Texting harms grammatical ability.

C1) Lack of novelty Texting is a recent invention. If it could be blamed for worsening grammatical ability, we would see a sharp drop in this ability after texting became mainstream. But this there has been no evidence of this: Falling literacy has been reported for generations, since at least 1921, with no evidence of a dramatic plunge after the introduction of text messages. Errors like 'would of' have been around for at least 200 years, and other errors like apostrophe elision have also been around the whole time: there is no evidence that texting aggravates this. (1) Moreover, for many years way before the invention of texting, we have simplified the written language to facilitate speed, on media such as post-it notes. Scribes of the yesteryear employed extensive simplification schemes (1), as have those who used alphabetic shorthand systems. (2) Take this script, with a transliteration in standard English orthography on the left (complete with the missing words): These days, shorthand systems - and, to some extent, post-its - have fallen out of mainstream use, and people are seeking ways to abbreviate on electronic media. Textisms have simply succeeded older abbreviation systems. They add very little that is new to the table. In fact, textspeak is very similar to the standard written forms of languages: It has been estimated that only 6% of the words texts are abbreviated. (1) There are of course hardcore texters who rait evry wrd laik d1s, but they constitute only a minority. In general, textspeak is much more similar to the standard written languages than shorthand systems.Given that simplifying the written language is nothing new, introducing a new way to do so is unlikely to trigger a significant decline in language skills. C2) Code-switching is possible and easy Contrary to popular belief, correct grammar depends on the acceptability of a sentence in the speech community. (3) (4) If both parties in a text conversation agree that a construction is acceptable, it is correct in that particular dialect of English, and therefore grammatical in this context. To show that texting is detrimental to grammatical ability, it must be demonstrated that they will cloud the judgement of texters and compel them to utilise textspeak in contexts where standard English, rather than the texting dialect, is expected, such as formal letters and examinations.It is not uncommon - in fact, very common - for people to switch between high-prestige or standard and low-prestige or non-standard varieties of a language, a practice known as code-switching (5). If English speakers can switch code between textspeak and standard English (which is expected of them in formal situations) adeptly, there is no reason to suspect that texting is in any way insidious. Evidence shows that texters are very much aware of the contexts. Their pragmatic competence allows them to switch between textspeak and formal English, whichever is apposite in the situation. For example, contrary to conventional wisdom, the use of textspeak in examinations, which are mostly taken by the text-saavy youth, is extremely rare. All of the youths interviewed by David Crystal found the notion of using textspeak in examinations absurd and unheard of, and when textisms do appear in examinations, they are usually the result of carelessness or hurrying, rather than reflecting an overall inability to write properly. (1) C3) Multiple independent studies show otherwise Numerous empirical studies have shown positive or neutral correlations between texting skills or frequency and general literacy. (9) For example, Kemp (2010) noted that college students with more exposure to texting were better than or equal to their peers at producing and comprehending texts in standard English (as well as in textspeak). (7) Other studies have shown a positive correlation between texting use and reading ability or verbal reasoning (9), which is closely related to grammatical ability since it requires grammatical knowledge to parse syntactically correct sentences. (8) (1) Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University Press.(2) http://www.infobarrel.com...(3) http://people.ucsc.edu...(4) Kroeger, P. (2004). Analyzing syntax: a lexical-functional approach. Cambridge University Press.(5) Yule, G. (2014). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.(6) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu...(7) Kemp, N. (2010). Texting versus txtng: reading and writing text messages, and links with other linguistic skills. Writing Systems Research, 2(1), 53-71.(8) Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: The new science of language and mind (Vol. 7529). Penguin UK.(9) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu...