The Impact of Texting on Comprehension

Abstract

This paper presents a study of the effects of texting on English language comprehension. The authors believe that English used in texting causes a lack of comprehension for English speakers, learners, and texters. Wei, Xian-hai and Jiang (2008:3) declare “In Netspeak, there are some newly-created vocabularies, which people cannot comprehend them either from their partial pronunciation or from their figures.” Crystal (2007:23) claims; “variation causes problems of comprehension and acceptability. If you speak or write differently from the way I do, we may fail to understand each other.” In this paper, the authors conducted a questionnaire at Aligarh Muslim University to ninety respondents from five different Faculties and four different levels. To measure respondents’ comprehension of English texting, the authors gave the respondents abbreviations used by texters and asked them to write the full forms of the abbreviations. The authors found that many abbreviations were not understood, which suggested that most of the respondents did not understand and did not use these abbreviations. © 2015, Australian International Academic Centre PTY LTD. All rights reserved.

Full text

International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature
ISSN 2200-3592 (Print), ISSN 2200-3452 (Online)
Vol. 4 No. 4; July 2015
Australian International Academic Centre, Australia
The Impact of Texting on Comprehension
Jamal K. M. Ali (Corresponding author)
Department of English, Faculty of Science and Arts, University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia
E-mail: jamal.alhomaidi@gmail.com
S. Imtiaz Hasnain
Department of Linguistics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
E-mail: imtiazhasnain.57@gmail.com
M. Salim Beg
Department of Electronics Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
E-mail: salim.beg@amu.ac.in
Received: 04-12- 2014 Accepted: 03-02- 2015 Advance Access Published: February 2015
Published: 01-07- 2015 doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.108 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.108
Abstract
This paper presents a study of the effects of texting on English language comprehension. The authors believe that
English used in texting causes a lack of comprehension for English speakers, learners, and texters. Wei, Xian-hai and
Jiang (2008:3) declare “In Netspeak, there are some newly-created vocabularies, which people cannot comprehend
them either from their partial pronunciation or from their figures.” Crystal (2007:23) claims; “variation causes problems
of comprehension and acceptability. If you speak or write differently from the way I do, we may fail to understand each
other.” In this paper, the authors conducted a questionnaire at Aligarh Muslim University to ninety respondents from
five different Faculties and four different levels. To measure respondents’ comprehension of English texting, the
authors gave the respondents abbreviations used by texters and asked them to write the full forms of the abbreviations.
The authors found that many abbreviations were not understood, which suggested that most of the respondents did not
understand and did not use these abbreviations.
Keywords: abbreviation, comprehension, texting, texters, variation
1. Introduction
The advent of modern electronic communication has created a whole new world of information, giving access to
unlimited variety of fields. Millions of literate and illiterate people around the world text everywhere. They are either
using keyboards or keypads to input data into computers or mobile phones. They text in classrooms, buses, trains,
houses and even religious places; while walking, working, sitting, standing, driving, stretching, taking rest and eating.
This must have an impact on Standard English and this is what the authors are going to discuss in this paper. In this
present paper, the authors will explore how the English used in texting affects the comprehension of English language
among speakers and learners of English. In this paper, modern electronic communication refers to the three tools of
communication; email, SMS and chat, while texting refers to English used in these three tools of communication. The
authors use the term ‘texting’ throughout this paper to refer to the English used in email, SMS, and chat texts. Texting
is also known as MEC English, ICT English, txtng, text messages, short messaging, CMC, textspeak, netspeak,
SMSing, netwrite, short email, mobile messaging, chat messaging etc.
2. Review of Literature
Baron (2008: 199) labels texting as a threat. For her, if email more or less entirely replaces the old-fashioned letter, the
culture as a whole will end up with a deficit; it will have lost in quality whatever it has gained in quantity. Wei, Xian-
hai and Jiang (2008:3) declare; “In Netspeak, there are some newly-created vocabularies, which people cannot
comprehend them either from their partial pronunciation or from their figures.” Crystal (2007:23) claims; “variation
causes problems of comprehension and acceptability. Crystal (2007:23) maintains, “If you speak or write differently
from the way I do, we may fail to understand each other”. One of the problems of texting, according to Shaw (2008:
48), is “the uncertainty and variation of spelling words: anything can appear as anything, nething, nethin, anyfing,
anyfin, nefin, anyting, anytin or netin”.Crystal (2008: 46) has rightly talked about the abbreviated forms which appear
in different guises, as he says; “Abbreviated might appear in half a dozen different guises. I have seen tonight written as
tnight, tonyt, tonite, tonit, 2nt, 2night, 2nyt, and 2nite, and there are probably several more variants out there.” In this
connection, Baron (2008), warns that “unless we learn to regulate our current language use, we will have difficulty
understanding each other and the standardized forms of our written language will be lost.” (as cited in Maynard,
2010:2). Mphahlele and Mashamaite (2005) report confusion as one of the main problems of texting as the word ‘hand’,
which means the part of body at the end of arms, appears in texting to mean ‘have a nice day’; the word ‘ATM’ which
means in Standard English ‘automated teller machine’ is SMSed to mean ‘at the moment'.
Flourishing Creativity & Literacy

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 109
According to Choudhury et al. (2007:16) texting may seriously hamper the understanding of the message. Thus, two
opposing forces, shorter message length, and semantic ambiguity shape the structure of this compressed non-standard
form. Kesseler and Bergs (2003) argue that despite their wide usage, new message types like SMSes and emails still
appear unnatural or odd at least to parts of the public. Walker (2010) argues that “society is split between those who
embrace technology and those who don't have the skills – or the money – to live in a wired world.” Huang (2008:1)
argues that texting is “a horrifying language … a nascent dialect of English that subverts letters and numbers, drops
consonants, vowels, and punctuation.” For him, this makes no distinction between letters and numbers, and people will
no longer know how they are really supposed to communicate. Sutherland (2002) makes the interesting observation that
the word "text" etymologically originates in Latin for "tissue". “It’s writing on Kleenex. One blows, then throws.”
“Throw” and “blow” metaphorically suggest a lack of ownership. If there is no consistency between texters, or even
within a single texter, as Crystal (2008) has rightly pointed out, then who will own and comprehend texting?
3. Methods
3.1 Subjects Selection
This paper was particularly intended to measure the respondents’ familiarity and comprehension of texting. To conduct
the study and achieve its objectives, a convenient sample was selected. This sample consisted of ninety AMU
participants who were enrolled at Aligarh Muslim University, India. They were grouped according to their levels: Plus
Two, Bachelor, Master and PhD. The subjects were supposed to be equally distributed across all the levels of
education, i.e. the same number from each level of education. However, this was not possible because some faculties
did not have Plus Two level. Hence, only 15 respondents were taken from Faculty of Social Science and 15 respondents
from Faculty of Engineering and Technology, while 25 respondents were taken from all other Faculties which have Plus
Two levels, i.e. 25 respondents from Faculty of Arts, 25 respondents from Faculty of Science and 25 respondents from
Faculty of Commerce. The following table shows the distribution of the subjects of the study:
Table 1. The distribution of the subjects of the study
Level of Education
Faculty
Plus
Two
Bachelor Master PhD Total
Arts 5 5 5 5 20
Social Science - 5 5 5 15
Engineering and Technology - 5 5 5 15
Science 5 5 5 5 20
Commerce 5 5 5 5 20
Total 15 25 25 25 90
The Plus Two level in India refers to a pre-bachelor course which covers the span from Intermediate and Higher
Secondary. The researcher selected this group because they are almost younger than other levels of this study.
3.2 Data Collection
In this paper, the authors gave to the respondents questionnaire in text forms like “ILNY” and asked them to write their
Standard forms which is “I love New York”. They were asked to write the Standard forms of 35 short forms (see
Appendix) that are commonly used among internet users with the directive as follows: “Please write the standard/full
form of the following. Please include the appropriate capitalization and punctuation, and spell out all words”. An
example was given to make it clear. Most of these 35 short forms were given in contexts because some of the items, if
not given in proper context, could get interpreted in a different way by texters. The short forms were carefully picked to
achieve the aims of this particular test. They included varieties of short forms used by internet users such as single
letters which represented full words, numbers which represented words or parts of words, a group of letters which stood
for words, or a group of words. The full forms given by the participants were counted on each participant’s page. They
were grouped as ‘comprehended by respondents’, ‘not comprehended’, ‘repetition of the same short form’ and
‘missing’. The items of the ‘not comprehended’ group were further subcategorized into the variations given by the
participants. The questionnaire was evaluated by experts of designing and experts of statistical analysis before its final
distribution. The questionnaire that is described here was the final version after edition and correction. The completed
questionnaires were transferred to a text file and then imported to SPSS, version 16.0, for analysis.
4. Linguistic Analysis of Texting
This part includes the analysis and interpretations of the data collected from AMU participants. As mentioned above,
the respondents were ninety. They had to translate the ten items from texting forms to Standard English. As mentioned
above, this paper aimed at examining the respondents’ comprehension and familiarity of texting. The authors gave the
respondents texting forms like” ILNY” and asked them to write their standard forms which is “I love New York”.
The texting items were categorized in the following way: ‘Comprehended by the respondents’, ‘Not comprehended by
the respondents’, ‘repetition of the same short form’ and ‘missing’. The following table shows the statistics of the
categories of this study.

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 110
Table 2. The statistics of the categories of fill-in-blank questionnaire across levels
Level Comprehended
by the
respondents
Not
comprehended by
the respondents
Repetition
of the
same short
form
Missing
Plus Two
Mean
20.4000
4.2000
.6667
9.7333
Sum
306.00
6
3.00
10.00
146.00
% of Total Sum
16.4%
17.3%
10.4%
17.7%
Bachelor
Mean
19.6400
4.3600
1.0000
10.0000
Sum
491.00
109.00
25.00
250.00
% of Total Sum
26.3%
29.9%
26.0%
30.3%
Master
Mean
21.5600
3.8400
1.4400
8.1600
Sum
539.00
96.00
36.00
204.00
%
of Total Sum
28.9%
26.3%
37.5%
24.7%
PhD
Mean
21.1200
3.8800
1.0000
9.0000
Sum
528.00
97.00
25.00
225.00
% of Total Sum
28.3%
26.6%
26.0%
27.3%
Total
Mean
20.7111
4.0556
1.0667
9.1667
Sum
1864.00
365.00
96.00
825.00
% of Total 59.17 11.59 3.05 26.19
Figure 1. The use of short forms among texters across the levels of education (in percentages)
As shown in table (2) and graph (1), out of the short forms given, 59.17% were comprehended by the respondents,
11.59% were not comprehended by the respondents, 3.05% were repeated, i.e. the same short forms were written as
they were, and 26.19% were missed.
Table 3. The ANOVA test in the categories of fill-in-blank test
Category Sig. (P-Value)
Comprehended by the respondents .269
Not comprehended by the respondents .846
Repetition of the same short forms
.579
Missing .385
As shown in table (3) above, there was no significant difference between the level groups in any of the categories of the
test.
4.1 The variations which were given by the respondents
Table 4. The variations of the short form wr as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
wr
With respect
2
Where 2
wr (were)
The abbreviation wr that stands for were offered two variations. Two of the respondents wrote that wr stood for where
and two wrote that wr stood for with respect.

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 111
Table 5.The variations of the short form CWOT as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
CWOT caught 5
quiet 1
cute 1
somewhat 2
kuwait 1
see what 4
short 1
come with our tour 1
coming 2
completely out of station 1
covered 1
quite 1
CWOT (complete waste of time)
This abbreviation was given to the respondents in a context, but no one of the respondents wrote its standard form.
Some of them repeated the same short form or left it blank. The short form CWOT offered twelve variations in
interpretation. Five respondents wrote that CWOT stood for caught, one wrote that it represented quiet, one wrote
cute, two wrote somewhat, one wrote Kuwait, four wrote see what, one wrote short, one wrote come with our tour,
two wrote coming, one wrote completely out of station, one wrote covered and one wrote quite.
Table 6. The variation of the short form b4 as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
B4
but
1
B4 (before)
Almost all of the respondents comprehended this abbreviation, as they wrote that it meant before. Only one of the
respondents wrote but.
Table 7. The variations of the short form NY as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
NY any 4
and why 1
nice 2
near 1
Norway 1
night 1
new year 2
NY (New York)
Some respondents knew that NY stood for New York. The abbreviation NY offered seven variations in interpretation.
Four respondents wrote that NY stood for any, one wrote that it represented and why, two wrote nice, one wrote near,
one wrote Norway, one wrote night and two wrote new year.
Table 8. The variations of the short form 2C as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
2C twice 1
took 1
to come 1
2C (to see)
Almost all of the respondents understood this abbreviation, as they wrote that 2C stood for to see. Only one of the
respondents wrote twice, one wrote took and one wrote to come.
Table 9. The variation of the short form GF as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
Gf grandfather 3

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 112
GF (girlfriend)
Almost all of the respondents understood this abbreviation, as they wrote that GF meant girlfriend. Only three of the
respondents wrote grandfather.
Table 10. The variations of the short form thr as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
Thr
there
21
other 1
thr (their)
Some of the respondents comprehended the full form of this abbreviation, as they wrote that thr stood for their. 21 of
the respondents wrote there which is similar to their in spoken form and one wrote other.
Table 11. The variation of the emoticon:-@ as given by the respondents
Emoticon variations given by respondents Count
:-@
other
1
at 5
at the rate of 6
small 1
adult 1
and 1
:-@ (screaming)
The emoticon :-@ which stands for screaming offered six variations in interpretation. One respondent wrote that :-@
stood for other, five wrote at, six wrote at the rate of, one wrote small, one wrote adult and one wrote and.
Table 12. The variation of the short form FTF as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
FTF
fit and fine
3
for the fall 2
fifty 2
fighting 1
five to fifteen 1
FTF (Face to Face)
None of the respondents understood what FTF stood for. Most of them just tried to write its full form by understanding
the meaning or by understanding the spoken form. All the respondents failed to get the intended full form by guessing
the intended form from the context or from its spoken form. Some respondents repeated the same short form or left it
blank. The abbreviation FTF offered five variations in interpretation. Three respondents wrote that FTF stood for fit
and fine, two wrote that it represented for the fall, two wrote fifty, one wrote fighting and one wrote five to fifteen.
Table 13. The variation of the short form ILNY as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
ILNY
if New York 1
I only 2
I will new 1
only 1
I living in New York 2
I love new year 1
ILNY ( I love New York)
The respondents offered six variations of the short form ILNY. One respondent wrote that ILNY stands for If New
York, two wrote that it represents I only, one wrote I will new, and one wrote only, two wrote I living in New York
and one wrote I love new year.
Table 14. The variation of the short form gr8 as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
gr8
grow at
1

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 113
gr8 (great)
Almost all of the respondents understood that the abbreviation gr8 stood for great. Only one of the respondents wrote
grow at which was really meaningless.
Table 15. The variation of the short form plc as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
Plc pleasure 3
plc (place)
Almost all of the respondents comprehended the full form of the abbreviation plc, as they wrote that it meant place.
Three of the respondents wrote pleasure. They understood it as “it is a great pleasure” instead of “it is a great place”.
Table 16. The variation of the emoticon 2b as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
2b to bother 1
2b (to be)
Almost all the respondents comprehended the full form of the abbreviation ‘2b’, as they wrote that it meant to be. Only
one of the respondents wrote to bother.
Table 17. The variation of the short form tht as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
tht
what
2
this
1
tht (that)
Almost all the respondents translated the abbreviation ‘tht’ correctly. They wrote that ‘tht’ stood for that. Only two of
the respondents wrote what and one wrote this.
Table 18. The variation of the short form th as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
th
something
2
truth 2
there 2
that 2
this 3
so 2
th (the)
The abbreviation th offered six variations in interpretation. Two respondents wrote that th stood for something, two
wrote that it represents truth, two wrote there, two wrote that, three wrote this and two wrote so.
Table 19. The variation of the short form lyk as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
lyk
look
2
lyk (like)
Almost all the respondents had no difficulty in understanding this abbreviation, as they wrote that it meant like. Only
two of the respondents wrote look.
Table 20. The variation of the short form ttyl as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
ttyl Title 19
Total 2
Totally 6
Till 2
try till 1
Telephone 1
Style 5
Tell 1

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 114
ttyl (talk to you later)
The abbreviation ‘ttyl’ offered eight variations. Nineteen respondents wrote that ttyl stood for title, two wrote that it
represents total, six wrote totally, two wrote till, one wrote try till, one wrote telephone, five wrote style and one
wrote tell.
Table 21. The variation of the short form y as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
Y yes 12
you 1
bye 2
yea 1
y (why)
The abbreviation offered four variations. Twelve respondents wrote that ‘y’ stood for yes, one wrote that it represents
you, two wrote bye, one wrote yea.
Table 22. The variation of the short form IMHO as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
IMHO I am hand of 3
I am honoured 2
I am 11
I am honest 1
I may 1
I am who 3
I am Mohd. 3
IMHO (In my humble opinion)
The abbreviation IMHO offered seven variations in interpretation. Three respondents wrote that IMHO stood for I am
hand of, two wrote that it represents I am honoured, eleven wrote I am, one wrote I am honest, one wrote I may,
three wrote I am who and three wrote I am Mohd.
Table 23. The variation of the short form gr8 as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
gr8
grow at
1
graduate 2
gr8 (great)
Almost all the respondents comprehended the full form of the abbreviation ‘gr8’, as the overwhelming majority of them
wrote that it meant great. One wrote that gr8 stood for grow at and two of the respondents wrote graduate.
Table 24. The variation of the short form brb as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
brb brother 4
bihar board 1
bribe 11
Brave 6
Barber 2
brb (be right back)
The abbreviation brb offered five variations in interpretation. Four respondents wrote that brb stood for brother, one
wrote that it represents Bihar Board, eleven wrote bribe, six wrote brave and two wrote barber.
Table 25. The variation of the short form btw as given by the respondents
short form variations given by respondents Count
btw Between 68
but way 1

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 115
btw (by the way)
The abbreviation btw offered two variations. Sixty eight respondents wrote that ‘btw’ stood for between and one wrote
that it represents but way.
Table 26. The variation of the short form lol as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
lol loly pop 1
lovely 1
loyal 3
boys 1
loll 1
laughter of laughter 1
friend 1
loveable 2
one zero one 1
Kidding 2
one by one 1
less of luck 1
lol (laugh out loud/ lots of love)
The abbreviation ‘lol’ offered twelve variations in interpretation. One respondent wrote that lol stood for loly pop, one
wrote that it represents lovely, three wrote loyal, one wrote boys, one wrote loll, one wrote laughter of laughter, one
wrote friend, two wrote loveable, one wrote one zero one, two wrote kidding, one wrote one by one and one wrote
less of luck.
Table 27. The variation of the short form aslmh? as given by the respondents
Short Form variations given by respondents Count
aslmh? Assalamalaikom 54
aslmh? (age, sex, location, music and hobbies?)
Most of the respondents interpreted ‘aslmh?’ as assalamalaikom which is Muslim’s salutation as almost all the
respondents were Muslims.
4.2 The Comprehended Short Forms
The short forms such as ‘summr’, ‘hols’, ‘2go2’, ‘bro’, the digit ‘3’, etc. were not misunderstood, but there were
some respondents who repeated the same short forms or left them blank.
5. Interpretation
From the linguistic analysis of texting, it was found out that texting creates lack of comprehension for the respondents.
Wei, Xian-hai, and Jiang (2008: 3) found that “In Netspeak, there are some newly-created vocabularies, which people
cannot comprehend them either from their partial pronunciation or from their figures.” (Crystal 2007:23) claims
“variation causes problems of comprehension and acceptability. If you speak or write differently from the way I do, we
may fail to understand each other.” The important factor regarding abbreviations is that people interpret abbreviations
differently. In one geographical area, or within one group of people, the abbreviation gf could mean “girlfriend”, and in
another area it could mean “grandfather”. In a third area it could mean something entirely different.
The abbreviations that seem to be relatively frequently used in text messaging were the ones that were interpreted in the
same way by most of the respondents. Less established abbreviations within the language of text messaging, such as
CWOT and FTF, etc. opened for different interpretations, and will most probably lead to misunderstandings in many
cases if they are used. Many abbreviations were not understood, which suggests that most of the respondents do not
understand and do not use these abbreviations.
Often, one can understand what is intended by looking at the context, but the texts are often sent without much context
because some people abbreviate almost every word, and do not make the messages long. Though the authors in this
paper gave the respondents text forms in a context to write their full or standard form, it was found that the context did
not help the respondents to comprehend the intended meaning. Ali, Hasnain and Beg (2011) argue that the context does
not always help in understanding texting language which an author /writer intends to convey. The short form CWOT
for example, opened for different interpretations which show how much confusion this language creates. The twelve
variations offered by the respondents have some meanings. They were not written randomly. Most of the respondents
have their own meanings and they translated texting according to their guessing and not according to the given context.
They tried to translate the short form CWOT and fail to get the intended meaning. Those who wrote that CWOT stands
for quiet, cute,(in) Kuwait, short, coming, completely out of station, quite and covered, have something right. They

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 116
understood it as “my summer holidays were quiet or cute or (in) Kuwait or short or coming or completely out of
station or quite or covered”. They created a new context which is grammatically correct and sometimes contextually
correct, but not the one which is intended. Fifteen respondents looked at CWOT as one word, two translated it as four
words: one translated it as come with our tour and one looked at it as completely out of station. Four looked at it as
two words which is see what. Others repeated the same short form or left it blank. If we look at completely out of
station, we will find a cultural explanation, as Indians always say out of station for someone who is outside the city or
state. Those who wrote that CWOT stands for see what, somewhat, caught went only by the spoken form and that is
why we cannot find any meaning in them. The one who wrote come with our tour tried to go by spoken form and
meaning, but he could not get the intended meaning.
6. Conclusion and Suggestions
The authors found that many abbreviations were not understood, which suggests that most of the respondents did not
understand and did not use these abbreviations. In cases where the respondents took a guess at what the abbreviation
could mean, their interpretation was an indication of how much texting creates confusion for speakers and learners of
English language. The authors also found that most of the respondents interpreted the well-established abbreviations
within the language of text messaging in more or less the same way, and the abbreviations that are coming into more
use opened for different interpretations by most of the respondents of the five Faculties.
There are certain measures to be adapted in order to minimize the negative effects of texting that the authors described
above. The authors and those who are raising the alarm strongly believe that email, SMS, and chat are distorting and
destroying Standard English language. This warning should not go unheard. Realistic methods should be found to deal
with the issue in a way that can make the intelligibility, status, consideration, and value of Standard English survive
among the English speakers, students and texters.
Ali (2012) argue that email, SMS and chat could also be useful tools to teach standard English. As they have become
global ways of communication, they might be exploited in teaching Standard English and making the acquisition of
Standard English more accessible for everyone using email, SMS and chat. He maintains as texting is inevitable and
there is no way to stop it completely, methods and measures should be created to make students differentiate between
the standard and non-standard English and separate them accordingly. The differences between Standard English and
non-standard English should be shown especially to the young people and school students where the major complaints
are raised. Longman (2006, 2) argues that; “the message we must present to students is that this non-standard is
perfectly acceptable for use in text messages and in chat rooms but school work, formal letters, business communication
and examinations require conventional language.” The authors recommend that texting should be confined to its own
communication context. In other words, the students must be aware of where and when texting can be used and where
and when it cannot be used. Nadler-Nir, R. (2008) suggests that “we need to accept it [texting] and seek for solutions to
the complaints that it is invading the standard written language use”. (as cited in Barasa and Mous 2009).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their thanks to the respondents who filled up the questionnaires and to Dr. Ghazwan
Al-Mekhlafi, who did the statistical analysis of the collected data.
References
Ali, J., Hasnain, S. I. & Beg, M. S. (2011). The linguistic features of texting. A paper presented in 33rd All India
Conference of Linguists (33rd AICL), Department of English and Culture Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh,
India, 1-3 October.
Ali, J. (2012). Influence of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on English Language Structure. PhD
thesis submitted to the Department of Linguistics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U. P. India
Barasa, S. & Mous, M. (2009). The oral and written interface in SMS: Technologically mediated communication in
Kenya. In I. van de Craats & J. Kurvers (Eds.), Low-Educated adult second language and literacy acquisition 4th
symposium – Antwerp (234-242).Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Choudhury, M., Saraf, R., Jain, V., Mukherjee, A., Sarkar, S. & Basu, A. (2007). Investigation and modelling of the
structure of texting language. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 10 (3-4),157-174.
Crystal, D. (2007). The fight for English: How language pundits ate, shot and left. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). Txting: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, L. (2008). The death of English (LOL). Newsweek. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/214038261?accountid=27804
Kesseler, A., & Bergs, A. (2003). Literacy and the new media :vita brevis, lingua brevis? In J. Aitchison & D.
Lewis (Eds.), New Media Language (75-84). London: Rutledge.

IJALEL 4(4):108-117, 2015 117
Maynard. M. (2010). Review on always on: Language in an online and mobile world By Naomi S. Baron. Critical
Inquiry in Language Studies, 6 (4)345-349).
Mphahlele, M. L., & Mashamaite, K. (2005). The impact of short message service (SMS) language on language
proficiency of learners and the SMS dictionaries: A challenge for educators and lexicographers. IADIS International
Conference Mobile Learning. Retrieved from http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200506L022.pdf
Pearson Longman. (2006). Are text messages killing grammar and spelling? Pearson Longman. Retrieved from
www.pearsonlongman.com/teaching-tips/pdf/texting.pdf
Shaw, P. (2008). Spelling, accent, and identity in computer-mediated communication. English Today, 24 (2), 42-49.
Sutherland, J. (2002). Cn u txt? The Guardian, Retrieved From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2002/nov/11/mobilephones2
Walker, T. (2010). Decoding Britain's digital divide. The Independent. Retrieved from
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/decoding-britains-digital-divide-1887395.html
Wang Wei, Xianhai Yu & Jiang-li Qu (2008). Development of society and language variety: The influence of netspeak
on daily communication. US-China Foreign Language, 6 (7), 1-8.
Appendix
Questionnaire
Dear Respondent,
This questionnaire is intended to measure your familiarity and comprehension of texting. You are kindly requested to
fill up the following questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire will only be used for research purposes and kept
confidential. Your participation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Part I
General Information
Faculty: Arts Social
Sciences
Engineering and
Technology
Science Commerce
Educational
Level:
Plus Two
Bachelor
Master Ph D
Part II
Please write the full form of the following as in the example given. Please include the appropriate capitalization,
punctuation, and spell out all words.
I h8 txtng (I hate texting).
1) My smmr hols wr CWOT. B4, we used 2go2 NY 2C my bro, his GF & thr 3 :-@ kids FTF. ILNY, it’s a gr8 plc
................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................
2) 2b or nt 2b.... tht is th ? .……............................................................................……………………….
3)lyk..........................................................................................................................................................
4) ttyl..….....................................................................................................................................................
5) y ………………………………………………………………..………………………………..……
6) IMHO U R GR8.......................................................................................................................................
7) brb...........................................................................................................................................................
8) btw……………..................................................………………..…………………...…………………
9 ) lol ……………………………………………………………………………………..……………….
10) aslmh?…………….........................................…................................……….…...…………………..