TITLE PAGE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND SMS: A CRITIQUE

This term paper is dedicated to God Almighty.

I want to acknowledge the Lecturer for the opportunity to dive deeper into this

interesting topic and to understand all I need to know about SMS and English Language.

And also my friends for their contributions towards the success of this term paper.
 PREFACE

This Term Paper highlights the effects of SMS on our everyday grammar. It is divided

into five chapters; Introduction taking up the first chapter, the body which runs

through three well detailed chapters, and a concise conclusion.

TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………………………...i

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………..…iii

PREFACE…………………………………...……………………………………….iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………...…..v

CHAPTER ONE

1.0.Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTER TWO

2.0. Definition of Terms….…………………………………………………………….3

2.0.1. English…………….………………………………………………………..…...3

2.0.2. British English…….………………………………………………….…………3

2.0.3. American English….……………………………………………………...….…5

2.0.4. Texting……..…………………………………………………………………...6

CHAPTER THREE

3.0. SMS……………………………………………………………………………..8

3.1. History of SMS…………………………………………………….…………....9

3.2. SMS Today……………………………………………………………………...10

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0. Is SMS affecting the English Language? .............................................................11

4.1. Abbreviations, Acronyms and Pictograms………………………………..……..11

4.2. Phonetic Spelling and Deteriorating grammar…………………………………..12

4.4. Learning the Language………………………………………………..…………12

4.5. Punctuations……………………………………………………………...………13

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0. Discussion and Conclusion………...…………………………………………….14

REFERENCES
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0. INTRODUCTION

With the increasing use of mobile phones, concerns have been raised about its

influence on literacy skills. One well-known feature of text messages is that they do

not always adhere to conventional written language rules and use a register that is

called textese. In this register, we make use of phonetic replacements, such as ur

instead of your and acronyms, such as lol (Craig D., 2003) and drop words (Wood C,

Kemp N, Waldron S., 2004). This has led to the assumption that characteristics of

textese may leak into people’s general writing ultimately resulting in language

deterioration (Carrington V., 2005). However this is in sharp contrast to findings from

several studies showing that children who used textese frequently did not perform

poorly on spelling and tasks measuring literacy abilities (Verheijen L., 2013). More

recently, this research has been expanded to the effect of textese on grammar abilities

in written language (Cingel DP., Sundar SS., 2012). Outcomes of some studies

suggest a negative influence of textese on grammar. Nevertheless, variability in

coding of textese between studies and use of written tasks, which do not strictly

represent grammar, may have masked the effect of textese on people’s grammar

abilities. Therefore, the main aim of the present study is to ascertain whether use of

textese influences people’s grammar performance in spoken language.

Yet another understudied area is the connection between the use of textese and

cognitive development. Previous studies have shown that young people who often

switch between different media types and non-media (e.g. watching television while
doing homework), have lower executive functions (Van Der Schuur WA.,

Baumgartner SE., Sumter SR. Valkenburg PM.). As many people own smartphones

these days, they may also be prone to this effect. On the other hand, children who are

proficient in textese might have similar advantages as bilingual children have, as they

might be considered a special type of bilinguals – in a different modality – having to

switch between formal written language and textese. This is so because various

studies have shown superior performance on executive function tasks by bilingual

children over monolingual children (Adesope OO., Lavin T., Thompson T., 2010).

Thus, the second aim of this study is to determine whether proficient texters have

better developed executive functions than non-proficient texters, similar to proficient

bilingual children.
CHAPTER TWO

2.0. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Some terms would be expressly defined in a bid to familiarize ourselves with the term

topic at hand.

2.0.1. ENGLISH

English is a West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England

and is now the third most widespread native language in the world, after Standard

Chinese and Spanish, as well as the most widely spoken Germanic language. Named

after the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes that migrated to Great Britain, it

ultimately derives its name from the Anglian peninsula in the Baltic Sea. It is closely

related to the other West Germanic languages of Frisian, Low German/Low Saxon,

German, Dutch, and Afrikaans. The English vocabulary has been significantly

influenced by French (a Romance language), Norse (a North Germanic language), and

by Latin.

2.0.2. BRITISH ENGLISH

This form of English originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by

Germanic settlers from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the

northern Netherlands. The resident population at this time was generally speaking

Common Brittonic —the insular variety of continental Celtic, which was influenced
by the Roman occupation. This group of languages (Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric) co-

habited alongside English into the modern period, but due to their remoteness from

the Germanic languages, influence on English was notably limited. However, the

degree of influence remains debated, and it has recently been argued that its

grammatical influence accounts for the substantial innovations noted between English

and the other West Germanic languages (J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955). Initially, Old English

was a diverse group of dialects, reflecting the varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon

Kingdoms of England. One of these dialects, Late West Saxon, eventually came to

dominate. The original Old English language was then influenced by two waves of

invasion: the first was by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic

family, who conquered and colonized parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries; the

second was the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman and ultimately

developed an English variety of this called Anglo-Norman. These two invasions

caused English to become "mixed" to some degree (though it was never a truly mixed

language in the strictest sense of the word; mixed languages arise. from the

cohabitation of speakers of different languages, who develop a hybrid tongue for

basic communication).

The more idiomatic, concrete and descriptive English is, the more it is from Anglo-

Saxon origins. The more intellectual and abstract English is, the more it contains

Latin and French influences e.g. swine (like the Germanic schwein) is the animal in

the field bred by the occupied Anglo-Saxons and pork (like the French porc) is the

animal at the table eaten by the occupying Normans.

simplification and lexical enrichment of the Anglo-Frisian core of English; the later

Norman occupation led to the grafting onto that Germanic core of a more elaborate

layer of words from the Romance branch of the European languages. This Norman

influence entered English largely through the courts and government. Thus, English

developed into a "borrowing" language of great flexibility and with a huge

vocabulary.

2.0.3. AMERICAN ENGLISH

American English (AmE, AE, AmEng, USEng, en-US), sometimes called United

States English or U.S. English (Zentella, A. C. (1982) is the set of varieties of the

English language native to the United States of America (Crystal David, 1997).

English is the most widely spoken language in the United States and is the common

language used by the federal government, considered the de facto language of the

country because of its widespread use but not established as the official language of

the country, despite being given official status by 32 of the 50 state governments

(Crawford James, 2012). As an example, while both Spanish and English have

equivalent status in the local courts of Puerto Rico, under federal law, English is the

official language for any matters being referred to the United States district court for

the territory.

The use of English in the United States is a result of English and British colonization

of the Americas. The first wave of English-speaking settlers arrived in North America
during the 17th century, followed by further migrations in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Since then, American English has developed into new dialects, in some cases under

the influence of West African and Native American languages, German, Dutch, Irish,

Spanish, and other languages of successive waves of immigrants to the United States.

Any North American English accent perceived as free of noticeably local, ethnic, or

cultural markers is popularly called "General American", described by sociolinguist

William Labov as "a fairly uniform broadcast standard in the mass media". Otherwise,

according to Labov, with the major exception of Southern American English, regional

accents throughout the country are not yielding to this broadcast standard (Labov

William, 2010) and historical and present linguistic evidence does not support the

notion of there being a single "mainstream" American accent (Kretzchmar William

A.,2004). On the contrary, the sound of American English continues to evolve, with

some local accents disappearing, but several larger regional accents emerging.

2.0.4. TEXTING

Texting has long been believed to be the downfall of the written word. However,

texting correctly is not strictly writing; it is more similar to spoken language, one that

is getting richer and more complex by the year.

Studies show that writing was only invented 5,500 years ago, whereas language

probably traces back at least 80,000 years. Talking came first, and writing developed

later. Earliest examples show that writing was first based on the way people speak, in

short sentences. However, while talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is
deliberate and slow.

In the old days, we didn’t write in the same way we speak because there was no

mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. Texting and instant messaging,

however, allows for this by combining the instinctual mechanics of writing with

speaking. Texting is concise, with little focus placed on capitalization or punctuation.

Texting has developed its own special brand of grammar. Take LOL for example. It

doesn’t actually mean “laughing out loud” in a literal sense anymore. LOL has

evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing

is remotely amusing. Anne texts “Where have you been?” and Lee texts back

“LOL at the library studying for two hours.” LOL signals basic empathy between

texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal

meaning, it does something — conveying an attitude — just like the -ed ending

conveys past tense rather than “meaning” anything. LOL has become a form of

grammar.

Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting — quick,

casual and only intended to be read once — is actually a way of talking with your

fingers (McWhorter, 2013).

3.0. SMS

Short Message Service (SMS) is a text messaging service component of most

telephone, World Wide Web, and mobile device systems. It uses standardized

communication protocols to enable mobile devices to exchange short text messages.

An intermediary service can facilitate a text-to-voice conversion to be sent to

landlines. SMS was the most widely used data application, with an estimated 3.5

billion active users, or about 80% of all mobile subscribers, at the end of 2010.

SMS, as used on modern devices, originated from radio telegraphy in radio memo

pagers that used standardized phone protocols. These were defined in 1985 as part of

the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) series of standards. The

protocols allowed users to send and receive messages of up to 160 alpha-numeric

characters to and from GSM mobiles. Although most SMS messages are mobile-to-

mobile text messages, support for the service has expanded to include other mobile

technologies, such as ANSI CDMA networks and Digital AMPS.

SMS is also employed in mobile marketing, a type of direct marketing. According to

one market research report, as of 2014, the global SMS messaging business was

estimated to be worth over $100 billion, accounting for almost 50 percent of all the

revenue generated by mobile messaging.

The SMS standard was defined in the 1980s as part of the GSM (Global System for

Mobile Communications) standards, which were the basis of cellphone networks for
many years.

3.1. HISTORY OF SMS

The SMS concept was developed in the Franco-German GSM cooperation in 1984 by

Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert. The GSM is optimized for telephony,

since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this

telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signaling paths needed

to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signaling traffic existed. In this

way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal

cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes (later

improved to 160 seven-bit characters) so that the messages could fit into the existing

signaling formats. Based on his personal observations and on analysis of the typical

lengths of postcard and Telex messages, Hillebrand argued that 160 characters was

sufficient to express most messages succinctly.

SMS could be implemented in every mobile station by updating its software. Hence, a

large base of SMS-capable terminals and networks existed when people began to use

SMS. A new network element required was a specialized short message service

centre, and enhancements were required to the radio capacity and network transport

infrastructure to accommodate growing SMS traffic.

In 2010, 6.1 trillion (6.1x1012) SMS text messages were sent. This translates into an

average of 193,000 SMS per second. SMS has become a huge commercial industry,

earning $114.6 billion globally in 2010. The global average price for an SMS message

is US$0.11, while mobile networks charge each other interconnect fees of at least

US$0.04 when connecting between different phone networks.

In 2015, the actual cost of sending an SMS in Australia was found to be $0.00016 per

SMS.

In 2014, Caktus Group developed the world's first SMS-based voter registration

system in Libya. So far, more than 1.5 million people have registered using that

system, providing Libyan voters with unprecedented access to the democratic process.

While SMS is still a growing market, traditional SMS is becoming increasingly

challenged by Internet Protocol -based messaging services such as Apple Inc.’s

iMessage, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Viber, WeChat (in China) and Line (in

Japan), available on smart phones with data connections. It has been reported that

over 97% of smart phone owners use alternative messaging services at least once a

day. However, in the U.S. these Internet-based services haven't caught on as much,

and SMS continues to be highly popular there. One of the reasons is because the top

three American carriers have offered free SMS with almost all phone bundles since

2010, a stark contrast to Europe where SMS costs have been pricey.

Enterprise SMS-messaging, also known as application-to-peer messaging (A2P

Messaging) or 2-way SMS, continue to grow steadily at a rate of 4% annually.

4.0. IS SMS AFFECTING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

The speed and shorthand of SMS has irreversibly changed our use of English, but is

this a good or bad thing?

At the root of most, if not all, differences between normal English and text messaging

slang -- affectionately or mockingly known as "txt spk" -- lies a desire to use as few

characters as possible. SMS originally allowed a maximum of 160 characters,

including spaces and punctuation: shortening words was often the only way to fit

everything you wanted to say into the message.

So just how does SMS affect the English language?

4.1. ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND PICTOGRAMS

A great part of the vocabulary of text messaging is made up of abbreviations,

acronyms, and pictograms.

Abbreviations are words that are shortened one way or another, such as "l8r" for

"later," "u" for "you," and "sec" for "second"

Acronyms are letter sequences that stand for a longer phrase, such as "IDK" for "I

don't know," "OMG" for "oh my God," and "AFAIR" for "as far as I remember"

Pictograms are strings of characters that represent a feeling or concept, such as ":)"

for a smile and "<3" for love.

People who send a lot of text messages may end up using abbreviations, acronyms,
and pictograms in other contexts by sheer habit, even though it may be inappropriate.

This can happen both in writing and in speech: in his book "Txtng: The Gr8 Db8," the

linguist David Crystal notes that he has heard teenagers and adults alike use

abbreviations rather than the corresponding sentence when speaking out loud.

4.2. PHONETIC SPELLING AND DETERIORATING GRAMMAR

In order to shorten words, people writing text messages may resort to phonetic

spelling, such as "skool" for "school" and "thru" for "through." Similarly, in order to

save characters, writers may skip punctuation or spaces, or omit non-essential parts of

sentences, such as articles. Finally, any and all capitalization may be skipped in order

to increase the speed of typing. These habits may persist even outside of texting,

leading to a slow but steady deterioration of spelling and grammar skills.

4.3. SENTENCE LENGTH

Because text messages focus so much on short sentences, people who frequently write

text messages may adopt the same style in any kind of written communication. This

can lead to written works full of sentence fragments with only a thin thread of logic

flow linking them.

4.4. LEARNING THE LANGUAGE

For people who are just beginning to learn a language, encountering text messaging

slang can be extremely confusing. Native speakers are usually aware that the way they
are writing goes against the established rules of the language; learners who encounter

this kind of slang regularly, however, may end up genuinely believing it to be the

correct way of spelling and writing.

4.5. PUNCTUATIONS

Most SMS texting’s are done in a rush; consequently, there is no time to verify errors

Punctuations almost don’t appear in SMS texting. Sometimes an‘x’is used to

indicate the ‘-ing’ form for the continuous tense as in‘good morning’and a stroke

– used above a letter for‘-tion’ or‘-sion’ as in action, auction, and situation.

Generally, punctuations do not matter in texting as observed in the data collected so

far. The intention of the interlocutor is only to pass on the information at hand to the

listener. There is no thought for correctness in punctuation, capitalization, subject-

verb agreement anywhere.

It is assumed that the frequent use of telephone text messaging distracts students. This

distraction is presumed to have negative repercussions in university students’

writing and speaking skills (Russell, L., 2010). Writing deficiencies result from spill-

over effects tapped from text messages and moved into formal language settings.

Such unintended consequences need urgent attention, considering the power and

influence the English Language has in the business, scientific and educational world.
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

According to (Ling R., 2010), young adults 19 to 21 years of age have reached the

peak of using text messaging in their life phases. (Craig D., 2003) argues that

young people who use instant messaging from the examination of SMS and the

input of other schools of thought, we realize that SMS has come with its own

lexicon which is somehow different from the English language contracted forms

that we know. The use of SMS in communication has greatly eased

communication in the last ten years. The use of SMS cannot only be seen as a

negative force in the academic world. With constant use of short forms, students

can take down classroom notes faster. However, students should be attentive when

it comes to examinations. No examiner or employer will excuse a candidate who

uses short forms in an examination situation because that will only be tantamount

to lack of knowledge on the field of study. It was also observed that whereas the

general cry is that SMS has ruined students’work, the contrary is true. Although

students may not speak English most of the time, they are constrained to use

letters of the English alphabet to write text messages.

Therefore, unlike seeing SMS as an evil, educationists should see what good thing

has come out of it and remind students of the need to discriminate between formal

and informal situations. Grammar rules are flaunted because SMS texts are mostly

written in haste; therefore teachers should consider the aspects of grammar as

crucial for classroom emphases. The use of punctuation marks requires further
manipulations on the phone which hinders many users which is why many SMS

users are young people. Another aspect of SMS usage in society which can be

mentioned in this paper is its anti-social nature. Many people who text messages

block out from others in society. It is regular to travel around the western world

today and not able to carry a conversation with anyone as they are all buried into

their phones chatting with people all over the world. In Nigeria today, the same

trend is coming up in homes and social gatherings where people get silent and

concentrate on sending or receiving messages through SMS. SMS texting

therefore be seen as a double-edged sword; helping in one way and spoiling on the

other.
 REFERENCES

1. Craig D. Instant Messaging: The Language of youth Literacy. Boothe Prize

essays 2003:116-33

2. Wood C, Kemp N, Waldron S., Exploring the Longitudinal relationships

between the use of grammar in text messaging and performance on

grammatical tasks. Br J Dev Psychol 2004:415-29.

3. Carrington V. Txting: the end of civilization (again)?_Cambridge University

Press, 2005:35:161-75

4. Verheijen L. The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on literacy.

English Stud 2013:94:582-602

5. Cingel DP, Sundar SS. Texting, techspeak and tweens: The relationship

between text messaging and English grammar skils. New Media Soc

2012:14:1304-20

6. Kemp N., Wood C., Waldron S., Do I know it’s wrong: Children’s and Adult’s

use of unconventional grammar in text messaging. Read Writ 2014:27:1585-

602

7. Van Der Schuur WA, Baumgartner SE., Sumter SR., Valkenburg PM. The

consequences of media multi-tasking for youth: A review. Computing Human

Behaviour 2015:53:204-15

8. Adesope OO., Lavin T., Thompson T., Ungerleider C. A Systematic Review

and Meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of Bilingualism. Rev Educ Res

2010:80:207-45
9. Tolkien, JR. English and Welsh; 1955.

10. Zentella, AC. Spanish and English in contact in the U.S: The Puerto Rican

experience; 1982.

11. Crystal D. English as a global language._Cambridge University press, 1997

ISBN 0-521-53032-6.

12. Crawford James, “Language Legislation in the USA”. 1 Feb, 2012. Available

at: http://www.language policy.net. Accessed on 2nd Feb., 2018

13. Labov William. The politics of language change: Dialect divergence in

America. The University of Virginia Press, 2010. Pre-publication draft. P. 55.

14. Kretzchmar WA., Kortman, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar W., eds., A handbook of

Varieties of English, 2004.

15. McWhorter, 2013. Speech at TED 2013. Available at:

http://www.witslanguageschool.com/Newsroom/ArticleView/tabid/180/Article

Id/370. Accessed on 5th Feb., 2018.

16. Russel L., The effects of text messaging on English grammar. 20 April, 2010.

Available at: http://www.ehow.com/list_5828172_effects-text-messaging-

english-rammar.html. Accessed on 5th Feb., 2018.

17. Ling, R. Texting as a life phase medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 15, 277-292.