Devereaux 1

Richard Devereaux

Enc 1101

Prof. Mcgriff

10/ 25/18

Argument Essay

It is no question that technology shows an evolution in humanity. With this evolution

comes new ways to communicate the main ways being social media and texting. However, some

people feel these advances are actually causing damage to people's use of the english language,

and limit the ways people communicate. People also feel that texting and social media is having

a negative effect on the development of youths language. Some of the biggest push back on

texting and social media comes from statements that say that abbreviations and the use of texting

show damage to the english language, that both platforms cause damage to the brain, and that

texting is overall destroying the english language; I believe however, that these statements are

false and that texting and social media are just the new victims of an already present hate for the

change in language and communication.

People believe that texting causes a lot of problems for the development of

communication and language in today’s youth. Some have even gone to resemble youths use of

texting as a destruction to language. David Crystal in his article titled “​2b or Not 2b” ​mentions a

statement said by a man named John Humphry, “texters are vandals who are doing to our

language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours 800 years ago...” (899). However, these are

just blank statement accusations that have no true support behind them. People believe that

today’s youth just uses abbreviations willy-nilly for no reason. But Crystal states that this use has
 Devereaux 2

come out of necessity and that “Although many texters enjoy breaking linguistic rules, they also

know it needs to be understood”(901). So even though that yes teenagers use abbreviations often

it takes a certain level of knowledge on language to be able to create and understand this type of

communication. In fact later in the article Crystal states that “The more abbreviations in their

messages, the higher they scored on tests of reading and vocabulary”(906). Teenagers use of

abbreviations is the exact opposite of damaging to the english language. Instead it’s an

adaptation to the already present language that exists and requires an overall understanding of

language to perform.

It is also warned that texting and social media also causes damage to the brain. Both

pieces of technology severely limit the knowledge we can absorb and causes the brain to not be

as useful. In his article ​“Mind over Mass Media” ​ Steven Pinker states “PowerPoint, we’re told,

is reducing discourse to bullet points...Twitter is shrinking our attention spans”(1029). These

however, are just more baseless accusations to try and scare people into believing that media and

texting are bad for us. Media, texting, and technology are used everyday and are shown to not

damage the brain at all. In fact Pinker says “Yes, every time we learn a fact or skill wiring of the

brain changes...But the existence of neural plasticity does not mean the brain is a blob of clay

pounded into shape by experience” (1030). Simply put the brain doesn’t just get rid of everything

it knows for something new, but it rather takes what it already knows and uses it to adapt to

something new. Media and technology also don’t hinder our use of knowledge but rather

expands it. Because of the increase in media and texting use knowledge is passed around a lot

easier and as Pinker says “ The solution is not to bemoan technology but to develop strategies of

self-control, as we do with every other temptation in life”(1031).

 Devereaux 3

Texting has also received hatred for destroying language. The use of texting is criticized

as sloppy and lazy. In “Is Texting Killing the English Language” by John McWhorter, John

elaborates on this fact by saying “Texting has long been bemoaned as the downfall of written

word, “penmanship for illiterates,” as one critic called it”. These statements from critics have

shown the negative connotations that are pushed onto the idea of texting. These ideas are very

untrue to the realistic version and use of texting. To begin, writing was invented much later than

talking. Because of this writing was adapted to be more like talking. Through time writing

slowly became more and more akin to talking and became less sophisticated and the gap between

the two widened. Then when texting became a widespread phenomenon everything changed.

McWhorter said “In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no

mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation”. So when texting was invented this changed

and although you do have to write what you say; texting in it of itself is more of a form of talking

because its speed resembles that of verbal communication. So texting is not destroying the

english language because it is its own form of language. McWhorter also states “Texting is

developing its own kind of grammar and conventions”. Texting is not an abomination to the

english language but merely its own adaptation with rules that sprang from an already present

system.

There are a lot of criticisms to the use of texting and social media. Both pieces of

technology have been torn apart by the same complaints that befall every generation of

technology. The constant bashing has caused people to truly believe that the technology is more

evil than good. However, I truly believe that texting and social media is actually a tool for good

that although can come with its flaws with extended use; if used under the right circumstances it
 Devereaux 4

is nothing but a force of good. Texting and social media is a positive light and a showing of

evolution on the human language.

 Devereaux 5

Works Cited

Crystal, David. “2b or Not 2b?” ​Everyone’s an Author With Readings,​ Marilyn Moller,

W.W. Norton and Company, 2017, pp 899-907

McWhorter, John. “Is Texting Killing the English Language.” Time, 25 April 2013

Pinker, Steven. “Mind over Mass Media.” ​Everyone’s an Author With Readings,

​Marilyn Moller, W.W. ​ N

​ orton and Company, 2017, pp 1029-1032