Picture
The evolution of language. Egges? Eyren? Eggs?
Languages, like animals, are constantly adapting to their environments.  In fact, the idea of proper and improper usage of the English language is fairly new, according to Professor Jack Lynch of Rutgers University.  Once upon a time, spellings and words themselves varied by region much more than they do today: “Those edible things that come out of chickens were ‘egges’ in the northern part of England and ‘eyren’ in the southern. ‘Eggs’ were still years in the future” (Genzlinger).  Even once language began to be standardized, it varied greatly over time.  For example, the split infinitive, today considered grossly incorrect, has gone in and out of fashion many times.  Professor Lynch argues that people need to calm down about violations of proper grammar: such crimes have always been around and always will.  

Nor is now the first time that a new technology has seemed to threaten language.  Like text messaging, telegraphs and postcards are both forms of communication constrained in space.  As such, both gave rise, in their time, to nonstandard usages of English.  Telegrams often leave out words to save money, and postcards tend to contain “short forms, nonstandard spelling…. small hand-drawn pictures or emoticons” (Bergs).  Often we fail to remember that what seems to us to be basic – for example, the daily newspaper – was once new technology with an impact on the evolution of language.  Alexander Bergs points out that as a new communication medium gains acceptance, “the most scandalous phenomena are often ironed out…. This kind of development can be seen in most if not all media innovations, from the book, through silent reading, to the telegram, the fax, telephone, e-mail, chat, SMS [text messaging], and instant messaging.”

Oh, and those abbreviations and acronyms people are so worried about?  Some of them predate instant messaging.  Check out good old Tigger here.

But, in case you think this argument akin to pointing out that global climate change is nothing new (never mind that it caused mass extinctions), there is more convincing evidence that communication technology is nothing to worry about.


First off, the popular news media tends to exaggerate the fear that text and instant messaging should be inspiring in us.  Crispin Thurlow of the University of Washington studied a body of popular media articles about new communications.  He found that most of “these popular but influential (mis)representations typically exaggerate the difference between CMD [computer-mediated discourse] and non-mediated discourse.”  Basically, the press is fear-mongering.  They use words such as “reprehensible, frightening, depraved, [and] infamous” and blame text messaging for societal problems, usually with little to no proof.  The incomprehensible examples of Netspeak used in some articles are incomprehensible because they are almost never used in practice.  People cited as authorities are rarely experts in the field.  Thurlow concludes that technology is “not only being poorly represented, but also scapegoated for a range of adult anxieties about newness, change, and perceived threats to the status quo.” 

Secondly, studies actually show that Netspeak is not creeping into formal language – nor is it used on the Net as regularly as might be thought.  Teachers report some problems with middle-schoolers’ writing, but few to none with that of high school students (Dunnewind).  Kids need some time to sort out what can and cannot be used in formal writing – just as they need time to learn to write in the first place.  Within instant messaging itself, use of the dreaded shortening decreases as students age.  An older teenager says he “used to [use abbreviations]…. Now I’ve started to type out ‘you’ and ‘are’…. It looks better” (Quan-Haase).  

Even within the pre-teens, one study of eleven- and twelve-year olds found “no significant difference” between the spelling and punctuation of texters and non-texters (Ward).  Students retain the ability to code-switch – to use different standards of communication when communicating with different people or through different media.  One girl says, “[IM shorthand]’s restricted to just friends online… I wouldn’t say it interferes with my ability to write” (Dunnewind).

More surprisingly, studies of older teenagers show few spelling errors while instant messaging.  Errors that do slip through are often corrected immediately.  In one study of college students, only 31 abbreviations were found – less than 1% of the body of instant messages examined.  There were also a mere 90 acronyms, an overwhelming majority of which were “lol.”  Other studies show similar numbers.  The subjects studied “frequently chose to follow the formal writing convention” (Quan-Haase).

Finally, some would argue that the widespread use of text-based communication is a good thing for students.  One way or another, kids are writing.