Whether a person sends a text containing “be right back” or “brb,” almost everyone, at least in younger generations, grasps the meaning instantaneously. Many have conflicting views about this mincing of words; while some find them innovating, others find them infuriating. The article “2b or not 2b” by David Crystal discusses the matter of how the abbreviation of words in text-messaging influences, and will continue to influence, the English language. Crystal’s article is about how abbreviated writing patterns impact today’s society, and though I agree with his argument that this type of language will make hardly more than a ripple in the overall sea of language, I disagree with his ideas that abbreviated texting has become permanent and that texting in a shortened version improves the understanding of English.
A central argument Crystal makes in his article is that, contrary to the beliefs of many, abbreviated texting and the culture surrounding it will not forever ruin the English language. He explains, “Texting has added a new dimension to language use, but its long-term impact is negligible. It is not a disaster” (337). Basically, Crystal is pointing out that instead of irreparably altering the current English system, texting merely adds a new facet of understanding and expansiveness to it. I agree with this statement because, in my own experience, texting is not that important, nor will it ever be. Texting is a shorthand form of communication, and, as Crystal suggests, it is certainly not the first. Whether I was a child who ran out of space on a birthday card or a teenager who ran out of time to type each word into a text, abbreviations have always been part of my writing. However, I, along with much of society, still maintain my ability to write formal essays with little to no thought about remembering the unabbreviated version of a word. Texting is a convenience, not a lifestyle, and both text-speak and proper English can exist simultaneously.
Another argument made by Crystal is that the shortened style of texting is becoming permanent in the digital world, but this could not be further from the truth. He maintains that “the stylistic character of SMS writing has changed and texting abbreviations, previously optional, became obligatory” (344). Crystal is mistaken, or rather, his argument is invalidated, for two reasons. The first is that, since this article has been published, cell phones have become smarter. Now equipped with full QWERTY keyboards, texting is faster than ever before, and the need to abbreviate to save time is dwindling. As soon as proper English became convenient, many people switched back to using it. The second reason is that assuming that any specific writing style would become mandatory is irrational. Throughout history, men and women have, time and again, defied “normal” writing styles to pioneer new ones. Texting is simply the next frontier, and frontiers are always being redefined and changed, just like the English language.
Finally, Crystal claims that abbreviated texting actually improves English. He holds that, in order for children to abbreviate messages, they must first understand the non-abbreviated versions of those messages. Crystal asserts, “You need to know that there are such things as alternative spellings. If you are aware that your texting behavior is different, you must have already intuited that there is such a thing as a standard” (345). Crystal believes that only through recognition and understanding can come abbreviation and, therefore, that this improves English skills. Though I concede that multi-word abbreviations, such as “bae” (before anyone else) or “lylas” (love you like a sister), require prior knowledge of the phrase to grasp the entire meaning, I still insist that understanding abbreviations does not constitute growth in English skills. In fact, I believe that using autocorrect settings to check spelling in text messages does more harm than good where learning is concerned. When people know that their computer program already knows the spelling for a questionable word, they are less likely to put in the effort to actually learn to spell said questionable word. Instead, they will merely type in enough similar letters to prompt the spelling suggestion.
In David Crystal’s article entitled “2b or not 2b,” he delves into the discussion of whether or not abbreviations in text messages are a detriment to society and the English language as a whole. I agree with his claim that texting language will only become another tangent of the language without taking it over, but I diverge from his opinions that shorthand texting has become the digital standard and that texting in abbreviations enhances English comprehension. There can be no denying that this abridged form of writing has made a name for itself in the world today. Is this good or bad? Do messages like “h8r”(hater) and “lol” (laugh out loud) help or harm the minds of literate people? Regardless of either perspective’s validity, opinions will continue to clash over this matter for as long as abbreviated forms persist in this ever-developing language.
A central argument Crystal makes in his article is that, contrary to the beliefs of many, abbreviated texting and the culture surrounding it will not forever ruin the English language. He explains, “Texting has added a new dimension to language use, but its long-term impact is negligible. It is not a disaster” (337). Basically, Crystal is pointing out that instead of irreparably altering the current English system, texting merely adds a new facet of understanding and expansiveness to it. I agree with this statement because, in my own experience, texting is not that important, nor will it ever be. Texting is a shorthand form of communication, and, as Crystal suggests, it is certainly not the first. Whether I was a child who ran out of space on a birthday card or a teenager who ran out of time to type each word into a text, abbreviations have always been part of my writing. However, I, along with much of society, still maintain my ability to write formal essays with little to no thought about remembering the unabbreviated version of a word. Texting is a convenience, not a lifestyle, and both text-speak and proper English can exist simultaneously.
Another argument made by Crystal is that the shortened style of texting is becoming permanent in the digital world, but this could not be further from the truth. He maintains that “the stylistic character of SMS writing has changed and texting abbreviations, previously optional, became obligatory” (344). Crystal is mistaken, or rather, his argument is invalidated, for two reasons. The first is that, since this article has been published, cell phones have become smarter. Now equipped with full QWERTY keyboards, texting is faster than ever before, and the need to abbreviate to save time is dwindling. As soon as proper English became convenient, many people switched back to using it. The second reason is that assuming that any specific writing style would become mandatory is irrational. Throughout history, men and women have, time and again, defied “normal” writing styles to pioneer new ones. Texting is simply the next frontier, and frontiers are always being redefined and changed, just like the English language.
Finally, Crystal claims that abbreviated texting actually improves English. He holds that, in order for children to abbreviate messages, they must first understand the non-abbreviated versions of those messages. Crystal asserts, “You need to know that there are such things as alternative spellings. If you are aware that your texting behavior is different, you must have already intuited that there is such a thing as a standard” (345). Crystal believes that only through recognition and understanding can come abbreviation and, therefore, that this improves English skills. Though I concede that multi-word abbreviations, such as “bae” (before anyone else) or “lylas” (love you like a sister), require prior knowledge of the phrase to grasp the entire meaning, I still insist that understanding abbreviations does not constitute growth in English skills. In fact, I believe that using autocorrect settings to check spelling in text messages does more harm than good where learning is concerned. When people know that their computer program already knows the spelling for a questionable word, they are less likely to put in the effort to actually learn to spell said questionable word. Instead, they will merely type in enough similar letters to prompt the spelling suggestion.
In David Crystal’s article entitled “2b or not 2b,” he delves into the discussion of whether or not abbreviations in text messages are a detriment to society and the English language as a whole. I agree with his claim that texting language will only become another tangent of the language without taking it over, but I diverge from his opinions that shorthand texting has become the digital standard and that texting in abbreviations enhances English comprehension. There can be no denying that this abridged form of writing has made a name for itself in the world today. Is this good or bad? Do messages like “h8r”(hater) and “lol” (laugh out loud) help or harm the minds of literate people? Regardless of either perspective’s validity, opinions will continue to clash over this matter for as long as abbreviated forms persist in this ever-developing language.
Works Cited
Wilson, Robin. "A Lifetime of Student Debt? Not Likely?." They Say I Say With Readings. By Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein. Ed. Russel Durst. 2E ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 179-189. Print