I)

HANOI UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FINAL WRITING TERM IV

HAS FREQUENT TEXTING

CAUSED MORE HARM TO
TEENAGERS?

Teacher: Ms. Lê Thùy Dương

Student: Nguyễn Thu Hương
Trần Thị Khánh Linh
Class: 1A-19

Hanoi, June 2021

 OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION

 Background information

 Thesis: Frequent texting might cause harm to children.

BODY

 Argument 1: Damage children’s language skills

 Argument 2: Provoke aggressive behavior

 Counter-argument and refutation:

- Counter-argument: Texting is convenient especially in this modern era

- Rebuttal: Reduce social connection and lead to poor communication skills

CONCLUSION

 Summarize all three main reasons

 Instant messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Facebook Messenger

are definitely familiar to people in this day and age. In fact, SMS texting is the original form

of modern messaging, which was first contrived in 1984 then utilized in the mid-1990s. Over

the 21st century, texting has been the most essential method of communication, especially

among young people. Textism, used in text messages and associated with the form of

abbreviations, removal of spelling or grammar, and emoticons (Macmillan Dictionary, 2010;

Carrington, 2004). Though it provides people with independence, convenience, and efficiency

of information delivery, nonstandard texts transparently cause multiple harmful consequences

on the rate of literacy, consequential manners, and social connection of teenagers.

The evolution of teen texting is supposed to widely damage children’s language skills.

The character limitations of text messages including inappropriate abbreviations, expressions,

and slang have been damaging to the way students distinguish between formal English and the

informal SMS language (Yusaf et al., 2015). Messaging style confuses not only students as

their assignments are superficial, inappropriate structures, and are contracting almost every

word but also teachers when comprehending those writings (Aziz, Shamim, Aziz & Avais,

2013). Furthermore, a survey on two groups divided by the frequency of texting revealed that

the High Texting group scored significantly worse (10.6% lower) than the No/Low Texting

Interruption group on memory recall and thus their overall learning of classroom materials

(Rosen et al., 2011).

As textism has become more pervasive, teen use of texting has now been the implicit

dominant of all communication forms, which encourages laziness and passive-aggressive

behavior. Literally, real connection between people and people comes from the sharing of

deep emotions and empathy, which can only be gained from a face-to-face conversation

1
(Mulqueen, 2019). By reducing the conversation to single words or simple images on a screen,

texting has totally destroyed a human's personality to blunt and artificial expressions in the

excuse of a fast-paced lifestyle. As a consequence, the false behavior behind those fast texts

may cause several problems in real life. The absence of real expression, especially pain or

hurt, is able to pound out anger or meanness behind the screen among teenagers (Mulqueen,

2019). As young people are able to virtually express their thoughts through texts and have no

commitment to a vocal conversation, it is complicated to figure out whether the texts have

good intentions or not within some symbols and stickers, leading to passive-aggressive

behaviors manifested in the use of blackmails, assessments, personal insults, and humiliation

of other people on social networking sites rather than direct harassment (Papandrea, 2008).

Some researchers claim that texting can destroy the spelling and grammatical

structures of the language, while others believe text messaging is just a modern means of

communication as the present busy lifestyle makes sufficient time for verbal communication

infrequent, hence teenagers often take advantage of the Internet or personal phone to connect

with people (Baron, 2008). Nevertheless, texting is supposed to extremely diminish the

cultural standard as well as transform society into an emotionless crowd with senseless icons

instead of actual sentiments. Surprisingly, a massive 92% of surveyed participants assured that

advanced technology has detrimental impacts on face-to-face interaction, and only 1% did not

(Drago, 2015). Texting stimulates rush thoughts in instant messages instead of direct

connections. Consequently, people who text a lot tend to be more irritating with in-person

communication and may avoid social contexts by using their cell phones to converse with

people who are in their presence. Besides, this style of communication can even harm

adolescents’ relationships like with their parents, siblings, and friends when interrupting

2
family mealtime, vacations, and rituals (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008). Moreover,

teenagers who are immersed in text messaging may lack basic communication skills in real

life including self-confidence, conversation interaction, and conflict-solving (Graham, 2013).

In conclusion, human conversational skills are getting rusty and will only get worse as

more people use virtual assistants, online shopping, and other apps that help us avoid actually

talking to another human being. Not only is texting the seed of grammar and spelling illiteracy

but also emotional illiteracy among teenagers (Mulqueen, 2019). Though the complexity and

messiness in a conversation get reduced by using the indirect expression, they will become

conversation-avoidant (Turkle, 2015). Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge the importance

of using proper grammar in communication as well as education as a way to preserve the

essence of language.

(Word count: 731 words)

3
 REFERENCES

1. Aziz, Sh., Shamim M., Aziz F. M. & Avais P. (2013). The impact of texting/SMS language

on academic writing of students - What do we need to panic about? Linguistics and

Translation, 12884-12890.

2. Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: language in an online and mobile world. Language in

Society. 38(5), 647-648. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001.

3. Carrington, V. (2004). Texts and literacies of the Shi Jinrui. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 25, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000205109.

4. Drago, E. (2015). The effect of technology on face-to-face communication. The Journal of

Undergraduate Research, 6.

5. Graham, J. B. (2013). Impacts of text messaging on adolescents’ communication skills:

school social workers’ perceptions. Retrieved May 4, 2021 from Sophia, the St.

Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/184.

6. Macmillan Dictionary. (2010). Textism definition and synonyms. Submitted from: United

Kingdom.

7. Mulqueen, M. (2019). Texting really is ruining personal relationships. NBC news. Retrieved

May 4, 2021 from https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/texting-really-ruining-

personal-relationships-ncna1097461.

4
8. Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical

examination of the educational impact of text message- induced task switching in the

classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicología

educativa, 17(2), 163-177. doi:10.5093/ed2011v17n2a4.

9. Papandrea, M. (2008). Student speech rights in the digital age. Florida Law Review, 60(5),

1027-1037. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol60/iss5/2.

10. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age (1st ed.).

Penguin Books.

11. Subrahmanyam, K. & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent

relationships. The Future of Children 18(1), 119–146.

https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006.

12. Yusaf, A., et al. (2015). Proliferation of text messaging and its effects on language.

International Research Journal of Arts and Humanities, 43(43).

5
 APPENDIX

Reference 1. Aziz, Shamim, Aziz & Avais, 2013

Reference 2. Baron, 2008

6
Reference 3. Carrington, 2004

Reference 4. Drago, 2015

7
Reference 5. Graham, 2013

8
Reference 6. Macmillan Dictionary, 2010

Reference 7. Mulqueen, 2019

9
10
Reference 8. Rosen, Lim, Carrier & Cheever, 2011

Reference 9. Papandrea, 2008

11
Reference 10. Turkle, 2015

Reference 11. Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008

12
Reference 12. Yusaf et al, 2015

13