Texting and English Literacy

505 Words3 Pages
Texting on mobile has widely spread among the youth recently. However, the different impacts of texting on English literacy have attracted many debates. In the article “Mobile phone and literacy”, published in The Daily Planet on August 8, 2012, Samuel Tsung argues that texting has positive effects on English literacy, whereas, in the article “Text message and the decline of the English language”, published in The Fulchester Time on August 25, 2012 Louise Dite asserts that texting is totally negative to writing and reading English. The following essay is to critically respond for the two article’s main arguments. Tsung suggests that there are many benefits of texting. His first argument is that texting is good for English skills. People practices writing and reading through texting. By messaging regularly, people have more opportunities to practice. Moreover, the author claims that although children usually use abbreviations, they seldom use it in their exams. The reason is children do not want to get low marks because of these abbreviations. Dite claims that texting is harm to English literacy. He believes that texting makes children use abbreviation in homework and exams as a habit. As a result, children could fail their exam or could not find a job in the future. In addition, the author also argues that it is difficult to control children through texting. Children usually use the messages as codes to hide some things. As a result, parents hardly to understand and control their children. Both authors mention the using of abbreviations in messages. However, Tsung’s claim is more convincing than that of Dite. It is clear that abbreviations are wildly used in many purposes, not only in texting. For example, abbreviations are usually used in taking notes. It is unreasonable to think that children would bring abbreviation from their note to their exams. Tsung is
Open Document