A Response to Michaela Cullington

Michaela Cullington’s essay “Texting and Writing” explores the possible effect of teen texting on formal writing in school. Cullington lists three different hypotheses scholars pose about the cor relation between the two: those who criticize texting for its negative impact on writing, those who believe texting is actually a beneficial exercise in writing, and those who see no relationship at all. Cullington begins her analysis with the first theory, quoting concerned teachers, citing the shock ing statistic that “only 25% of high school seniors are ‘proficient’ writers” (90), and adding testi mony from two of her former teachers. Cullington then explores the second take on texting and writing by providing contrasting testimony from other teachers who believe that texting is a bless ing to their students’ writing. Cullington retrieves support for these two opposing views from inter views and previous studies. To explore the theory that texting is irrelevant to formal writing, how ever, she performs her own research, gathering results from seven students, two teachers, and an analysis of students’ written work. Despite the testimonial evidence against and in support of tex ting, Cullington’s own results show that texting has “no effect, positive or negative, on [students’] writing as a result of texting” (95). Although her study supports the hypothesis that texting and writing have no relationship to one another, Cullington (and the researchers whose work she analyzed) recognizes the significance of new technology and society’s evolving modes of communication. She writes, “The use of text mes saging as a common means of communication is becoming increasingly popular; therefore, this issue should continue to be examined” (94). Not surprisingly, the popularity of texting has increased since the time of Cullington’s article and so too has research on its effect on student writ ing. What Cullington may not have anticipated, however, are the ways in which texting itself has changed. How might innovations such as Internet access, various “apps,” and software advance ments have changed texting in the mere two years since Michaela Cullington published her article in 2011? One of the most notable differences between now and two years ago is the diminishing preva lence of abbreviations and the use of acronyms. When instant messaging and text messaging first emerged, there wasn’t a word or phrase in the English language that could not be shortened. While the same ability may still be present today, the actual presence of such terms as “gtg” (got to go) and “u” (you) has largely decreased. 1 So, whether consistent or, as Cullington put it, “anecdotal,” the appearance of these terms in formal writing should have, in theory, decreased as well. This fall in acronym popularity may in large part be due to the vast popularity of the smartphone. The iPhone, Android, Blackberry, and similar devices are all members of the smartphone family, rec ognized as having “advanced functionality in addition to the standard functionality offered on a feature phone” (ATT however, what has made the device so distinctive is that texting has actually gotten “smarter.” People with smartphones have the assistance of spellcheck, reference “apps,” autocorrect, autocompletion and, most recently, voice-control capability (most