Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy

This study investigated the effects of mobile phone text-messaging method (predictive and multi-press) and experience (in texters and non-texters) on children’s textism use and understanding. It also examined popular claims that the use of text-message abbreviations, or textese spelling, is associated with poor literacy skills. A sample of 86 children aged 10 to 12 years read and wrote text messages in conventional English and in textese, and completed tests of spelling, reading, and non-word reading. Children took significantly longer, and made more errors, when reading messages written in textese than in conventional English. Further, they were no faster at writing messages in textese than in conventional English, regardless of texting method or experience. Predictive texters were faster at reading and writing messages than multi-press texters, and texting experience increased writing, but not reading, speed. General spelling and reading scores did not differ significantly with usual texting method. However, better literacy skills were associated with greater textese reading speed and accuracy. These findings add to the growing evidence for a positive relationship between texting proficiency and traditional literacy skills. Children’s text-messaging and literacy skills 3 The advent of mobile phones, and of text-messaging in particular, has changed the way that people communicate, and adolescents and children seem especially drawn to such technology. Australian surveys have revealed that 19% of 8to 11-year-olds and 76% of 12to 14-year-olds have their own mobile phone (Cupitt, 2008), and that 69% of mobile phone users aged 14 years and over use text-messaging (Australian Government, 2008), with 90% of children in Grades 7-12 sending a reported average of 11 texts per week (ABS, 2008). Text-messaging has also been the catalyst for a new writing style: textese. Described as a hybrid of spoken and written English (Plester & Wood, 2009), textese is a largely soundbased, or phonological, form of spelling that can reduce the time and cost of texting (Leung, 2007). Common abbreviations, or textisms, include letter and number homophones (c for see, 2 for to), contractions (txt for text), and non-conventional spellings (skool for school) (Plester, Wood, & Joshi, 2009; Thurlow, 2003). Estimates of the proportion of textisms that children use in their messages range from 21-47% (increasing with age) in naturalistic messages (Wood, Plester, & Bowyer, 2009), to 34% for messages elicited by a given scenario (Plester et al., 2009), to 50-58% for written messages that children ‘translated’ to and from textese (Plester, Wood, & Bell, 2008). One aim of the current study was to examine the efficiency of using textese for both the message writer and the reader, in order to understand the reasons behind (Australian) children’s use of textisms. The spread of textese has been attributed to texters’ desire to overcome the confines of the alphanumeric mobile phone keypad (Crystal, 2008). Since several letters are assigned to each number, the multi-press style of texting requires the somewhat laborious pressing of the same button one to four times to type each letter (Taylor & Vincent, 2005). The use of textese thus has obvious savings for multi-press texters, of both time and screen-space (as message character count cannot exceed 160). However, there is evidence, discussed below, that reading textese can be relatively slow and difficult for the message recipient, compared to Children’s text-messaging and literacy skills 4 reading conventional English. Since the use of textese is now widespread, it is important to examine the potential advantages and disadvantages that this form of writing may have for message senders and recipients, especially children, whose knowledge of conventional English spelling is still developing. To test the potential advantages of using textese for multi-press texters, Neville (2003) examined the speed and accuracy of textese versus conventional English in writing and reading text messages. British girls aged 11-16 years were dictated two short passages to type into a mobile phone: one using conventional English spelling, and the other “as if writing to a friend”. They also read two messages aloud from the mobile phone, one in conventional English, and the other in textese. The proportion of textisms produced is not reported, but no differences in textese use were observed between texters and non-texters. Writing time was significantly faster for textese than conventional English messages, with greater use of textisms significantly correlated with faster message typing times. However, participants were significantly faster at reading messages written in conventional English than in textese, regardless of their usual texting frequency. Kemp (2010) largely followed Neville’s (2003) design, but with 61 Australian undergraduates (mean age 22 years), all regular texters. These adults, too, were significantly faster at writing, but slower at reading, messages written in textese than in conventional English, regardless of their usual messaging frequency. Further, adults also made significantly more reading errors for messages written in textese than conventional English. These findings converge on the important conclusion that while the use of textisms makes writing more efficient for the message sender, it costs the receiver more time to read it. However, both Neville (2003) and Kemp (2010) examined only multi-press method texting, and not the predictive texting method now also available. Predictive texting requires only a single key-press per letter, and a dictionary-based system suggests one or more likely words Children’s text-messaging and literacy skills 5 based on the combinations entered (Taylor & Vincent, 2005). Textese may be used less by predictive texters than multi-press texters for two reasons. Firstly, predictive texting requires fewer key-presses than multi-press texting, which reduces the need to save time by taking linguistic short-cuts. Secondly, the dictionary-based predictive system makes it more difficult to type textisms that are not pre-programmed into the dictionary. Predictive texting is becoming increasingly popular, with recent studies reporting that 88% of Australian adults (Kemp, in press), 79% of Australian 13to 15-year-olds (De Jonge & Kemp, in press) and 55% of British 10to 12-year-olds (Plester et al., 2009) now use this method. Another aim of this study was thus to compare the reading and writing of textese and conventional English messages in children using their typical input method: predictive or multi-press texting, as well as in children who do not normally text. Finally, this study sought to investigate the popular assumption that exposure to unconventional word spellings might compromise children’s conventional literacy skills (e.g., Huang, 2008; Sutherland, 2002), with media articles revealing widespread disapproval of this communication style (Thurlow, 2006). In contrast, some authors have suggested that the use of textisms might actually improve children’s literacy skills (e.g., Crystal, 2008). Many textisms commonly used by children rely on the ability to distinguish, blend, and/or delete letter sounds (Plester et al., 2008, 2009). Practice at reading and creating textisms may therefore lead to improved phonological awareness (Crystal, 2008), which consistently predicts both reading and spelling prowess (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988). Alternatively, children who use more textisms may do so because they have better phonological awareness, or poorer spellers may be drawn to using textisms to mask weak spelling ability (e.g., Sutherland, 2002). Thus, studying children’s textism use can provide further information on the links between the component skills that constitute both conventional and alternative, including textism-based, literacy. Children’s text-messaging and literacy skills 6 There is evidence for a positive link between the use of textisms and literacy skills in preteen children. Plester et al. (2008) asked 10to 12-year-old British children to translate messages from standard English to textese, and vice versa, with pen and paper. They found a significant positive correlation between textese use and verbal reasoning scores (Study 1) and spelling scores (Study 2). Plester et al. (2009) elicited text messages from a similar group of children by asking them to write messages in response to a given scenario. Again, textism use was significantly positively associated with word reading ability and phonological awareness scores (although not with spelling scores). Neville (2003) found that the number of textisms written, and the number read accurately, as well as the speed with which both conventional and textese messages were read and written, all correlated significantly with general spelling skill in 11to 16-year-old girls. The cross-sectional nature of these studies, and of the current study, means that causal relationships cannot be firmly established. However, Wood et al. (2009) report on a longitudinal study in which 8to 12-year-old children’s use of textese at the beginning of the school year predicted their skills in reading ability and phonological awareness at the end of the year, even after controlling for verbal IQ. These results provide the first support for the idea that textism use is driving the development of literacy skills, and thus that this use of technology can improve learning in the area of language and literacy. Taken together, these findings also provide important evidence against popular media claims that the use of textese is harming children’s traditional literacy skills. No similar research has yet been published with children outside the UK. The aim of the current study was thus to examine the speed and proficiency of textese use in Australian 10to 12-year-olds and, for the first time, to compare the r