Bryana Malloy
ENGL
102-045
Causal
Argument
21
February 2012
Texting Does Pose a Threat to our Language
For
this blog entry, I chose to write about the article “Texting: A Boon, Not A
Threat, To Language” by Kristina Mialki. In this article, Mialki makes an
argument that texting will not destroy the English language, but rather keep it
alive. She makes two points that support this statement. One point states that
texting encourages reading and writing. The second point states that texting
encourages the creative use of the language. Also included in this article is a
study that found “the more children texted, the better they did on reading,
writing, spelling, and vocabulary tests” (364).
I
completely disagree with this article. I believe that texting does indeed
threaten our language. While texting, most use shortened versions of words or
phrases that make it easier to text. If people use these shortened words and
phrases more than they use the actual word, their instincts will be to write
out the word that they use more often—the shortened word. Let’s say for example
someone needs to write out a word. Since the shortened version of the word is
used so much while texting, they are uncertain of how to spell the full word
correctly. This has happened to me many times, as well as to most of my
friends. Texting does not allow people to be creative with the language, but it
is just a quick and easy way to write a message. More studies will need to be conducted
that accurately prove that texting does or does not destroy the English
language. Below, I have created a table for this causal argument.
Causal
Argument: Texting is not
a threat to our language and grammar.
(1) Today, people prefer to text, email, or
instant message. In these messages, words and phrases are simplified making it
easier and quicker to send a message.
(2) Some
people think that texting will ruin our language because of the way we write
out and use some words. This article is arguing that the more children text,
“the better they did on reading, writing, spelling, and vocabulary tests”
(364). By texting, people get to creatively use the language.
Cause
& Effect Relationships:
(1) Texting is not ruining our language
because: By texting, people write and read more, they get to creatively play
with the language, and it broadens people’s exposure to the written word.
(2) The
outcome of this is the more children text “the better they did on reading,
writing, spelling, and vocabulary tests” (364).
Main
& Contributory Causes:
Main Cause: Texting is not a threat to our language
and grammar.
Contributory Cause: Continuously using and spelling words
wrong without correction can cause one to become less knowledgeable of the
language.
Immediate
& Remote Causes:
Immediate Cause: Children study for the vocabulary test;
that is why they did well on it.
Remote Cause:
If one does not know how to spell a word, they just guess. Now, whenever
they need to use that word, they spell it the way they would when texting.
Causal
Chains:
Children learn
how to spell certain words in school
>They study
these words
>They text
the rest of the night
>When a
vocabulary test is given, they ace the test because they studied for it.
Post
Hoc reasoning:
There is no
direct connection between children texting and higher scores on spelling,
writing, reading, and vocabulary tests. These children are learning certain
things for those tests, which have nothing to do with texting. An overall study
should be conducted where different age groups are used to determine if texting
does pose a threat to the language.
Works Cited
Mialki,
Kristina. “Texting: A Boon, Not A Threat, To Language.” Practical Argument:
A
Text and Anthology. Ed. Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R.
Mandell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 24-26. Print.
