texting 4 dummies

Huh? What Does ‘Texting’ Mean?

“Texting” is a word that has indelibly transformed the way humans communicate. If you aren’t familiar with its meaning and derivation, the following definitions are a good “first step” in understanding how this form of communication has influenced academic culture.

There are several definition variations for the word, texting. The first is a general definition:

Texting • (text-ing) v
The sending of text messages via cell phones or other mobile devices
Ex. I can’t figure out all these texting codes

The rest of these definitions speak more toward the culture of texting, as well as the generation that has dubbed its nature. These definitions, from urbandictionary.com, are coming from a context of "texting professionals" that know what they’re talking about, as well as how to “effectively” utilize the form of communication.

(1) An invention that allows people, usually in their teenage years, to talk to more than one of their "friends" at once

(2) The reason kids don't learn as much at school...except maybe a better way of not getting caught using your phone.

(3) Something the majority of people over the age of forty can't seem to figure out.

(4) The easiest way for you to ignore someone that you don't want to talk to.. as opposed to refusing their phone calls.

(5) Something parents hate you to do all the time, but what we can't stop doing.

Laying subjective definitions aside, beginners needs to have engrained in their technogically-challenged brains is the following concept: Text messaging is the common term for the sending of “short” messages containing text on the “Short Message Service” (SMS).


The Documentary of Texting

Although most participants in the texting generation cannot even fathom life before cell phones (and to think that they’re elders had to use payphones and landlines… what’s a landline?), there once was a time when text messaging did not exist. Enjoy this video that I found, which explains "text messaging" better than words can describe.




Let’s Get Some Practice

According to specialists at netlingo.com, the following texting translations will give you a jump-start on grasping this new concept of mobile communication.

1. 2nite Tonight
2. BTW By the way
3. ILY I love you
4. LOL Laugh out loud
5. NP No problem
6. OMG Oh my God
7. ROTFL Rolling on the floor laughing
8. TMI Too much information
9. STBY Sucks to be you
10. TYVM Thank you very much

the numbers R in

Texting Takes a Toll on the Pocket

When texting first became popular, cell phone companies didn't offer any specials or bundles for text messaging. According to the market data reports of the Global System of Mobile communication (GSM) In 1995, cell phone customers were sending on average .4 text messages a month. By the end of 2000, 17 billion SMS were sent. That number was blown out of the water by the end of 2001, when 250 billion SMS were sent. As the popularity of texting kept growing and growing, the mobile phone industry caught on to this money maker and charged on average $0.10 per message. In 2004, 500 BILLION text messages were sent, which represents close to 100 texts for every person in the world.

(Statistics courtesy of GSM's Wireless Intelligence Operational Data Report)


Personal Research

While conducting this research on text messaging, I wanted to include my personal SMS use on a monthly basis. I reviewed my wireless bill for the last six months and gathered the data in order to present a typical use on a monthly basis of SMS.

For Six Months In 2009, the following data represents the number of text messages sent and received by one person:

June: 1,408 texts
July: 1,375 texts
August: 2,005 texts
Sept: 1,531 texts
Oct: 1,142 texts
Nov: 1,492 texts

In six months, the total text messages sent: 8,953
Average text messages sent per day: 49


A Tough Act to Follow

The picture at the top of this post is of thirteen-year-old, Reina Hardesy--of Orange County, California. Her father, Greg Hardesty, who writes for the Orange County Registrar Newspaper, published a story that isn't extactly "proud papa news." She sent an astonishing 14,528 text messages to her friends in one month. Let’s put that into perspective: that’s 484 text messages per day, or one message every 2 minutes. Her father, Greg, said she had an unlimited texting plan, but if she didn’t, the bill would have been around $3,000.

Check out this video that I found, that tells Reina's story better than I can.


The Results

The results of this "numbers" research surprised me a little bit... I actually thought that I had sent more than 50 text messages per day, which is chump change when put into perspective with Reina's usage. I would argue that the reason my average is so low is because of this semester in school, student's can't text message while there in class, right?

In my next post, I will dive into the current debate over the effects text messaging has had in academic discourse.

2 cool 4 skool?

The Texting Debate:
Part One

There has been a lot of academic discourse circulating among professors at universities across America. It's difficult to determine a consensus among faculty, as they differ in opinion to the technological phenomenon having an impact on undergraduate students. As a future educator, it is worthwhile to investigate the evidence and support for and against it's purpose in academia, in order to formulate my own opinion and decide how I will address the effects of texting in my classroom.

While most educators recognize that texting is widely used by adolescents and young adults in the United States, there seem to be two distinct opinions of its effect on student academics. The first being that so-called "Internet English" is only paving another tainted road on the English language. As a breakdown of the English language – according to an article in The New York Times, "Some teachers see the creeping abbreviations as part of a continuing assault of technology on formal written English" (Lee, 2002). Educators who argue this point believe that technology (more specifically, texting) is skewing student's ability to write formally in academia.

On the other side of this debate, there are educators who regard this same "Internet English" not only as an example of how language is constantly developing and changing, but also as a type of literacy in and of itself, which can be capitalized on to engage students in more traditional learning. Educators who argue this point believe that the more students write (no matter what format it is written in), the better they will get at writing.

To investigate this debate further, I researched one of the top advocates for this argument.

To Be... or Not to Be... In the Moment, Is the Question:
Naomi Baron--American University


Linguistics professor at American University, Naomi Baron, argues that text messaging is destroying a student's ability to "be in the moment." In her book, Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where it's Heading, Baron discusses the continuing fear of technological advancement, as it effects language in a negative way. In her book, she argues:

Addicted or not, hard-core texters find it difficult to be 'in the moment' with other people because they are constantly being summoned by someone else in another place. It is part of a larger phenomenon of where is your mind? If your mind is always on your phone, it's not on other things. There is a cost when people multitask —a kind of a mental brownout. If a student is reading Shakespeare when a text message interrupts, Hamlet's going to fade in and out in a ghostly fog. You're not truly time-sharing. You're flitting back and forth, and the flitting itself is taking processing capacity. (Baron 37)

Baron also raises the concern that texting bastardizes the English language. In her book, she researches and analyzes student writing and indicates that students who text message on a frequent basis often use improper abbreviations, incorrect punctuation, and bad grammar in their academic writing.

According to Lee (2002), "teachers say that papers are being written with shortened words, improper capitalization and punctuation, and characters like &, $ and @." I have a question about these teacher's speculations. Have any of them considered that these mistakes could be unintentional? Baron (among other supporters of this viewpoint) would argue that as students use text messaging more and more frequently, they are becoming more accustomed to the informality of its language, and no longer notice the differentiation between informal and formal language. Montana Hodgen, a 16-year old high school student in Montclair, New Jersey, "was so accustomed to texting abbreviations that she often read right past them" (Lee, 2002). As Hodgen puts it, "I was so used to reading what my friends wrote to me in a text message that I didn't even realize that there was something wrong." She said her ability to separate formal and informal English declined the more she used text messages" (Lee, 2002).

After researching this viewpoint, I decided that there has been enough negativity on the subject, and there must be scholars in academia that see texting in a positive light.

we R learning :)

The Texting Debate:
Part Two

On the other side of the texting debate, there are educators who regard the same "Internet English" not only as an example of how language is constantly developing and changing, but also as a type of literacy in and of itself, which can be capitalized on to engage students in more traditional learning. Educators who argue this point believe that the more students write (no matter what format it is written in), the better they will get at writing.

The educators that view texting as a more positive trend, revel in how comfortable today's students are with writing, and how much easier it is for them to get words on a page, computer screen, or cell phone. An article in The Washington Post researched the notion behind educators' positive approach to text messaging. Barbara Bass, director of the Maryland Writing Project, reported:

For a while, people were not writing anything. Now, people are actually seeing words on paper. And that's good. In fact, text messaging and e-mail are creating a new generation of adolescent writers, accustomed to translating their every thought and feeling into words. They write more than any generation has since the days when telephone calls were rare and the mailman rounded more than once a day.
(Helderman, 2003)

Although there are many educators that share this positive opinion of text messaging and student writing, I researched a leading contributor and supporter of this side of the debate.

Quantity Leads to Quality:
Al Filreis --University of Pennsylvania

Al Filreis, an English professor at University of Penn, argues for the positivity of text messaging juxtaposed with academic writing. He claims says he has seen the quality of student writing improve, first in the mid-1990s with the growing popularity of e-mail and again as an increasing number of cell phones have included keyboards.

As the director of the Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing at Penn, Filreis works with high school writers as well as undergraduate students on a consistent basis. In an interview with a reporter from The Christian Science Monitor, Filreis supported his claim in the following statement:

In writing, quantity tends to lead to quality, and we're doing quantity right now. Through texting and other instant communication, my students have learned hard-to-teach lessons about audience, succinctness and syntax. My students are better writers than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 25 years ago. Not only are students writing more, but they are also revising and editing as well...Too many critics dismiss this form of communication because they assume kids jot off anything that pops into their heads. While sometimes that is true, I've witnessed students read over messages before sending them to a friend, editing to clear up mistakes or imprecision... Students are practicing wording and rewording, understanding the linguistic implications better than most average non-texting adult. (McCarroll, 2005)

This claim sparked something inside of me while researching. I agree with Filreis among the other educators that argue on this side of the debate. His claim that, "students have learned hard-to-teach lessons about audience, succinctness, and syntax" resonated with me.

Text-Messaging: A Lesson in Linguistics

"What will this generation learn and what will the lose in the relentless stream of sentence fragments, abbreviations, and emoticons? - Pam Zingser, Washington Post

After researching both sides of the texting spectrum, I formulated my own opinions on the positive impact text messaging has had on student writing. Audience, succinctness, and syntax have all been activated and practiced in the composition of text messaging. Let's take a more in-depth look at how...

Audience [n] - a regular public that manifests interest, support, enthusiasm, or the like.

Text messaging has influenced and benefited a student's sense of "audience." Although, at times, the lines may be hazy between formal and informal writing, texting has allowed students to practice differentiation among several audiences. For example, a text message sent to a student's parent about an incident at a party last night would be drastically different than a text message sent to a student's friend on campus. Text messaging helps students derive an understanding social contexts as well as semantics, classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

Succinctness [n] - the ability to express few words in a concise and terse manner

Reflecting all the way back to high school composition, teachers have always emphasized "getting to the main point" when writing. They penalize students for "rambling" in their papers, rather than emphasizing the main point. Educators who claim text messaging deters students from writing formally cannot deny the succinctness that formulates in academic writing as a result of habitual text messaging. When college students practice the succinctness of fitting 500 characters on a cell phone screen, they have the ability to break down their thoughts and chunk main ideas and supporting points. This chunking allows students to redirect their succinctness toward academic writing.

Syntax [n] - the study of rules and patterns for the formation of grammatical sentences and phrases from words.

I know that the notion of "syntax" would probably suit Baron's argument better than Filreis', but I think text messaging improves and practices the usage of syntax. Sentence structure is a basic grammatical element that is taught from an early elementary level. To agree with Filreis on his theory that quantity produces quality, I think syntax follows the same pattern. Texting allows for practice with syntax in countless ways. Texters have to choose their phrases wisely and quickly. Along with succinctness, a text message has its own form of "language," and texters must study and follow the rules and patterns when forming sentences and phrases in a message. Although the syntax of text messaging probably doesn't equate to the syntax in academic composition, it is still present and necessary to understand and formulate grammatical sentences and phrases; so it's a valid means of practice.

Concluding Thoughts

To accept the notion that text messaging hasn't had an impact or influence on this generation is naive. From the invention of mobile communication to the innovation of the cell phone, text messaging has been a vital tool in composition. Although the cliché, "practice makes perfect," is probably not ideal in this case, the more we compose text messages, the more practice with writing we will have. Whether or not texting makes us "better writers" is not determined by this research alone, but there is something worth saying about the state of student writing that Filreis reported earlier. His claim that he has better writers now than he did 10, 20, or 25 years ago says something insightful and powerful about the advancement in technology and composition of cyberspace....which is an argument and viewpoint worth considering.

works cited

"Audience Definition | Definition of Audience at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/audience.

Baron, Naomi S. Alphabet to email how written English evolved and where it's heading. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.

GSM World : Home of the GSM Association. Web. 07 Dec. 2009.http://www.gsmworld.com.

Hardesty, Greg. "My Daughter Racked up 14,528 Text Messages in One Month." The Orange County Register. 7 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. www.ocregister.com/news/text-185518-phone-texting.html.

Helderman, Rosalind S. "Click by Click, Teens Polish Writing; Instant Messaging Teaches More Than TTYL and ROFL." The Washington Post 20 May 2003, Final ed., Metro sec.: B01. Print.

Lee, Jennifer. "I Think, Therefore IM." The New York Times 19 Sept. 2002: G1. The New York Times. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technology/i-think-therefore-im.html?scp=1&sq=I+think+therefore+IM&st=nyt.

McCarroll, Christina. "Teens Ready to Prove Text-Messaging Skills Can Score SAT Points." The Christian Science Monitor. 11 Mar. 2005. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0311/p01s02-ussc.html.

NetLingo The Internet Dictionary. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://www.netlingo.com.

"Succinctness Definition | Definition of Succinctness at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com.Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/succinctness.

"Syntax Definition | Definition of Syntax at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax.

"Texting Definition | Definition of Texting at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/texting.

"Urban Dictionary: texting." Urban Dictionary, December 7: Face base. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=texting.

Wireless Intelligence. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://www.wirelessintelligence.com.

"YouTube - Text Messaging Documentary." YouTube- Broadcast Yourself. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NRfUffEIY.