Someone may be thinking that young people always seem to be too much ‘face to screen’ than they do ‘face to face,’ definitely they are right. A greater percentage of the screen time is composed of reading or writing down English that does not even look quite like English should. Texting is increasingly growing into a big problem ever since the mobile phones and gadgets begun getting into people’s lives; these gadgets are owned by old folks as well as kids as young as 8 or 10. Researchers and doctors are running several tests and carrying out studies on the effects of texting on teens and other users. Providentially, over the recent years, studies have come up with fair conclusions. Instead of negatively impacting children’s spelling and use of English, being exposed to ‘textism’ is in fact linked with improved literacy skills. Among grownups, there seems to be a little form of consistency relations among the use of ‘textisms’ and skill of spelling.
It is not a wonder that most parents, teachers and even the teens get themselves apprehensive about the invariable exposure to non-standard forms of written English. It is quite plausible to anyone that constant use of to and too written as 2, or goodnight wrote as gnt or nyt may probably translate to these sorts of spellings and writing starting to find their way into an individual’s formal writing, particularly the students. Nonetheless, there are fewer research cases that are looking into ‘textism’ that characterize a violation of grammar conventions other than an individual’s re-spelling of words. capital words are constantly ignored; no one bothers about apostrophes as sentences are separated from others by ironical laughter,’ lol or expressions of emotion other than the standard punctuation marks. It is logically accepted to write im on my way John!!! when texting. How do we expect the growing kids to grasp the use of punctuation or even to remember their uses in correct English writing?
According to research, there are three most common kinds of violation of grammatical English use when texting. The first one that stands out is the intentional exclusion of punctuation and capitalization when writing. The other common type of violation is the omission of words. One writes ‘am going shopping in the afternoon. want to tag along? The other outstanding violation is the improper application of punctuation, for instance, using more than necessary punctuation marks, or emoticons and ‘initialisms’ instead of using the normal correct punctuation. The other common violations are word-level grammatical violations when texting. There are apparent deliberate violations like ‘is you’ and reductions of wordings like tryna, hafta for trying to, have to.
Nenagh, a Professor at Coventry University UK, carried out a study using students and how they engage in texting and messaging regarding grammar use for a period of one year. The students were taken through varied tasks that would give an assessment of their formal spelling and grammar skills and techniques alongside analysis of their ‘textism’ habits. After a period of a year, the participants were taken through grammar and spelling tasks.
In general, there were no proofs of use of grammatical violations in text messages constantly related t below par grammar and spelling abilities in school going pupils and students. To some extent, the omission of capitals and poor punctuation skills was linked with subsequent poor spelling in primary pupils, apart from this, the other notable relations between ‘textism’ and formal writing were positive as the students and pupils were able to distinguish the mood of the writing. The constant use of ungrammatical sorts of words and the omission of capitalization skills and punctuation as well as the use of word reductions are associated with better and faster spelling development in the users; thanks to the study by Nenagh.
It is not like there is no negativity with constant use of poor grammatical and spelling skills, the tendency to omit capitals, for instance, indeed affects subsequent tasks of written grammar and even spoken grammar. Punctuation as well is visible in future grammar use but not in great extents as it is to levels that can be readily corrected. These effects are in most cases out of an individual’s general ability and not from specifically texting in poor grammar and spelling mistakes.
Apart from the study on UK students, previous studies on messaging via text and literacy skills among students have found out that most students normally consolidate their knowledge of written work, particularly grammar. The student’s ability to manipulate texts and language in general in the informal texting settings gives them an opportunity to develop skills of associating sounds and letters. The ability to link letters and sounds is well known to lead to better reading and spelling skills in individuals. Additionally, the combining of unconventional techniques of bringing words together to form phrases, mainly done to save space while at the same time maintain the intended meaning or the willing addition of emoticons to messages encourages the users, particularly students, to continue engaging with the same grammatical conventions that they are constantly contravening.
In young adults, there is a constant muted relation among a continued use of ‘textisms’ and formal grammatical and spelling skills. In the reason that is seen to be explaining this is that maybe the young adults no longer have a passion to use linguistic skills in playing with written language in casuals set-ups of messaging. Rather, their messaging style is likely to be shaped by expectations they hold about how texts should look, to text in support of the self-correct features of their gadgets as well as the urge to incorporate emotional feelings in their text messages.
Conclusively, the proof discussed here suggest that grammatical violations in writing text messages by children, teenagers and even adults have no direct relation to the decline in grammatical knowledge and use. In most cases, young individuals (particularly students) are aware that there are varied forms of communication, and each requires a particular way of writing. As long as people stay on the knowing side of this awareness, there is no reduction in writing skill, and instead, the violations of grammar in digital communication is an addition of another way, a casual style o the communicator’s repertoire.