Texting Does Pose a Threat to our Language

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.