kevoncampbell-blog - Tumblr blog

kevoncampbell-blog · 13 years ago

Text

The Effects of Text and Instant Messaging on Written Communication: A Literature Review

Introduction

Instant messaging and text messaging are two popular forms of electronically mediated communication among teenagers and young adults (De Jonge & Kemp, 2012; Ling and Baron, 2007; Bushnell, Kemp and Martin, 2011; Crystal, 2008; Dansieh, 2011; Drouin, 2011; Plester, Wood and Bell, 2008; Tagliamonte and Denis, 2008; Thurlow, 2006). Globally, text and instant messaging are considered to have had a significant impact on the communication patterns of pre-teens, teenagers and adults.

This Literature Review will show how text messaging, instant messaging and textism have been conceptualized in various studies. Subsequently, three thematic areas relating to the effects of text and instant messaging on written Standard English are presented. An examination of the various operational measurements for the variables is undertaken, in addition to an overview of theories that applicable to particular studies. Based on the literature, a rationale for further study is provided.

Text Messaging, Instant Messaging and Textism

Definitions of text messaging are relatively consistent across the literature. The term ‘text messaging’, originally referred to transmissions of text between mobile phones using the Short Messaging Service (Dansieh, 2011; Farina & Lyddy, 2011). According to Dansieh, 2.4 billion people worldwide were active users of text messaging services in 2007. With advancements in technology and the emergence of new platforms, the definition of text messaging has been broadened to include the transmission of images and video (Farina & Lyddy, 2011).

Conceptual definitions of instant messaging have also changed with technological advancements. Instant messaging refers to “a one to one synchronous form of computer-mediated communication” (Baron, 2006 p. 30). This communication is real-time interactive discourse (Thurlow, 2006) that is made possible through online contact (Ling & Baron, 2007). Social networking websites and applications such as Myspace, Facebook and Twitter, utilise a real-time discourse to some extent (Drouin, 2011). Consequently, the enabling discourse features of these websites and applications can be conceptualised as instant messaging. Crystal (2008) explained however, that such a conceptualisation is a matter of debate. Further debate exists as to whether electronic mail (e-mail) should be considered as instant messaging (Crystal, 2008). For the purposes of this study, instant messaging is conceptualised as informal, real-time electronically mediated discourse. While email may fit within such a conceptualisation, email transmissions are not considered under this study.

Plester, Wood and Bell (2008) indicated that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between text messaging and instant messaging. Ling and Baron (2007) presented some of these differences, noting that text messages are usually limited to 160 characters, while instant messages typically have no upper limit. In addition, individual text message transmissions were longer than individual instant messaging transmissions (Ling & Baron, 2007).

In spite of these differences, text messaging and instant messaging are very similar in terms of their use of language (Farina and Lyddy, 2006; Plester et al., 2008; Ling and Baron, 2007). Crystal (2008) and Thurlow (2003) asserted that both text and instant messages utilise a new language form. Writers have used different terms in reference to this language including, “textese” (Busnell et al., 2011; Drouin, 2011), “text-speak” (Crystal, 2008; Drouin & Davis, 2009), “textism” ( Plester et al., 2008; Wood, Jackson, Hart, Plester & Wilde, 2011; Powell & Dixon, 2011), or simply “text language” (Farina & Lyddy, 2011). The term textism appears to be the most widely used throughout the literature and will be used for this paper in reference to the language used in text and instant messages.

Linguists have attempted to categorise features of textisms, and dictionaries of textism have emerged (e.g. Crystal, 2008). Though there is an absence of universally agreed categories, some broad features of textism have been established (Coe & Oakhill, 2011). Specifically, textism utilises an abbreviated vocabulary that includes acronyms and initialisms (for example,, ttyl for ‘talk to you later’), letter/number homophones (e.g. ‘cu’ for ‘see you’ and ‘l8r’ for ‘later’), shortenings and contractions (e.g. ‘txt’ for ‘text’ and ‘cuz’ for ‘because’), emoticons or typographic symbols (e.g. ‘:-)’ for ‘smile’), non-conventional spelling (e.g. ‘thanx’ for ‘thanks’ and ‘skool’ for ‘school’), onomatopoeic spellings (e.g ‘haha’ or ‘zzzz’), in addition to hybrids (two or more of the above features) (Crystal, 2008; Drouin, 2010; Farina & Lyddy, 2011; Plester, Wood & Bell, 2008; Plester, Wood & Joshi, 2009; Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008; Thurlow, 2003).

The literature suggests that use of textism is most prevalent among teenagers and young adults (Baron, 2009; Crystal, 2008; Plester et al., 2009). As a result, “a lively controversy has sprung up around its use” (Crystal, 2008, p. 77), mainly from educators, parents and media (Baron, 2005, 2008; Drouin, 2011). Concerns have arisen that the literacy skills may be adversely affected because of frequent use of textism (Coe & Oakhill, 2011; Dansieh, 2011; Drouin & Davis, 2009; Khodarahmi, 2008; Lee, 2002; Thurlow, 2006; Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008).

The work of Dansieh (2011) is useful in providing a general context to the arguments surrounding the relationship between texting and written communication skills. Dansieh identified three main schools of thought regarding the relationship. First, is the assumption that texting has a negative impact on the written communication skills of students. Second, as posited by linguists such as Crystal (2008), is the view that texting enhances the writing skills of students. Proponents of the third school of thought “express doubt that texting has any effect, whether positive or negative, on students’ writing skills” (Dansieh, 2011, p. 222).

Evidence of negative correlations between use of textism and written Standard English

The assumption that texting has a negative impact on literacy skills is the viewpoint most commonly presented by media (Plester et al., 2009). From a content analysis of 101 print media accounts of text messaging and instant messaging technologies, Thurlow (2006) posited that media reports most often portray textism in a negative light. According to Thurlow, there “is the tendency for these metadiscursive evaluations also to dovetail with a rising public discourse about the communicative ineptitude of young people” (2006, p. 671). Thurlow further explained that media discourse on textism is “often anecdotal or empirically unfounded” (2006, p. 689). Media however plays a critical role in shaping public discourse and public understanding of particular issues (Carrington, 2005; Drouin, 2011; Thurlow, 2006). It is therefore not surprising that there has been a “moral panic among parents and teachers” (Baron, 2009, p.44); regarding the possible effects of text and instant message use and textism on written communication.

The findings of some studies can however be considered as validation of the view promulgated by media that textism is negatively affecting writing skill. Rosen, Chang, Erwin, Carrier & Cheever (2010) and De Jonge & Kemp (2012) concluded from their analyses of textism and written communication among young adults, that there is a negative correlation between reported textism use and formal writing. The negative association was most evident among the members of the sample who did not have a college education.

Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith & Macgill (2008) also provided evidence to substantiate the view that the use of textisms may have a negative impact on students’ written communication abilities. According to Lenhart et al.:

Overall, nearly two-thirds of teens (64%) say they incorporate some informal styles from their text-based communications into their writing at school. Half (50%) of teens say they sometimes use informal writing styles instead of proper capitalisation and punctuation in their school assignments; 38% say they have used text shortcuts in school work such as “LOL” (which stands for “laugh out loud”); 25% have used emoticons (symbols like smiley faces ☺) in school work. (p. 28).

Dansieh (2011) also found negative associations between textism use and writing skill in his study of College students in Ghana. Dansieh concluded that “text messaging could pose a threat to writing skills” (2011, p. 228). Importantly, Dansieh’s research was conducted with students for whom English was not their native language.

Four theoretical perspectives may be used to explain the findings of Rosen et al. (2010), Lenhart et al. (2008) De Jonge & Kemp (2012) and Dansieh (2011). These theories are Retroactive Inference Theory, Decay Theory (Drouin and Davis, 2009) the Low Road/High Road Theory of Transfer of Learning and Situated Learning Theory (Rosen et al., 2010).

An application of Retroactive Inference Theory and Decay Theory would provide support for the view that the more students utilise textism, the more likely it is that memory of Standard English will fade (Drouin & Davis, 2009). Further, an application of the Low Road/High Road Theory of Transfer of Learning and Situated Learning Theory would suggest that students who utilise textism are likely to transfer a similar form of writing to Standard English (Rosen et al., 2010).

Evidence of nil or positive correlations between textism use and literacy

Drouin & Davis (2009) declared that while it is theoretically possible that textism can impair students’ ability to reproduce Standard English in formal academic settings, the chances of such impairment occurring is improbable. Drouin & Davis explain that:

Research shows that information in the long term memory store is resilient to the effects of time . . . [and] . . . it is likely that the concerns voiced by the media, educators, and parents on the detrimental effects of text speak on SE literacy are largely unfounded. (p. 52).

Findings of many studies can be presented as to support the view that the use of textism is unlikely to negatively impact on written communication skills in academic settings. Baron (2009), Crystal (2008), Ling & Baron, (2007), Tagliamonte & Denis (2008), Thurlow (2006) and Wood et al. (2011) all reported that from their analysis of text and instant message discourse, only a small percentage of words are actually abbreviated. Teenagers are estimated to abbreviate only 5-20% of their words in text and instant messages (Bushnell et al., 2011). These findings would suggest that it is unlikely that textism would be reproduced in formal written communication, as textisms are not significantly utilised in text and instant message conversations.

As indicated by Lenhart et al. (2008) however, students have indicated that they have used textism in academic assignments. Drouin & Davis (2009) also outlined that half of their sample of students reported using textism in their schoolwork. Nevertheless, from an analysis of the written school assignments by the same sample of students, Drouin & Davis asserted that use of textism was minimal in school assignments. The self-reports of the students were therefore not corroborated by an analysis of their school scripts. Drouin & Davis’ results suggested that while a significant percentage of the students studied by Lenhart et al. reported using textism in academic assignments, there existed the possibility that there is some over-reporting. Participants’ opinions regarding their textism use may have been influenced by the negative media attention towards texting and literacy (Drouin & Davis, 2009).

Contrary to the pessimistic view of textism as presented by the media (Thurlow, 2006), empirical evidence suggests that frequent text and instant message use, and the use of textism, does not negatively impact on students ability to write Standard English. Rather, studies among teenagers and young adults have indicated either no significant differences in literacy performance between frequent and infrequent textism users (Drouin & Davis, 2009) or positive relationships between textism use and written communication skills (Drouin, 2011; Powell & Dixon, 2011).

Crystal’s early work in the field of electronically mediated communication may be used to explain the findings of Drouin, Drouin & Davis and Powell & Dixon. Crystal (2009) proposed that while teenagers and young adults may use deviant spellings in texts and instant messages, these teenagers and young adults are aware that such spellings are deviant. According to Crystal, one would have to first know the correct spelling of a particular word in order to abbreviate that word. Further, teenagers understand the differences between writing in formal and informal contexts and are therefore unlikely to reproduce textism in formal academic settings (Baron, 2009; Crystal, 2009).

The Low-Road/High-Road Theory of Transfer of Learning may add some credence to the views of Baron and Crystal (Drouin, 2011). According to the Low-Road/High-Road Theory, those exposed to textese might transfer these abbreviations unconsciously to tasks that require similar processes, such as informal writing (low-road), but may make a conscious decision to use the appropriate Standard English spellings where appropriate (high-road), as in formal writing (Drouin & Davis, 2010).

Plester et al (2008) noted that it may be more worthwhile to focus research on children, who are still developing language skills, as opposed to adolescents and young adults. Positive associations between textism use and written communication skills may exist because teenagers and young adults would have already developed basic writing skills (Kemp & Bushnell, 2008; Plester et al., 2008). The age of initial exposure to the internet and mobile phones is getting lower, and children are likely to be learning to text and learning to read and write at the same time (Coe & Oakhill, 2010). Consequently, researchers are increasingly using samples of children to assess the relationship between textism and literacy.

Many of the studies with children have reported that frequent use of textism is associated with higher literacy outcomes. Plester et al. (2008) assessed spelling proficiency and writing skill in a sample of children aged 10-12yrs. Their findings “show clear evidence that there is a positive relationship between knowledge of textism and other measures of linguistic ability…good spelling and writing attainment was associated with greater use of textisms” (2009, p. 149). In an attempt to further examine the positive relationship identified, Plester et al. (2009) included measures of phonological awareness in their pre-tests of the children. From their findings, they commented that:

What is most important, the extent of children’s textism use was able to predict significant variance in their word reading ability after taking into account age, individual differences in vocabulary, working memory, phonological awareness, non-word reading ability, and the age at which participants obtained their first mobile phone. This suggests that children’s use of textisms is not only positively associated with word reading ability, but that it may be contributing to reading development in a way that goes beyond simple phonologically based explanations. (p. 158).

Coe & Oakhill (2011) attempted to expand on the work of Plester et al., (2008 & 2009). Utilising similar methods in assessing whether high and low textism users differ in their outcomes on standardised tests of literacy, Coe & Oakhill found that the better spellers utilised more textism. Further support for the Low Road/High Road Theory of Transfer can be gleaned in Coe and Oakhill’s results. The children in the sample were able to switch from the formal register used in schools to the informal register used in text messages.

Improvements in technology associated with text and instant messaging have resulted in spell-check options being made available for instant messaging services, and users of text messaging services being provided with the option of predictive text messaging as a text-entry method (Bushnell et al., 2011). The possibility exists that the availability and use of spell-check and predictive text may decrease the possibility that students will use textism in their text and instant messages. Busnell et al. (2011) and Kemp & Bushnell (2011) report that general spelling skills did not vary by input method. In addition, there was again growing evidence that there is a positive relationship between textism use and traditional literacy skills (Bushnell et al., 2011; Kemp & Bushnell, 2011).

Plester et al. (2008 &2009), Coe and Oakhill (2011), Bushnell et al., (2011) and Kemp & Bushnell (2011) all assessed textisms produced in a controlled environment. Students were asked to translate Standard English passages in order to measure textism use. Wood et al. (2011) provided their sample of children with mobile phones for a 10-week period, in order to assess textism use in a more naturalistic setting. Contrary to the findings of Plester et al. (2008 & 2009) and Coe & Oakhill (2011), no significant difference in written communication skills were identified between high and low textism users. The inconsistency in findings may be explained by the short evaluation period of 10 weeks.

To further investigate the inconsistency, a longitudinal study of children’s text messaging and literacy development was conducted by Wood, Meachem, Bowyer, Jackson, Tarczynski-Bowles & Plester (2011). Conducted over an entire academic year, the findings of the study indicated that:

textism use at the beginning of the academic year was able to predict unique variance in spelling performance at the end of the academic year after controlling for age, verbal IQ, phonological awareness, and spelling ability at the beginning of the year. When the analysis was reversed, reading and spelling ability were unable to predict unique variance in textism usage. These data suggest that there is some evidence of a causal contribution of textism usage to spelling performance in children aged 8–12 years. (p. 431).

The findings of Wood et al. (2011) whose research is one of a very limited number of longitudinal studies in the literature indicate that there may be some element of causality between the use of textism and students literacy skills.

The suggestion that textism use may enhance student literacy is a plausible one. Text and instant messaging increase exposure to written words and may enhance spelling through phonological awareness (Plester et al., 2008 & 2009) and through the development of phonological processing skills (Wood et al., 2011).

Summary and Conclusions

In summary, a review of the literature suggests that there is little evidence to support assertions that textism use is having a negative effect on students’ ability to write Standard English in academic settings. Textism accounts for a small number of words used in text and instant messaging conversations. Further, where used, textism has been associated with little difference in the literacy skills of high and low textism users (Drouin & Davis, 2009), or has positively correlated with the written communication skills of teenagers and young adults (Drouin, 2011; Powell & Dixon, 2011) and pre-teens and children (Coe & Oakhill, 2011; Bushnell et al., 2011; Kemp & Bushnell, 2011; Plester et al., 2008 & 2009; Wood et al., 2011).

The following trend has also emerged from the literature. Investigations into the effects of textism use on literacy have shown positive correlations in UK children (e.g. Coe & Oakhill, 2011; Plester et al., 2008 & 2009; Wood et al., 2011) and nil or negative correlations in US and Australian teenagers and young adults (e.g. Drouin & Davis, 2009; De Jonge and Kemp, 2012). Cultural factors may have played a role in producing variations in the findings, as seen through the geographical trends. The possibility of culture impacting on the relationship between textism and literacy is further evidenced by the work of Dansieh in his study of undergraduates who used English as their second language.

0 notes