"2b or not 2b?"

Summary:

            In “2b or Not 2b?” by David Crystal, Crystal talks about why he believes that texting will not destroy language. He also believes that texting may add new lengths to communication. In the article, he mentions that John Humphrys is against texting and states that texters are “vandals who are doing our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago.” Crystal also adds in John Sutherland, another man who dislikes texting. Sutherland says that texting is “bleak, bald, sad shorthand. Drab shrinktalk… it makes dyslexia, poor spelling, and mental laziness. Texting in penmanship for illiterates.” Crystal talks about how texting came about in the early 1990’s and it has been growing since then. He also discusses about how abbreviation has been used for many, many years now, and people tend to use it when messages are longer. Overall, Crystal explains that texting is just the new way of people to communicate and it won’t do any harm to our language. He claims that if a person is texting with abbreviations then they probably already understand the way the words sound. Some people don’t like texting but it’s not going to leave anytime soon.

Response:

            I would have to say that I agree with Crystal. Texting is a way for people to communicate, and of course, people are going to use abbreviations more often. Personally, I rarely use abbreviations when I am texting, but when the person I’m texting does, I still understand what he/she is saying. Yes, it’ll make some people become lazier when it comes to typing things out, but I don’t believe it’ll make more people illiterate.