey a variety of messages and emotions.

Whenever some of these abbreviated forms first came into use, they also attracted criticism.  However, perhaps there is no difference – apart from the medium of communication – between a modern day teenager’s ‘c u soon’ and an earlier generation’s ‘goodbye’.  In this way, texting is not a ‘digital virus’ or ‘penmanship for illiterates’, but just the evolution of language.

Holly Lawford | Dartford Grammar School for Girls