Txtng Spks: How Texting is a Legitimate Language

R txt msgs, or the lang of txt spk, gr8 for 2day’s society & pedagogies n composition, rhetorical, & linguistic courses? Or r troubled linguistics correct n worrying “that the proliferation of text messaging…will enforce sloppy, undisciplined habits”? (“Linguists”). 2 b able 2 answer this with ne sort of accurate social comprehension of the lang of txtng, 1 must hv a luv for not only linguistics but also rhetoric and new pedagogical techniques that reflect our field’s staunch belief that students hv a right 2 their own lang & that lang’s history “indicates that change is one of its constant conditions and…that attempts at regulation and the slowing of change have been unsuccessful” (Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication). 1 must also b able 2 accept txt spk as a legit lang. Those who were taught only the doom & gloom of grammar rather than hw “modern linguists see grammar not as prescriptive but as descriptive” & rather than “teachers who approach the study of grammar as a fascinating analysis of an intensely important human activity, rather than as a series of do's and don'ts” are the h8ers to this significant teaching opp & exercise in semantics (Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication). While linguists such as American University professor Naomi Baron worry that “so much of American society has become sloppy or laissez faire about the mechanics of writing,” those who dig deeper into txt spk as a discourse community & who do not attach a lack of societal value or prestige 2 its use und that its yet another form of communication & another connection that educators can use 2 relate 2 our modern day students (“Linguists”).

While “the prophets of doom emerge every time a new technology influences language,” according to Dr. David Crystal, linguistics professor & author of Txtng: the Gr8 Db8 and A Little Book of Language, txt spk is believed by many 2 b one of the gr8 lang innovations in modern times (“SMS”). “Nine Ideas About Language” by Harvey Daniels, former college professor, author & literacy education consultant, provides us with a relevant lens to analyze my contention that txt spk indeed has a place in society as a form of legit lang & should b accepted as such. Daniels’ hands-on work with educators at various levels, his knowledge & research on content-area literacy & content-area writing, his “special focus on creating, sustaining, & renewing student-centered inquiries & discussions,” & his combination technique of combining students’ reading & writing strategies w their social skills 2 prepare them 2 b lifelong learners establish his overwhelming ethos 2 discuss matters of linguistics & rhetoric (“Harvey Daniels”). Though Daniels’ essay does not specifically describe txt spk, it is easy 2 c how his ideas can easily translate 2 the lang & how those translations describe the journey from exercises in expressivism, such as txt spk, to exercises in “disciplined thinking [that] comes afterwards during revising,” such as academic discourse, advocated by celebrated rhetorician Peter Elbow (Elbow).


Idea #1:
“Children learn their native language swiftly, efficiently, and largely without instruction”
(Daniels 4).

To give this idea the broadest applicability as possible, one could easily interpret the word “children” as a new learner of the language of text speak. Daniels clearly means children as such in his contention; he establishes their learning processes by stating they use “other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language” (4). To properly analyze texting as a legitimate language under this lens, we must all be considered “children,” or new learners, of this technology, as texting is a relatively new form of communication and we as a society are learning to use it and to develop it further together. Daniels’ focus on children learning language through their own hypotheses more so than through imitating the language they hear and the structure of what they hear is in direct correlation with the contention that we as a society learn text speak by sending and receiving texts and advancing our own ideas and definitions of acceptable syntax and grammar more so than mere imitation; we discover “the underlying rules which make up the language,” as it is our job as users of text speak (4).

Daniels’ most poignant and applicable concept relating to the contention is his idea that “the main growth…will not so much be in acquiring new rules as in using new combinations of them to express increasingly sophisticated ideas, and in learning how to use language effectively in a widening variety of social settings” (5). It is clear that from the sheer number of text messages sent annually, which the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association found to be 4.1 billion per day in 2009, that we have adopted text speak as one of our native languages and have learned to use it swiftly and efficiently (Van Grove). Though no amount of research may ever convert die-hard traditional linguists into advocates of text speak as a legitimate language, they cannot ignore that society has entered a new era of technological expression.

Dr. Kristen Turner, professor of English education at Fordham University, believes that such technology allows students to “be a part of a communication community, but they can manipulate the language in unique ways” (Verel). “Digitalk,” as she refers to the language, did not develop out of random thoughts or boredom, Turner claims; she urges parents and teachers to realize the “sophisticated speech patterns…so we can illustrate how they’re different than the patterns that are meant to be used in school” (Verel). In her recently published essay “Flipping the Switch: Teaching Students to Code-Switch from Text Speak to Standard English,” Turner challenges parents and teachers to view text speak not as “deficient; rather we should embrace students’ existing knowledge…and teach them to negotiate the technology-driven discourse within the confines of school language” (Turner).


Idea #2:
“Language operates by rules” (Daniels 5).

Daniels’ asserts here that language’s foundation is based on a set of rules; that is explicitly applicable to text speak, as it, like the legitimate languages he refers to, “observes grammatical patterns to convey messages” (6). But how can the rules of text speak benefit society and our communication? I contend that linguists and educators can use the debate on text speak as a legitimate language and the breadth of its grammar, syntax and semantics to spark academic discussion and understanding of all variations of language and our ideas about them to promote the art of writing. Sali Tagliamonte, professor of linguistics in Toronto, believes that users of text speak, specifically teenagers, “demonstrate very clearly that their grammatical skills are intact and they very effectively mix it with other types of language” (MacLeod). Daniels relates that belief to learning the rules of language by noting that in learning language “we accomplished the most complex cognitive task of our lives” (6). By learning and using text speak, we as a society accomplish yet another complex cognitive task, and by doing so add to our society’s repertoire of knowledge, comprehension, and skill in writing (6).

The National Council of Teachers of English asserts that “there is little evidence that languages ‘evolve’ in the sense that they become more expressive or more regular; that is, they simply change, but they do not…become better or worse” (Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication). Consider that “Shakespeare freely used elisions, novel syntax, and several thousand made up words” and that “rules for using the oft-abused apostrophe were set only in the middle of the 19th century”; through the rule-breaking of one of our most beloved writers and the constant change in how we it is apparent that changes in the rules and applications of languages enrich all language (Huang). Besides the fact that the elitist rules of Standard English are being challenged by the all-encompassing structure of text speak, Crystal says that the technology “has introduced that kind of creative spirit into spelling again” (Huang). The naysayers can’t shake their heads in shame at creativity and enthusiasm being reintroduced to issues of linguistics and rhetoric.

A recent study in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology supports the notion that the structure of text speak can spark academic discussion and understanding of all languages, as it showed that “children who regularly texted showcased a richer vocabulary, the ability to better express thoughts in writing, and were aware of the proper spelling of the words they were shortening in most cases” (Mick). Similarly, the National Council of Teachers of English asks educators to rethink our definition of grammar and understand that “the grammar of one American dialect may require ‘he is’ in the third person singular present tense,” but that “the grammar of another dialect may require ‘he be’ in that same slot” (Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication). While some traditionalists seem to consider it their moral duty to guard the master key to Standard English and its exclusive formalities, the NCTE and progressive linguists are unlocking the idea that semantics more so than grammar guides language, including text speak; more important than “right or wrong, proper or improper,” educators have the opportunity to use semantics to teach students “how people give meaning to words and the way many of those meanings affect us emotionally rather than rationally” (Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication).


Idea #3: “All languages have three major components:
a sound system, a vocabulary, and system of grammar” (Daniels 6).

One could argue that because text speak exists as a written language, there can be no sound system, therefore disqualifying it from being considered a legitimate language under Daniels’ ideas. But text speak finds its way into spoken language, utilizing the vocal noises as implied in written text speak. Take for instance the word “IDK” in text speak: in Standard English it means “I don’t know,” and it is quite common to hear “IDK” spoken aloud as an answer to a question in a variety of linguistic circles. The same goes for such common text speak words as: “TMI” (meaning “too much information); “TTYL” (meaning “talk to you later”); and “BRB” (meaning “be right back”); “OMG” (meaning “oh my God); and “AFAIK” (meaning “as far as I know”).

These words and others like them are widely believed by language traditionalists, worried parents and concerned citizens to be the language of silly adolescents and of social classes unworthy of linguistic research or inclusion into what is good and proper; by and large, that attitude not only reflects prejudice against social, cultural, political and economic differences, therefore reflecting prejudice against language varieties within those differences, but also snubs pertinent and relevant research that supports the link between text speak and improved literacy and Crystal’s concept that text speak “isn’t a cause of bad spelling: you have to know how to spell before you can text”(Crystal). So as educators, as those educated in linguistics and rhetoric, as those who believe in the power of informal and expressive writing and as those who understand that “students need to be taught mainstream discourses and become critical users of language while also having their home and street codes honored” as well as being offered a “variety of educational experiences that help them make informed decisions about their role and participation in language, literacy, and life,” we can’t afford to snub the use of text speak in writing or in speaking (Conference on English Education Executive Committee). As guardians of an academia that promotes and supports linguistic diversity, we are commissioned with the task of “work[ing] against racial, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic inequalities by creating humane classrooms where students and teachers learn to use language and literacy in critical and empowering ways” (Conference on English Education Executive Committee).

In reference to the second element of Daniels’ components of language, one cannot deny that text speak has its own vocabulary. In fact, it is the fact that the vocabulary of “nascent dialect of English that subverts letters and numbers to produce ultra-concise words and sentiments [that] is horrifying language loyalists and pedagogues” as much as how that vocabulary has seeped its way into society (Huang). Examples of commonly used vocabulary words in text speak include:

L8R—later
STR8—straight
BTW—by the way
GTG—got to go/gotta go
LMAO—laughing my ass off
OMG—oh my God!
2MRW—tomorrow
420—marijuana
TY—thank you
YW—you’re welcome
AYK—as you know
BTW—by the way
CUZ—because/cousin
H8R—hater
RUOK—are you ok
LUV—love
WKND—weekend
UR—your/you’re
NE—any
WB—write back
F2T—free to talk
NUTN--nothing

But as a frequent user of text speak, I know that not only conversations via text speak but also the people I converse with become so familiar to me that any word in Standard English can evolve into text speak. The language has been “rendered uneducated and therefore unacceptable” by many linguists, but still other linguists and myself see it as a relaxed and often times informal mode of communication (Thurlow). The fact that text speak has evolved from Standard English and other languages and that is quite common for those of us who use text speak to be able to turn any word from our native language into language of text speak further supports Crystal’s idea that users of text speak can properly use formal grammar and syntax; it seems that our attention to Higher Order of Concerns issues such as audience, purpose, and tone have led us to create this new language.

As for Daniels final element, text speak most certainly has its own system of grammar; that system is at the heart of the debate over text speak triggering the death of Standard English. Besides being a modern communication technique, text speak provides a broader definition to the word “grammar”; it progresses as a language through Aristotle’s five canons of rhetoric, specifically invention, as text speak users discover new ways to overcome limited space and construct innovative and syntactic sentences. As far as its grammar affecting the grammar of Standard English, continue linguistic research such as studies at the University of Toronto have concluded that abbreviated words in Standard English found in the language of text speak “made up only a tiny fraction of the community and that even younger users were getting most of their grammar right” (MacLeod).


Idea #4:
“Everyone speaks a dialect” (Daniels 7).

The issue of dialect in text speak is similar to dialect in formal languages; while geography and culture dictate a variety of dialects, there is a standard dialect in Standard English, though it seems difficult for even linguists to define its boundaries, that is considered superior, and one must master the art of code-switching to be understood bilingually. Daniels states that “there is a good deal of natural pressure to keep language relatively uniform,” but in addition to spatial isolation, “social, economic, occupational, educational, and political” isolation contribute to the maintenance of dialects (Daniels7, 8).

But how do those factors affect text speak? Pressure to maintain dialect is pressure to maintain identity, and in the informal and familiar world of text speak, the aforementioned factors are key elements in preserving both. Consider the case of the 13-year-old Scottish student who composed an entire narrative on her summer activities in text speak. Though even Crystal referred to this case as the “hoax essay from 2003” that is still making its rounds on the Internet and that someone sent him “as ‘evidence’ of the terrible state we’re in,” The British Daily Telegraph broke the news and quoted the student’s teacher as saying, “I could not believe what I was seeing. The page was riddled with hieroglyphics, many of which I simply could not understand” (Crystal) (Thurlow).

Despite whether this essay actually exists, is it so ridiculous to believe that a student felt it was more audience appropriate or natural to write in text speak and she was clutching her identity as a frequent text user who found the language easier to express herself through than Standard English? According to the story, the teacher seemed to consider the use of text speak as an obstacle to the student’s literacy and expression, but she could have easily embraced the fact that the student’s use of and dialect in Scottish-English text speak was a specific rhetorical move to convey a true identity; she also could have used it as an opportunity to teach code-switching to not only the student, but also the entire class to further support their abilities to “navigate from how they talk at home to how they are expected to speak and write in school” (Verel). As far as the essay being applicable as evidence against the state of affairs of writing in the classroom, Crystal says that “if it was a regular happening, or (more to the point) if teachers were letting this happen, we might have cause to worry. But it isn’t. They aren’t. And we shouldn’t” (Crystal).


Idea #5: “Speakers of all languages employ a range of styles and a set of subdialects or jargons” (Daniels 9).

Code-switching is a learned behavior, and Daniels states that because we “range between formal and informal styles of speech” that such an adjustment is something “speakers of all language constantly make” (9). He also notes that “learning the sociolinguistic rules which tell us what sort of speech is appropriate in differing social situations is as much a part of language acquisition as learning how to produce [different] sounds” (9). Text speak users are no different; the dialects, subdialects, and jargon we may use with our parents or relatives is certainly not the same we would use with our friends or classmates.
The rhetorical move of assessing and acknowledging one’s audience is a move text users make with every text message sent. Text speak users not only choose their words carefully, but also choose our response time, our message length, and our overall tone with much thought and consideration for the audience at hand, the purpose of the conversation, and the tone we aim to set. For instance, I respond the quickest to text messages from my husband and best friends. I send them well-constructed text messages, and I exercise the most congenial tone possible as to convey my affection for them and their status in my life. Because there is not body language, facial gestures, or vocal noises associated with written text speak, users must consider other factors in ensuring our messages are conveyed as we intend them.

On the other hand, when I receive a text message from a classmate I am not close with or a family member simply saying “hello,” I am not apt to respond as quickly or as thoroughly. When I receive a forwarded text, usually in the form of a joke, a silly picture, or a chain curse, I rarely respond to the sender; if I do forward it on I consider who in my phone’s address book would enjoy the forward or find it applicable, respectful, and/or relevant before I send it. I would never forward a chain curse about finding someone to love to my husband, nor would I end a text conversation with him without saying “I love you.” And I would never forward my father a crude joke, nor would I send my professor a lengthy description about my weekend social events. I have learned the social regulations needed to code-switch, and I abide by them.


Idea #6: “Language change is normal” (Daniels 13).

The mere existence of text speak as a language is change in language. As I noted before, many linguists believe that innovation in language is simply a natural progression, and one cannot deny that a language that has developed through short messages using alphanumeric keypads on cellular devices is innovation and progression.

Daniels states that there is “plenty of language change which seems to happen spontaneously, sporadically, and without apparent purpose”; text speak seems to adhere perfectly to that statement (13). Granted, we can understand that text speak originated from a need for convenience in communication, but will we ever understand why the language seems to have had such an influence in the worlds of linguistics and rhetoric? Why has it caused such a stir and such a rift between those who supposedly share common goals in the study of language philosophy? “Much text messaging lingo was first used in instant-messaging programs on personal computers, and some phrases, such as ‘SWAK’ for ‘sealed with a kiss,’ have been used for decades,” according to Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary (“R ur txts”). Since we as a society have had so much exposure to the lingo, Crystal’s belief that text speak is to be “the greatest opportunity for the development of the English language since the advent of the printing press in the Middle Ages” should not prompt so much shock and awe (“SMS”).

The fact that today’s society has become an instant-minded culture, one that is bothered by downloads taking over one minute to process and that considers the sound of dial-up modem to be ancient, is a key factor in understanding not only the origin of text speak, but also the elements of the language itself. The undemanding and unassuming language and syntax rules are ideal for our rushed pace of life. It’s just a matter of looking beyond the idea that text speak is made up of mere abbreviations and persuading naysayers to see the value of the vernacular.


Idea #7: “Languages are intimately related to the societies and individuals who use them” (Daniels 15).

This idea seems to go hand-in-hand with Idea #5; both ideas suggest that cultures have their own identities and that maintaining those identities is important to all speech communities. Yet this idea seems to value our personal code over our academic code; it takes the stand that “the code we use to communicate in the most powerful and intimate experiences of our lives” with those closest to us is “as personal and as integral to each of us as our bodies and our brains” (Daniels 16). This opens the door like no other idea articulated by Daniels to consider text speak a language. Typically text speak is used among close members of a community, though the level of closeness may be different with each member, and in using words and phrases that are personal and relevant to only members of that community, text speak epitomizes itself as the code we use for our intimate experiences.

In “The Language of Texting,” Crispin Thurlow and Michele Poff note “how speech styles constitute different types of social relationships and that style shifting provides a contextual cue for relationship maintenance and conflict management” (Thurlow and Poff). The essay also provides specific demographic information on communities and how text speak is used and even relied upon by their members; for instance, boys in Finland “typically place greater emphasis on speed [sending] single-word or question-answer texts in a single sentence,” while girls in the same study say that “when communicating with boys, the text messages should therefore be very plain and properly written for the boys to understand them” (Thurlow and Poff).


Idea #8: “Value judgments about different languages or dialects are matters of taste” (Daniels 16).

“Especially when we consider the question of mutually intelligible American dialects, we are able to see that most ideas about language differences are purely matters of taste,” according to Daniels (17). Be it the stereotype that Southern people are “either cruelly crafty or just plain dumb” based on our slower speech patterns, or that African American Vernacular English is ghetto and uneducated, one cannot deny that judgments are made based on how we speak (Daniels 17). Never is that more true than in text speak, specifically the written form.

As I said before, because written text speak differs from region to region and because there is no body language, facial gestures, or vocal noises associated with it, only the written words and the tone they set serve as the elements of judgment. The “ya’ll” people from the South may use in text speak and the “you guys” people from New York may write will be judged due to the “history of experiences with each other” and the prejudices that arise from that (Daniels 17). While we may like to believe that all languages are equal, we as a society do not adhere to that belief, as we relentlessly judge others. Users of text speak know this all too well; in addition to our constant analysis of audience, purpose, and tone, we are keenly aware that due to the lack of face-to-face interaction in written text speak, every word we choose to text matters. The words we choose are yet another way we maintain our cultural identities as well as code-switch between the voices we want to use (i.e. academic vs. personal).


Idea #9: “Writing is derivative of speech” (Daniels 18).

Text speak originated from the language and grammar of instant messaging. Instant messaging originated from the need to communicate without wait. Daniels states that specifically in the classroom, “we find ourselves feeling that only in the 19th or 16th century could writers ‘really use the language’ correctly…we teach this notion in our schools, encouraging students to see the language of written literature as the only true and correct style of English” (19). But by encouraging such a notion, we are ignoring the need for progress in and accessibility to language. Text speak would never exist if we ignored that need, and though I am sure some would be more than satisfied with that, I contend that text speak has provided us with yet another outlet to teach not only expressive rhetoric, but also Aristotle’s five canons of rhetoric, audience analysis, and code-switching.


Works Cited

Committee on Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Students’ Right to Their Own Language.” NCTE.org. National Council of Teachers of English. n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2010.

Conference on English Education Executive Committee. “Supporting Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Learners in English Education.” NCTE.org. National Council of Teachers of English. n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2010

Crystal, David. “On txtng reactions.” DCBlog. Blogspot.com. Web. 17 Jan. 2010

“Daniels, Harvey A. “Nine Ideas About Language.” Language: Introductory
Readings. Eds. Virginia Clark, Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, Beth Lee Simon. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 3-20

Elbow, Peter. “Exploring Problems With ‘Personal Writing’ and ‘Expressivism’.” 2002.
Web. 3 Jan. 2010.

“Harvey Daniels.” Heinemann.com. Heinemann Books. n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2010

Huang, Lily. “The Death of English (LOL).” Newsweek 2 Aug. 2008. n.p. Web.

“Linguists mixed on effects of text messaging.” USA Today. 3 March 2003. n. pg. Web. 9 Oct. 2008.

Lo Dico, Joy. “Watch what you’re saying!: Linguist David Crystal on Twitter, texting and our native tongue.” Rev. of A Little Book of Language by David Crystal. The Independent. 14 March 2010. Web.

MacLeod, Murdo. “Msg is clear as joy.” Scotsman News. 25 May 2008. n. pg. Web. 9 October 2008.

Mick, Jason. “New study claims texting improves language skills in children.” Daily Tech. Daily Tech LLC. 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 15 Jan. 2010

“R ur txt msgs :) or OK?.” CNN.com. CNN. 2003 February 13. Web. 9 Oct. 2009

“SMS greeted with delight by linguistics professor.” Textually.org.Textually. 28 February 2005. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.

Thurlow, Crispin. “From Statistical Panic to Moral Panic: The Metadiscursive
Construction and Popular Exaggeration of New Media Language in the Print Media.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11.3 (2006): n. pg. Web. 5 Dec. 2009

Thurlow, Crispin and Michele Poff. “The Language of Texting.” Washington.edu. University of Washington. n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2010

Turner, Kristin. “Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English.” English Journal. (May 2009): n. pg. Web. 15 Jan. 2010

Van Grove, Jennifer. “WOW: 4.1 billion SMS messages sent daily.” Mashable.com

Verel, Patrick. “Is txting killin Nglsh @ skool? No way sez Prof.” In Focus: Faculty and Research. Inside Fordham Online. 1 March 2010. Web. 5 March 2010.