Questions on David Crystal’s article “2b or Not 2b?” 1. David Crystal begins his article with some strong “they say” arguments, quoting writers who argue that text messaging is destroying the English language. At what point in the article do you begin to see that his own perspective is very different from that of such critics?
– Crystal’s perspective on texting is displayed many times throughout different paragraphs in the article. In paragraph six Crystal states “texting has added a new dimension to language use. Although there are some who see texting as a modern tool that is ruining “proper English”, Crystal sees it as a way for society to enhance thee language skills. 2. Summarize Crystal’s arguments in favor of text messaging. In what ways have the dangers of this phenomenon been vastly overstated, in his opinion? How does he organize his argument? What are his main points, and what kinds of support does he offer?
– Most arguments state that text abbreviations have replaced proper English. On the other hand, Crystal states that these abbreviations go back to centuries. For example ”IOU goes back to 1618” A book written by Eric Partritch in 1942 called “ Dictionary of Abbreviations” contained sms examples and was published 50 years before texting. 3. Crystal wrote this article for a British newspaper read primarily by adults. What might he have done differently if the piece had been for, say, an audience of middle or high school students?
– If Crystal’s audience were middle school students he might have written this article from there point of view . Crystal would most likely include more examples that could relate to them. Also, Crystal could include how texting can help with school and be an asset rather than a distraction. 4. Reread the two text message poems in the article. Which one do you prefer? In what ways do these poems support his argument?
– The second poem supports Crystal’s argument, because the author abbreviated words and replaced letters with numbers just as most people who text do. Although the author has written the poem differently the reader is still able to interpret the poem and the words makes sense.