It’s almost comic to imagine how annoyed some people will be by the title of this book. But texting (the idea of it, the practice, the mere word sometimes) does get people’s goats. David Crystal quotes two such commentators with relish. “[Texters are] vandals doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago,” said British TV presenter John Humphrys, possibly with foam-flecked lips. “Texting is bleak, bald, sad shorthand which masks dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness,” wrote author John Sutherland (how v irrtbl he mst hv bn th@ am).
Good grief, an entire generation of young people not only can’t read or write proper sentences, but are developing repetitive strain injury in their thumbs. And does “LOL” mean lots of love or laugh out loud? It’s all too appalling for words.
Of course, we’ve been here before with rock ‘n’ roll, psychedelia, the Charleston . . . for every youth craze, there were oldsters who decried it. Similarly, there have always been people who wished to protect the poor, vulnerable English language from assault by barbarians. If texting is unique, it’s because it has managed to unite these two discrete groups of grouches under a single banner. Thus far in this gr8 db8, we seem to have heard only one side of it.
So here’s Crystal, honorary professor of linguistics at the University of Wales, and prolific writer of books on the subject, to answer the charges. He says that all the popular beliefs about texting are wrong, or at least debatable. Its playful way with language isn’t new. Most of the hated abbreviations have been around for years. “They are part of the European ludic (playful) linguistic tradition, and doubtless analogues can be found in all languages that have been written down.”
As it is, most of the stranger emoticons and abbreviations aren’t actually used by most people: they turn up only in the text-messaging dictionaries, which seem to have been designed specifically to exclude everyone not taking part. “Faced with a new kind of communication problem . . . people all over the world have set about solving it . . . not by inventing a new language but by adapting old language to suit the new medium.”
Texting doesn’t erode literacy: it actually challenges literacy skills. “I do not see how texting could be a significant factor when discussing children who have real problems with literacy. If you have difficulty with reading and writing, you are hardly going to be predisposed to use a technology which demands sophisticated abilities in reading and writing.” An obvious argument, but not one I remember seeing before.
Crystal’s polemic is backed up by a formidable body of research. This is clearly the fashionable academic subject of the moment. But he also quotes some delightful texting poetry, which, he points out, differs from poetry written on the page in that you can’t see the last line when you read the first: you have to read it strictly in order, and this gives it an entirely different narrative thrust.
This is a brief book that sometimes feels like an overextended magazine article. At times, Crystal, who probably has another three books to write before the end of the year, just seems to be filling the pages: we hear that two-thirds of texts are only one sentence, that 82% use no capital letters, and so on. But it’s a work that needed to be written, it’s wholly persuasive in its arguments and it makes the blusterers look a bit silly. Besides, I rather like a book that tells you that, essentially, there’s nothing to worry about. What, for instance, of the idea that people have started using abbreviated text-speak in normal discourse? According to Crystal, it’s utter bllx.
Marcus Berkmann is a reviewer for the Times of London.
txtng
the gr8 db8
by David Crystal
Oxford University Press