Introduction
With the rise of digital communication technologies in the 21st century, text messaging has become the primary form of communication for teenagers and young adults. While texting provides an efficient way to stay connected, some research suggests it may be negatively impacting traditional literacy skills. This paper will examine recent studies on the relationship between text messaging and literacy and discuss both sides of this debate.
Literacy Skills Impacted by Texting
One of the main literacy skills argued to be affected by heavy texting is spelling ability. Many linguists have found that texting creates a new informal grammar and spelling conventions using acronyms, numerical substitutions, and limited punctuation (Crystal, 2008; Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008). Studies show that heavy texters tend to spell words phonetically in all writing contexts rather than using standard spellings (Drouin, 2011; Drouin & Driver, 2014; Powell & Dixon, 2011; Wood et. al, 2011). For example, words like “through” may be spelled “thru” and “because” as “cause”. While useful for texting’s character limits, these spelling shortcuts can negatively transfer to academic writing expected in school.
In addition to spelling, writing syntax and mechanics have been found to degrade with frequent texting in some studies. A survey of 221 college students found that greater text messaging frequency was associated with poorer performance on a writing mechanics test involving punctuation, capitalization, and English syntax rules (Powell & Dixon, 2011). Texting encourages the omission of spaces, capitalization, and punctuation for efficiency. If applied to formal writing, it could diminish students’ mastery of grammar conventions. Other research has found little connection between texting levels and writing ability (Drouin, 2011).
Vocabulary development has also been hypothesized as an area impacted. With texting’s emphasis on brevity, full words are often replaced by shortened slang, emoticons, or acronyms like “LOL”. While this creative word play expands one’s lexicon, overuse could undermine standard vocabulary learning if not used judiciously in writing assignments (Plester et. al, 2008; Wood et. al, 2011). Direct evidence linking texting to vocabulary scores is still limited.
Cognitive Processing Changes
Beyond specific literacy elements, some psychological studies suggest heavy technology and screen use may slowly rewire cognitive processes important for deep reading comprehension over the long-term (Carr, 2010). Text messaging, with its rapid-fire exchanges of short snippets of information lacking context, trains the brain for multitasking, skimming, and constant stimulation rather than focused analysis (Rosen et. al, 2013).
If this impacts how intently students read or synthesize written ideas remains unclear, but is a possibility. For instance, a Finnish study found 10th grade students sending over 100 text messages daily performed worse on a test of receptive vocabulary compared to lighter texters, indicating difficulties with focused attention (Leppänen et. al, 2016). Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and socioeconomic factors could play a role. Further longitudinal work is still needed.
Arguments for No Impact
While the above research primarily finds negative connections between texting and literacy, other studies suggest any impacts may be small or nonexistent. Proponents argue that text messaging represents just one form of communication out of many used daily by youth, with little evidence it entirely displaces reading (Drouin, 2011). In addition, most texters understand context-dependent appropriate language use and code-switch between informal digital writing and academic writing as needed (Plester & Wood, 2009).
Some students have even reported that texting helps their spelling by exposing them to a wider range of words, forcing creative expression within Character limits, and facilitating social interactions that build writing fluency overall (Lewis & Fabos, 2005; Plester et. al, 2008). A meta-analysis found minimal effects on standardized writing test scores from even very heavy texting (Drouin & Davis, 2009). Similarly, large empirical studies in Germany, Finland, and Italy detected little to no relationship between SMS usage and reading literacy outcomes (Anthropic, 2018).
Much text messaging also occurs on smartphones and devices conducive to multifunctional use, allowing texters to also engage in reading, research, and composing longer documents as needed. Perhaps most critically, a child’s home and school literacy environments, socioeconomic class, peer influences, and individual learning abilities appear far more determinative of academic achievement than any single technology (Kirschner & DeBrabander, 2014; Rosen et al., 2013). Texting itself may not be causative without other contextual risk factors.
Synthesis & Conclusion
While some focused studies hint at small negative connections, comprehensive reviews find limited evidence that text messaging singularly impacts traditional literacy acquisition or scholastic performance for most youth. Any link appears complex with many intervening individual and contextual variables. Heavy texting coupled with impoverished home literacy opportunities possibly poses more risk requiring monitoring on a case-by-case basis.
Educators and parents play an important role in moderating youth’s technology diets, coaching mindful online behavior, and providing well-rounded enrichment like seated reading time shown most protective of cognition. Further, policies discouraging texting shorthand overuse in academic writing aim to teach disciplined code-switching between informal and formal registers of English. Overall, text messaging seems merely one element within a dynamic scholastic ecosystem, not a primary catalyst of either advantage or disadvantage when used judiciously. Its boons of social benefits and creative expression for many youth should not be dismissed.
References
Anthropic. (2018, May 15). Does Texting Affect Literacy and Language Development? Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/blog/does-texting-affect-literacy-and- language-development
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drouin, M. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x
Drouin, M., & Davis, C. (2009). R u txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy?. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960802695131
Leppänen, S., Aro, M., & Koponen, T. (2016). Peer group and intensive phone use as risk factors for problematic smartphone use among youth. Journal of Children and Media, 10(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1143502
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X320507
Powell, D., & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS Text Messaging Help or Harm Adults’ Knowledge of Standard Spelling?”. English Today, 27(03), 58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078411000252
Rosen, L., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
Tagliamonte, S., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech, 83(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-001
Wood, C., Jackson, E., Hart, L., Plester, B., & Wilde, L. (2011). The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children’s reading, spelling and phonological processing skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00398.x
Andrew Stroud