Research designed to understand the effect of text messaging on language found that texting has a negative impact on people's linguistic ability to interpret and accept words.
|
Reading the article, isn't it more that reading widely makes you more able to interpret new words from context and linguistic features.
I think we need a more sophisticated breakdown of the research to understand the implications for texting (i.e. maybe people who text a lot and read a lot are fine but heavy texters read less, this would scew the raw results toward texting being an issue when really it is wide reading which matters...).
Do you have a link to the study?
|
|
Found the abstract
There is much debate about the influences of text and instant messaging on language skills and abilities. On the other hand, it is widely accepted that exposure to traditional print media is beneficial to one's knowledge of language. This research investigated the influences of messaging and print media on acceptability judgments to determine whether there are differences in what people find grammatical based on their messaging and print media exposure. Acceptability judgments and media exposure measures (such as the number of text messages received per month and the number of books read in the past year) were collected from 33 university students. Acceptability judgments were collected for both existing Standard English word forms and other novel or deviant forms. Generally speaking, participants with higher levels of print media exposure accepted more test items and participants with higher levels of text messaging exposure accepted fewer items.
How dare you expect more critical research. You know this is the interwebs, right?
Personally, I am curious if the age range was maintained across frequent texters and traditional print readers.
l33t speak is newspeek.