Language Matters Studies in the Languages of Africa ISSN: 1022-8195 (Print) 1753-5395 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlms20 Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ written work Katlego Thubakgale & Chaka Chaka To cite this article: Katlego Thubakgale & Chaka Chaka (2016) Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ written work, Language Matters, 47:2, 223-245, DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2016.1185139 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2016.1185139 Published online: 26 Jul 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 20 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlms20 Download by: [Ryerson University Library] Date: 16 October 2016, At: 03:56 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF TEXT MESSAGING ON GRADE 11 EFAL LEARNERS’ WRITTEN WORK Katlego Thubakgale Department of Applied Languages Tshwane University of Technology thobakgalekns@tut.ac.za Chaka Chaka Department of Applied Languages Tshwane University of Technology chakachaka8@gmail.com ABSTRACT This study investigated the possible effects of text messaging on the written work of Grade 11 English first additional language learners at a public high school in Pretoria. It had 41 participants – 38 Grade 11 EFAL learners (n = 38, M = 10, F = 28, mean age = 17.4 years) and 3 female Grade 11 EFAL teachers. It used three sampling techniques to select participants: opportunistic purposeful, voluntary, and convenience sampling techniques. Some text message features which the study detected in two written learner activities were: shortenings; contractions; g-clippings; letter homophones; number homophones; no full stops; incorrect capitalisation; spelling errors; and non-conventional spelling errors (textism spelling errors). One of the findings of the study is that text message features as a percentage of the word count in both learner activities had a lower prevalence in and, therefore, a less negative effect on the written work of the learners. Keywords: Grade 11 EFAL learners, text message features, text messages, text messaging, two-paragraph text message activity, written essay activity university of south africa DOI: 10.1080/10228195.2016.1185139 Print ISSN 1022-8195 | Online 1753-5395 © 2016 Unisa Press Language Matters Volume 47 | Number 2 | 2016 pp. 223–245 223 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners 1. INTRODUCTION It is globally recognised that many teenagers use text messaging because text messaging serves as a quick, convenient, cost-effective, and non-intrusive mode of communication. In the case of South Africa especially, text messages have become a preferred means of communication when users have little airtime to make voice calls. (cf. Horstmanshof 2004, 2; Kasesniemi and Rautiainen 2002, 171). This is particularly true for the majority of the youth in South Africa. That is, this segment of the South African population is among the most avid users not only of text messaging in the form of short message services (SMSs), but also of instant messaging powered by over-the-top applications such as Mxit, WhatsApp and WeChat (see for example Deumert and Masinyana 2008, 118; Freudenberg 2009, 2; Kreutzer 2009a, 22; Vosloo, Walton and Deumert 2009, 2). In this regard, Smith (2003, 1) states that texting is a popular means of communication for many users on a daily basis. On this score, Ochonogor, Alakpodia and Achugbue (2012, 1) point out that text messaging entails the use of abbreviations or shorthand that does not usually conform to any conventional orthography, or to any accepted language structure in relation to spelling, punctuation, word order, grammar, syntax and sentence construction. They furthermore claim that it is an unstructured language that violates the standard rules of the English language. One segment of the South African youth that uses text messaging as a mode of communication comprises school learners. This paper argues that text messaging is almost second nature to these learners and that it forms part of their digital subculture. Also integral to their digital subculture and their digital lifestyle is their ‘viral addiction’ to other types of digital devices (e.g. smart phones, tablets, phablets and other mobile consumer digital devices). As a result of spending most of their lives in digital environments, such learners (and other like-minded young users) are variously referred to as the mobile generation, Generation Y, or digital natives (see Kreutzer 2009b, 10–11; Halse and Mallinson 2007, 58; Prensky 2001, 1). Among other things, these learners have embraced text messaging as their signature mode of communication and as their trademark writing practice on a daily basis. All of this has caught the attention of school authorities. Teachers, in particular, view text messaging as contributing to the decline of not only learner writing but of formal school writing in general as well (see Chaka 2012, 164; Vosloo 2009, 2). That is, teachers are of the view that text messaging represents a fault line between learners’ ability to master formal school writing and their inability to do so. Additionally, they contend that text messaging corrupts or ruins learners’ spelling and grammar. Against this backdrop, the current study set out to investigate the possible effects of text messaging on the written work of Grade 11 English first additional language (EFAL) learners (n = 38, M = 10, F = 28) at a public high school in Pretoria. Based on this, it wanted to explore whether text messaging affects these learners’ written school work positively or negatively; establish the types of text message features 224 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners these learners use in their written school work; and determine whether these learners can write their formal school work without using any form of text messaging. The study was framed in this way, since there are traditionally two opposing groups of scholars in respect of the effect of text messaging on school learners’ writing or literacy practice: those who contend that text messaging helps enhance learners’ spelling and literacy (see for example Aziz, Shamim and Aziz 2013, 12889; Crystal 2008, 9; Mahmoud 2013, 17; Shortis 2007, 21–23; Wood, Kemp and Waldron 2014, 415–416); and those who argue that text messaging negatively affects learners’ spelling and literacy (see for example Dansieh 2011, 227; Geertsema, Hyman and van Deventer 2011, 481; Mphahlele and Mashamaite 2005, 162; Yousaf and Ahmed 2013, 394). However, there is an intermediate group comprising scholars who maintain that text messaging either affects learners’ spelling and literacy both positively and negatively or it does not. For the intermediate group, this means that text messaging is not correlated to learners’ poor written language production (see for example, Drouin and Davis 2009, 61; Plester, Wood and Bell 2008, 143; Powell and Dixon 2011, 63). In this context, the current study was conceived as a response to the paucity of studies, in South Africa especially, that have investigated the effect of text messaging on school learners’ formal writing. There are some studies that have been conducted in this regard. Geertsema et al.’s (2011) and Freudenberg’s (2009) studies are cases in point. The current paper serves as a contribution to such studies. 2. TEXT MESSAGING: SOME OF THE RELEVANT STUDIES There is a growing number of studies that investigate text messaging as used by young people especially. Many of these studies have been conducted as pilots, trials, or experiments in North America (see for example Drouin and Davis 2009; Ling and Baron 2007; Rosen, Chang, Erwin, Carrier and Cheever 2010; Varnhagen, Mcfall and Pugh 2010), and in some parts of Europe (see for example Bieswanger 2006; Dąbrowska 2011; Goumi, Volckaert-Legrier, Bert-Erboul and Bernicot 2011; Plester et al. 2008; Powell and Dixon 2011; Tagg 2009; Tagg, Baron and Rayson 2010; Thurlow and Brown 2003; Wood et al. 2014). There are also emerging text messaging studies which focus on certain parts of the Middle East (see for instance Al Rousan, binti Abdul Aziz and Christopher 2014; Aziz et al. 2013; Chiad 2008; Mahmoud 2013; Salem 2013; Tabatabaei and Goojani 2012; Yousaf and Ahmed 2013), and on certain parts of Africa – including South Africa (see for example, Dansieh 2011; Deumert and Masinyana 2008; Freudenberg 2009; Geertsema et al 2011; Kahari, Mutonga and Ndlovu 2013; Njemanze 2012; Nweze 2013; Ochonogor et al. 2012; Ong’onda, Matu and Oloo 2011). While the studies mentioned here are not exhaustive, the paper briefly reviews those that are relevant to its main focus. 225 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Some of the studies mentioned in the preceding paragraph are of relevance to the current paper. As such, they are briefly discussed here. The first one is Drouin and Davis’ (2009) study which explored the use of text speak through different measures. It had 80 introductory psychology students (M = 24, F = 56; mean age = 21.8) from a Midwestern university in the United States as its participants. Thirty-four of these participants were classified as text speak users, while 46 of them were identified as non-text speak users. The study had a dual purpose: to investigate the use of textisms (text messaging features) by college students; and to examine whether textism usage had a significant negative correlation with literacy competence. All the participants were evaluated on their performance in and knowledge of text speak, and their overall literacy stages and misspellings of everyday textisms. They were expected to complete six tests in chronological order: an e-mail task; a translation task; a word ID task; a reading fluency test; a spelling test, and a survey. The following tests were used: ● ● ● ● ● ● textism use in formal and informal communication in e-mails textism proficiency: translating Standard English (SE) to text textism familiarity: translating textism to SE literacy processing speed: speed of translation to and from SE spelling errors: translating target textisms to SE and standardised literacy; and survey. In all, the study showed that both groups exhibited knowledge of textisms, but that textism users had a higher proficiency in their everyday vocabulary. However, no significant between-group differences in standardised literacy scores and no misspellings of common text speak words were noted. Therefore, the study concludes that the use of textism is not related to low literacy performance (Drouin and Davis 2009, 53–55). The second study is Freudenberg’s (2009) study, which examined the impact of SMS speak on the written work of English first language (L1) and English second language (L2) high school learners at an English-Afrikaans dual medium school in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. The study had 88 learners as its participants: 43 Grade 8 learners and 45 Grade 11 learners. Of these, 51 were English L1 speakers and 37 were Afrikaans L1 speakers. Questionnaires and a written English task were employed to collect data. Questionnaires were used to assess the frequency and volume of participants’ use of SMS speak together with participants’ SMS speak features. A written English task was also used to elicit participants’ written English samples so as to determine specific features of SMS speak in these samples. Two of the findings of this study are relevant to this paper. First, all participants indicated that they used SMS speak features in their SMS messages, while many reported using 226 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners SMS speak in their written school work. Second, and contrastingly, participants’ written work samples did not display many SMS speak features (Freudenberg 2009). The third study is by Rosen et al. (2010). It comprised two projects, and had 718 young adults as its participants. There were 335 participants in project one and 385 in project two, respectively, whose ages ranged between 18 to 25 years in both cases. These participants were selected through convenience sampling, and had diverse demographic backgrounds. In terms of education, they either held a college degree, had some college courses, or had not done any college course. In both projects, the purpose was to investigate whether the reported textisms in daily digital communication affected the quality of informal or formal writing. The following four measures were designed for this study: a formal writing sample; an informal writing sample; a reported use of communication tools; and a reported general daily use of textisms. Some of the findings of this two-pronged study can be summarised as follows: firstly, textism use was low; secondly, there were negative correlations between reported use of textisms in everyday digital communication and writing skill (e.g. in formal writing); thirdly, the reported daily use of textisms corresponded mainly with better informal writing; and fourthly and lastly, the negative relationship between texting and literacy seemed to correlate with gender and with the educational level in young users (Rosen et al, 437). Dansieh’s (2011) study – as the fourth study – set out to explore the potential effect of SMS language on students’ written skills. It took place at a polytechnic in Ghana, and involved 430 participants. They consisted of 400 students and 30 lecturers. The study had five research questions and five research objectives. Two of its research questions relevant to the current study were: ● ● Does SMS language and writing enhance students’ writing skills? What do the lecturers think about the possible effects of SMS language on students’ writing? It sourced its data from: questionnaires which were randomly administered to both students and lecturers; data from reports, magazines, and online journal articles; and sampled marked Secretarial English and Communication Skills course examination scripts. Overall, the evidence from examination scripts showed that the negative effect of SMS language on students’ written work was not pronounced. But the analysis of both students’ and lecturers’ responses to the questionnaires indicated that SMS language was a threat to students’ written work (Dansieh, 228). The fifth study is Aziz et al.’s (2013) investigation. It involved 50 undergraduate students at an institute of information technology in Pakistan who were enrolled in two degree programmes, Bachelor of Computer Engineering and Bachelor of Telecommunication Engineering. Forty-two of these students were males, while eight of them were females, and their overall ages ranged from 19 to 25 years. A major finding of this study pertaining to student essays is that there was no prevalence of 227 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners SMS features (e.g. abbreviations, emoticons and omissions of punctuation marks) in these essays, a point that indicated that students were able to switch to an appropriate register or style when writing formally (Aziz et al 12889). The sixth and last study is Mahmoud’s (2013) project. This study investigated the effects of SMS language on 40 foundation year students’ writing and speaking skills at a Saudi Arabian university. It was conducted over six weeks in 2012/2013. It had one main research question: does the constant use of SMS language influence students’ written and spoken communication skills? The participants were indiscriminately allocated to control and experimental groups, each comprising 20 participants. The control group received instruction through conventional strategies, while the experimental group received its instruction through conventional strategies and SMS messages as an extra communication means. Three instruments were used to collect data: SMS messages written in complete English words, and which did not contain short forms and abbreviations; an oral test comprising two tasks; and a written test in which participants had to write a paragraph about a topic based on their foundation module. One of the findings of this study is that the performance of the experimental group improved more significantly compared to the control group (Mahmoud 18). 3. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The researchers were of the view that many youths in Pretoria today – especially learners at a public high school in Pretoria – spend most of their time on their mobile phones sending text messages. The researchers were also of the view that since most of these learners become addicted to using text messages in their daily lives, they are likely to end up using them in their written school work as well. This may either help them improve their English writing proficiency or may ruin it. In this regard, text messaging is, on the one hand, seen as contributing to lowering learner formal writing and learner spelling (see Dansieh 2011, 227; Geertsema et al. 2011, 481; Ochonogor et al. 2012, 1; Salem 2013, 67; Vosloo 2009, 2; Yousaf and Ahmed 2013, 394). On the other hand, it is deemed to either enhance learner formal writing and learner spelling or to have no direct impact on it (see Aziz et al. 2013, 12889; Drouin and Davis 2009, 61; Mahmoud 2013, 17; Plester et al. 2008, 143; Powell and Dixon 2011, 63; Rosen et al. 2010, 435–436). Thus, the current study set out to explore the possible effects (positive or negative) of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ formal written school work at a public high school in Pretoria. Based on the problem stated above, the study’s main research question was: what influence does text messaging have on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ ability to properly compose written school work in class? Its three subordinate research questions were as follows: ● Does text messaging affect Grade 11 EFAL learners’ written school work positively or negatively? 228 Thubakgale and Chaka ● ● Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners What type of text message features do these learners use in their written school work? Can Grade 11 EFAL learners write their formal school work without using any form of text message style? 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The study adopted a qualitative approach and employed a case study design. It is therefore predicated in a qualitative research paradigm. One of the characteristics of a qualitative research approach as identified by Merriam (2001) is that the researcher should understand a phenomenon under investigation from the point of view of participants. The current study treated its data and the aspects of its investigation from participants’ perspectives to avoid distorting or misrepresenting them. A case study design gives special attention to a specific case or cases. It then studies such a case or cases in-depth by drawing its data from multiple sources (Creswell 2006; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Yin 2014). The present study collected its data from four sources: two learner written tasks; learner questionnaires; and teacher questionnaires. 4.1 Participants and sampling techniques The study had 41 participants – 38 Grade 11 EFAL learners (M = 10, F = 28, mean age = 17.4 years) and 3 female Grade 11 EFAL teachers – from a public high school in Pretoria, Gauteng. Three sampling techniques were used to select participants: opportunistic purposeful, voluntary, and convenience sampling techniques. The first involves technique exploiting the opportunity presented by participants in yielding the information required for the main purpose of the study, while the second entails allowing participants to take part in a study on a voluntary basis. The third technique involves selecting participants based on the unhindered and easy access the researcher has to them (Myers and Barnes 2005). Before the study was conducted, permission to conduct such a study was obtained from the relevant authorities (the Gauteng Provincial Education Department and the school principal). In addition, consent was secured from participants and from parents (in the case of minor learners). 4.2 Materials and procedure The data for this study were collected using the following materials: learner written tasks (a two-paragraph text message task and a page-long essay task); a learner questionnaire; and a teacher questionnaire. All the data were collected over four days in August 2014. For a text message task, participants were given a topic on which to write two paragraphs using text message features. The topic in question was: should cell phones be used for teaching and learning at school or not? 229 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Participants were required to perform this task for 20 minutes in class shortly after school. Regrading an essay task, participants were requested to write a page-long essay on the following topic: should text messaging (SMS language) be allowed or not in written school work? Participants completed this essay task a day after they wrote a text message task. They did it in class immediately after school, and had to complete in 30 minutes. The learner and teacher questionnaires were administered on the third day, and both questionnaires consisted of open-ended items. These two types of questionnaire assessed learner and teacher perceptions of text messaging in relation to written school work. 4.3 Data analysis All the responses to each questionnaire item in both the learner and teacher questionnaires were tallied and contrasted. They were then thematically and inductively coded and content-analysed using the categories of text message features represented in Table 1. A competent English language coder was consulted to help with the coding and analysis of the data, and to ensure inter-rater reliability. Two key questions learners had to respond to in their questionnaire were: Do you think that using text messages has affected the way you write at school? Provide three reasons for your response above. 230 Non-conventional spelling errors Spelling errors Omitted words Incorrect capitalisation No full stops No commas No apostrophes Lowercase ‘i’ and ë Symbols Number homophones Letter homophones A typology of text message features as modified and adapted from Lyddy Farina and Hanney (2013, 551), Shortis (2007, 25) and Thurlow and Brown (2003, 19–21) G-clippings Contractions Shortenings Table 1: Acronyms and initialisms ● ● Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Learners’ two written activities – text message paragraphs and written essay responses – were coded and content-analysed using a modified version of Lyddy, Farina, Hanney, Farrell and O’Neill’s (2013, 551) typology of text message features as adapted from Shortis’ (2007, 25) and Thurlow and Brown’s (2003, 19–21) typologies of text message features (see Table 1). The major units of analysis were as illustrated in Table 1. Text message features were tallied and contrasted with those identified in written essay responses. Pertaining to written essay responses, the prevalence of the text message features as displayed in Table 1 was determined. Here, too, a competent English language rater was consulted to help with the coding and analysis of the data, and to ensure inter-rater reliability. 5. FINDINGS This section presents the findings of the study. Its structure is intended to respond to the main research question together with the subordinate research questions mentioned earlier. Its main research quest was: what influence does text messaging have on Grade 11 EFAL learners’ ability to properly compose written school work in class? In addition, the section attempts to present the findings in terms of the two types of questionnaires administered to teachers and learners and the two written learner tasks. As the study was a case study, it is vital to point out that its findings are contextual and thus not generalisable. 5.1 Teacher questionnaires – third party reporting Three Grade 11 EFAL teachers filled out an open-ended questionnaire which sought to solicit their views regarding learners’ use of text messaging in their written school work. The questionnaire also required them to provide examples of text message features they encountered in their learners’ written work. A summarised version of their responses shows that: ● ● ● ● ● ● They agree that they come across text messaging features in their learners’ written work They think learners transfer text messaging to their formal written work Learners forget to switch to formal writing and end up using this text language in their written work Learners often struggle to distinguish between formal and informal writing when using text messaging Text messaging has a negative effect on learners’ language and spellings Learners often struggle to write full sentences 231 Thubakgale and Chaka ● Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Examples of text message features they encounter in learners’ written work are: u (you); 2 (to, two or too); skul (school); csta (sister); b4 (before); c (see); coz/ bcos (because); n (and); gutnite (good night); wud (would); and 4 u (for you). The text message features reported as encountered by teachers in learners’ written work are represented in Table 2. As evident from this table, these text message features are classifiable into three textism categories. Number homophones Nonconventional spelling errors Some of the text message features learners use in their written work as reported by teachers Letter homophones Table 2: u 2 skul b4 4 csta c coz/bcos n gutnite wud 5.2 Learner questionnaires – self-reporting Thirty eight Grade 11 EFAL learners who were learner participants filled out an open-ended questionnaire which sought to solicit their views regarding their use of text messaging in written school work. Their views also sought concerning how they thought text messaging affected their written school work. Of these 38 learners, 20 learners indicated that text messaging affected how they wrote at school. In summary, the reasons they provided were that they: ● ● forget to use proper language and spelling in their school work, and that they usually shorten their words without noticing, and they get penalised for using improper language; forget to spell words, capitalise and punctuate correctly since they are so used to the abbreviated language that they even use it in their formal school work; 232 Thubakgale and Chaka ● ● ● ● ● Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners experience poor spelling, are used to writing shortened words, and acknowledge that text messaging has minimised their abilities to spell and formulate proper and grammatically correct sentences; spend most of their time sending text messages when they should be studying; edit what they have written, but do not see any difference – they cannot even realise that they have made a mistake in their work tend to abbreviate while writing their school homework and essays; and see text messages as affecting their English spelling and vocabulary. By contrast, 18 learners pointed out that text messaging did not affect how they wrote at school. The reasons they provided were that they: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● use the correct form of language and re-check their work for mistakes after writing; know that text message language is not appropriate for school and that it is not allowed; do not fully understand the language of text messaging, which is why they do not use this abbreviated form of language; use proper English when sending text messages; send fewer text messages, so they do not use the informal language; spend more of their time studying than texting, and make sure they use the correct language in their work; and can switch between the two. 5.3 Two-paragraph text message and written essay activities As mentioned earlier on, 38 learners each wrote a two-paragraph text message task on the topic: should cell phones be used for teaching and learning at school or not? A typology of text message features (textisms) that were identified in this activity is displayed in Table 3. As shown in this table, text message features that participants used in their text message paragraphs were classified into 10 textism categories. Of these 10 categories, the two most prevalent text message features were non-conventional spelling errors and spelling errors. They were followed by acronyms/initialisms, contractions, g-clippings, shortenings and letter homophones. Incorrect capitalisation and number homophones were less prevalent text message features with the use of symbols being the least prevalent. 233 Thubakgale and Chaka com lrning wrld learnin b 2 hav pple schl prvdin c 4 1 don dne wrk tichin n mus uzng wrttn preparin r wil thig cll anythn y @ Non-conventional spelling errors Spelling errors Incorrect capitalisation Symbols Number homophones Letter homophones G-clippings Acronyms/ Initialisms Text messaging features found in the two-paragraph text message activity Contractions Shortenings Table 3: Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners ShoulD Text Messaging Be alloweD because cellfones founes cellf4n 4ne tolD vecabulary skul skool scul shoulD confussed den worK convinient de grammer lyk cmunctng txt benefitin persepective dey hw msg teachin wrighing lykly evn ys writting luv lrng becouse bcoz hw ceell coz becoz, schooll gud masage sumtimes potable deir comming tym prefare dat diruption dem morden wat, concentraite yung, techers cud sym rader As depicted in Table 4, text message features that were identified in participants’ written essay responses were classified into seven textism categories. Of these features, the most commonly prevalent ones were spelling errors and nonconventional spelling errors. They were followed by shortenings and contractions, and by g-clippings and number homophones. The feature ‘letter homophones’ was the least prevalent. 234 Thubakgale and Chaka providin u 4 becouse fones prvde teachin 2 short-cart wyst importanc usd learnin 1 robberie lyf mor expsd opopriate sym thou persepective lyk com esayest nite vecabulary rite adeated (addicted) wrighing abreveations rusult funiliar bulling reit (write) posebility frastrated quotion (question) imagen univesity falfill worng 235 Nonconventional spelling errors strggle wher Spelling errors Number homophones Letter homophones infor Shortenings G-clippings Text messaging features found in the written essay activity Contractions Table 4: Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Thubakgale and Chaka Table 5: Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners A comparison of the text message features and errors found in the two learner activities Categories of text message features Text message activity (N = 38) Essay activity (N = 38) No. of text message paragraphs No. of errors committed Frequency % No. of written essay scripts No. of errors committed Frequency % Shortenings 19 53 5.3 2 6 2.2 Contractions 13 122 12.2 3 4 2 Acronyms/ initialisms 1 2 0.2 0 0 0 G-Clippings 1 3 0.3 2 3 1.1 Letter homophones 7 27 2.7 1 1 0.3 Number homophones 12 45 4.5 1 3 1.1 Symbols 4 4 0.4 0 0 0 Lower case ‘e’ 4 4 0.4 8 29 10.7 Lowercase ‘i’ 1 1 0.1 2 2 0.7 No apostrophes 7 9 0.9 13 34 12.5 No commas 0 0 0 3 3 1.1 No full stops 12 22 2.2 12 19 7 Incorrect capitalisation 12 34 3.4 14 47 17 Omitted words 2 4 0.4 6 7 2.6 Spelling errors 36 501 50.2 29 106 39.1 Non-conventional spelling errors 18 168 16.8 4 7 2.6 Total errors committed 999 (22%) 100 271 (3%) 100 Total word count 4632 9900 The text message features and errors found in the two learner activities (a twoparagraph text message activity and a written essay activity) were tallied and contrasted as depicted in Table 5. These features and errors were classified into 16 textism categories. Of these 16 categories, the three most commonly occurring text message features were: spelling errors (50.2%); non-conventional spelling (16.8%); and contractions (12.2%). They were followed by shortenings (5.3%); number homophones (4.5%); incorrect capitalisation (3.4%); letter homophones (2.7%); and no full stops (2.2%). The least common text message features were no apostrophes 236 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners (0.9%); symbols (0.4%); lower case ‘e’ (0.4%); omitted words (0.4%); g-clippings (0.3%); and lowercase ‘i’ (0.7%). The feature ‘no commas’ had a zero occurrence. Lastly, the total number of text message features identified in text message paragraphs was 999 out of a total word count of 4 632. Thus, text message features accounted for 22 per cent of the total word count in this activity. In relation to written essay responses, the total number of text message features identified was 271 out of a total word count of 9 900. Of these features, the most common ones were: spelling errors (39.1%); incorrect capitalisation (17%); no apostrophes (12.5%); and lower case ‘e’ (10.7%). These were followed by the feature ‘no full stops’ (7%). The least common features were non-conventional spelling errors (2.6%); omitted words (2.6%); shortenings (2.2%); contractions (1.5%); g-clippings (1.1%); number homophones (1.1%); no commas (1.1%); lowercase ‘i’ (0.8%); and letter homophones (0.3%). Acronyms/initialisms and symbols had a zero occurrence. Overall, the text message features accounted for 3 per cent of the total word count in this activity. 6. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS As mentioned earlier, this study set out to answer its main research question together with the three subordinate research questions based on this main research question. It did so by means of four data collection processes: two types of questionnaires and two written learner activities. Its main research question was: what influence does text messaging have on the Grade 11 EFAL learners’ ability to properly compose written school work in class? 6.1 Learner text message features as reported by teachers In a teacher questionnaire, the three respondents indicated that learners used text message features in their written work or transferred text messaging to their formal written work. They also pointed out that learners failed to distinguish between formal and informal writing when using text messaging; learners often struggled to write full sentences; and that text messaging had a negative effect on learners’ language and spellings. They also provided some examples of text messaging that they thought learners used in their written work. These examples were classified into three textism categories: letter homophones; number homophones; and nonconventional spelling errors (see Table 2). All this served as the perceptions teachers had of the possible effects text messaging had on their learners’ written work. That is, in relation to the main research question and the first subordinate research question of this study, teachers maintained that text messaging had a possible negative effect on their learners’ written work. With reference to the second and third subordinate research questions, teachers believed that letter homophones, number homophones and non-conventional spelling errors (see Table 2) were the text message features that learners used in their written work. 237 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners These teacher perceptions regarding learner text messaging are consistent with those reported in Geertsema et al.’s (2011, 481), Freudenberg’s (2009, 48– 49), Odey, Essoh and Endong’s (2014, 92), and Salem’s (2013, 67) studies. For example, Geertsema et al.’s (2011, 481) study concludes that most of the teachers who participated in a teacher questionnaire perceived text messaging as having a negative influence on Grade 8 and 9 learners’ written skills such as spelling, punctuation, and sentence length. In a similar vein, Freudenberg (2009) highlights that five of the seven teachers who participated in a teacher questionnaire reported having noticed features of SMS speak (e.g., spelling errors, lack of punctuation, abbreviations/acronyms, emoticons and rebus writing) making inroads in some Grade 8 and 11 learners’ written work. In this regard, Odey et al. (2014, 92) point out that the intensive use of SMS texting negatively affected the writing skills of university students at a university college in Nigeria. They argue that texting tend to be consciously or unconsciously transferred to these students’ written essays. Similarly and as mentioned earlier on, Dansieh’s (2011, 227) study demonstrates that lecturers’ responses to a questionnaire about the impact of text messaging on student writing indicated that text messaging posed a threat to student writing skills. However, the teacher perceptions of the current study are inconsistent with the view that text messaging helps enhance learners’ spelling and literacy (see, for example, Aziz et al 2013, 12889; Crystal 2008, 9; Mahmoud 2013, 17; Shortis 2007, 21–23; Wood et al 2014, 415–416). 6.2 Learner text message features as reported by learners In a learner questionnaire, 20 learners self-reported that they forgot to use proper language, spelling, capitalisation and punctuation in their school work; often shortened words and used abbreviations in their formal school work (e.g. school homework and essays); edited their written work but could not detect errors; and thought text messaging affected their English spelling and vocabulary. They also indicated that text messaging tended to minimise their ability to construct proper and grammatically correct sentences. Contrastingly, 18 learners self-reported that they knew that text messaging language was not appropriate for, and was not allowed for, school use; did not fully understand the language of text messaging; did not use the abbreviated form of language; used the correct form of language and used proper English when sending text messages; re-checked their work for mistakes after writing; and could switch between the two (texting and formal writing). For the current study, these two contrasting sets of learner responses served as the perceptions learners had of the possible effects text messaging had on their written work. That is, concerning the main research question and the first subordinate research question of this study, learner perceptions were dichotomously polarised. Twenty learners said that they used text messaging in their written school work, 238 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners and that they thought text messaging affected their formal school work (e.g. school homework and essays) negatively. By contrast, 18 learners said that they did not use text messaging in their school work, and that they were able to switch between the two (texting and formal writing). This suggests that they thought text messaging did not affect their written work. In connection with the second subordinate research question, these learners did not mention text message features that they thought influenced their written work. However, pertaining to the third subordinate research question, again two contrasting sets of responses from the self-same two groups of learners emerged. For example, on the one hand, the first 20 learners indicated that they often used short forms and abbreviations in their formal school work (e.g. school homework and essays). This particular self-reporting instance tallies with self-reporting observations in both Freudenberg’s (2009, 40–41) and Yousaf and Ahmed’s (2013, 393) studies. In this regard, in Freudenberg’s study, learners self-reported that they not only used SMS speak in their school writing, but also multiple features of it. Likewise, in Yousaf and Ahmed’s study, the majority of 100 surveyed students at a university in Pakistan reported that SMS texting affected their formal writing (e.g., spelling) negatively. On the other hand, the 18 learners in the current study mentioned earlier maintained that they were able to engage in their written work without making use of text message speak, as they knew that the latter (text message speak) was not appropriate for, and was not allowed for, formal writing. This learner self-reported observation ties in with a similar observation in Ochonogor et al.’s (2012, 2–3) study, in which students said that they were aware of and concerned about the effects of texting on their spoken and written English. 6.3 Text message features identified in text message paragraphs and written essays As evident from Table 3, text message features identified from learners’ twoparagraph text message tasks were classified into 10 textism categories. The prevalence frequency of these categories was described and presented in sub-section 5.3 above. For example, the two most prevalent text message features were nonconventional spelling errors and spelling errors. These were followed by acronyms/ initialisms, contractions, g-clippings, shortenings and letter homophones. Incorrect capitalisation and number homophones were less prevalent text message features with the feature ‘symbols’ being the least prevalent. In a different but related instance, Odey et al. (2014) identified the following nine SMS features in their study of 250 SMS messages sourced from 50 third-year education students at a university in Nigeria: initialisation; vowel deletion; short forms (truncation); number homophones; letter homophones; emoticons; lack of inter-word space; punctuation errors; and onomatopoeic expressions. Of these, the most frequently occurring 239 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners were vowel deletion, number homophones, letter homophones, initialisation and punctuation errors. As regards written essays, the text message features detected were classified into seven textism categories (see Table 4), of which the most commonly prevalent were spelling errors and non-conventional spelling errors. These were followed by shortenings and contractions, and by g-clippings and number homophones. The feature ‘letter homophones’ was the least prevalent. Except for acronyms/initialisms, symbols and incorrect capitalisation, the seven text message features detected in learners’ written essays are the same as those identified in the same learners’ text message paragraphs (see Table 3). Moreover, these text message features include the three that teachers reported as being committed by learners in their written school work (see Table 2). In her study, Freudenberg (2009, 42) reports 10 features of SMS speak that she detected from the written work of the 88 Grade 8 and 11 learners who participated in her study. These were: spelling errors; lack of punctuation; overpunctuation; abbreviations or acronyms; emoticons; rebus writing; shortened words; slang; and colloquialisms. Similarly, Odey et al. (2014, 92) point out that the same SMS language features/forms observed in their 50 students’ 250 SMS messages were also observed in these students’ written essays. The text message features and errors found in the two learner activities were tallied and contrasted as depicted in Table 5. These features and errors were classified into 16 textism categories, and presented with their frequency percentages and word counts in each case. For example, spelling errors had the highest frequency percentage in both activities, even though they were more prevalent in the text message activity (50.2%) than in the essay activity (39.1%). However, at a 39.1 per cent occurrence frequency, spelling errors as a category could be regarded as having had the highest prevalence incidence both as compared to text messaging as an informal written activity and as a percentage of the overall text message features identified in learners’ essays as a formal written activity. The same applies to incorrect capitalisation, no apostrophes, lower case ‘e’, no full stops and omitted words as text message features with 17 per cent, 12.5 per cent, 10.7 per cent, 7 per cent and 2.6 per cent occurrence frequencies, respectively, in the essay activity, but whose respective frequency percentages were 3.4 per cent, 0.9 per cent, 0.4 per cent, 2.2 per cent and 0.4 per cent in the learners’ text message activity. By contrast, text message features such as contractions (1.5%), g-clippings (1.1%), number homophones (1.1%), no commas (1.1%), lowercase ‘i’ (0.8%), and letter homophones (0.3%) occurred the least in the essay activity, while acronyms/initialisms and symbols had a zero occurrence. Nonetheless, text message features as a percentage of the overall word count in the text message activity as an informal written activity are less prevalent, at 22 per cent. They are even less prevalent at 3 per cent of the total word count in the 240 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners written essay activity as a formal written activity. So, as a percentage of the word count in both learner activities, text message features had a lower prevalence in, and thus a less negative effect on, the written work of the learners who participated in this study. Finally, taking the number of scripts in each activity (see Table 5) as a baseline metric, it appears that it was possible (barring spelling errors) for the majority of these learners to write their essays without relying heavily on the text message features identified in Table 5. 7. CONCLUSION This study set out to explore the following: whether text messaging affects Grade 11 EFAL learners’ written school work positively or negatively; the types of text message features these learners use in their written school work; and whether these learners can write their formal school work without using any form of text messaging. In exploring these three areas, the study collected data by means of two types of questionnaires and two learner activities. Some of the text message features it detected from the two written learner activities were as follows: shortenings; contractions; acronyms/initialisms; g-clippings; letter homophones; number homophones; no apostrophes, no full stops; omitted words; incorrect capitalisation; spelling errors; and non-conventional spelling errors. Of these features, spelling errors had the highest frequency percentage in both activities. However, they were more prevalent in the text message activity (50.2%) than they were in the essay activity (39.1%). In this regard, the study argues that at a 39.1 per cent occurrence frequency, spelling errors as a category had the highest incidence as compared to text messaging as an informal written activity and also as a percentage of the total text message features identified in learners’ essays as a formal written activity. In contrast, text message features such as number homophones, no commas and letter homophones occurred the least in the essay activity, whereas acronyms/initialisms and symbols had a zero occurrence. Moreover, the study contends that text message features as a percentage of the total word count in the text message activity as an informal written activity are lower at 22 per cent. These are even much lower at 3 per cent of the total word count in the written essay activity as a formal written activity. On this basis, the study concludes that text message features as a percentage of the word count in both learner activities had a lower prevalence in, and therefore a less negative effect on, the written work of the learners; barring spelling errors, it was possible for the majority of these learners to write their essays without much reliance on the text message features identified above. Lastly, the current study involved only one grade as its main focal area. It would have been ideal if it had focused on two grades. 241 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This article is based on Katlego Ngaletsane Thubakgale’s research towards her M.Tech. dissertation, ‘The possible effects of text messaging on the written work of Grade 11 English first additional language learners at a public high school in Pretoria’, which she submitted for examination at the Tshwane University of Technology. REFERENCES Al Rousan, R. M., N. H. binti Abdul Aziz, and A. Christopher. 2014. Where are you? The communicative functions of Saudi students’ text messaging. International Journal of English Linguistics 4(3): 23–33. Aziz, S., M. Shamim, M. F. Aziz, and P. Avais. 2013. The impact of texting/SMS language on academic writing of students: What do we need to panic about? Elixir Linguistics and Translation 55: 12884–12890. Bieswanger, M. 2006. 2 abbrevi8 or not 2 abbrevi8: A contrastive analysis of different shortening strategies in English and German text messages. In Proceedings of SALSA XIV ed. T. Hallett, S. Floyd, S. Oshima, and A. Shield, no pagination. Available at http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/ salsa/proceedings/2006/Bieswanger.pdf (accessed 10 September 2014). Chaka, C. 2012. Mobiles for sustainable learning environments: Mobile phones and MXit within a South African school context. Communitas 17: 161–182. Chiad, M. O. 2008. Structural and linguistic analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Kerbala University 6(4): 15–27. Creswell, J. W. 2006. Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. New York: Sage. Crystal, D. 2008. Txting: The gr8 Db8. London: Oxford University Press. Dąbrowska, M. 2011. Language economy in short text messages. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 128: 7–21. Available at http://www2.filg.uj.edu.pl/ StudiaLinguistica/pdf/12801-Dabrowska.pdf (accessed 10 September 2014). Dansieh, S. A. 2011. SMS texting and its potential impacts on students’ written communication skills. International Journal of English Linguistics 1(2): 222–229. Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Deumert, A. and S. O. Masinyana. 2008. Mobile language choices: The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. English World-Wide 29(2): 117–147. Drouin, M. and C. Davis. 2009. R U txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41: 46–67. Freudenberg, K. 2009. Investigating the impact of SMS speak on the written work of English first language and English second language high school learners. Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University. Available at http://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10019.1/2052/ freudenberg_investigating_2009.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 10 September 2014). 242 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Geertsema, S., C. Hyman, and C. Van Deventer. 2011. Short message service (SMS) language and written language skills: Educators’ perspectives. South African Journal of Education 31: 475–487. Available at http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/saje/v31n4/v31n4a02.pdf (accessed 2 April 2012). Goumi, A., O. Volckaert-Legrier, A. Bert-Erboul, and J. Bernicot. 2011. SMS length and function: A comparative study of 13 to 18 year-old girls and boys. European Review of Applied Psychology 61(4): 175–184. Halse, M. L. and B. J. Mallinson. 2007. Investigating popular internet applications as supporting e-learning technologies for teaching and learning with Generation Y. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology 5(5): 58–71. Horstmanshof, L. 2004. Using SMS as a way of providing connection and community for first year students. In Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 5–8 December ed. R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, and R. Phillips, 423– 427. Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/horstmanshof.html (accessed 22 August 2013). Kahari, L., L. Mutonga, and T. Ndlovu. 2013. Syntactic aspects in text messages of University of Zimbabwe students. Journal of Arts and Humanities 2(10): 79–87. Kasesniemi, E. L. and P. Rautiainen. 2002. Mobile culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, and public performance ed. J. Katz and M. Aakhus, 170–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kreutzer, T. 2009a. Assessing cell phone usage in a South African township school. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT 5(5): 43–57. Kreutzer, T. 2009b. Generation mobile: Online and digital media usage on mobile phones among low-income urban youth in South Africa. Available at http://tinokreutzer.org/mobile/ MobileOnlineMedia-SurveyResults-2009.pdf (accessed 15 May 2015). Ling, R. and N. Baron. 2007. Text messaging and IM: A linguistic comparison of American college data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(3): 291–298. Lyddy, F., F. Farina, J. Hanney, L. Farrell, and N. K. O’Neill. 2013. An analysis of language in university students’ text messages. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3) 546-561. Mahmoud, S. S. 2013. The effect of using English SMS on KAU foundation year students’ speaking and writing performance. American International Journal of Social Science 2(2): 13–22. Merriam, S. B. 2001. Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 89: 3–14. Mphahlele, M. L. and K. Mashamaite. 2005. The impact of short message service (SMS) language on language proficiency of learners and the SMS dictionaries: A challenge for educators and lexicographers. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Mobile Learning, Qwara, Malta, 28-30 June 2005 ed. P. Isaías, C. Borg, P. Kommers, and P. Bonanno 161– 168. Qwara: IADIS. Myers, P. and J. Barnes. 2005. Qualitative research methods in sure start local programme evaluations: An introduction. London: NESS. 243 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Njemanze, Q. U. 2012. The SMS style of communication: Implications of language usage among Nigerian university students’ communication. Journal of Communication 3(1): 17–23. Nweze, I. M. 2013. SMS texting among GSM users in Nigeria: A morpho-syntactic analysis. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 3(15): 84–91. Ochonogor, W. C., N. O. Alakpodia, and I. E. Achugbue. 2012. The impact of text message slang (TMS) or chartroom slang on students’ academic performance. International Journal of the Internet of Things 1(2): 1–4. Odey, V. E., N. E. G. Essoh and F. P. C. Endong. 2014. Effects of SMS texting on the writing skills of university students in Nigeria: Case of the College of Education Akamkpa. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication 2(3): 83–96. Ong’onda, N. A., P. M. Matu, and P. A. Oloo. 2011. Syntactic aspects in text messaging. World Journal of English Language 1(1): 2–8. Plester, B., C. Wood, and V. Bell. 2008. Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Literacy 42(3): 137–144. Powell, D. and M. Dixon. 2011. Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27(1): 58–66. DOI:10.1111/ j.1365-2729.2010.00400.x. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5): 1–6. Rosen, L. D., J. Chang, L. Erwin, M. Carrier and N. A. Cheever. 2010. The relationship between ‘textisms’ and formal and informal writing among young adults. Communication Research 37: 420–440. Salem, A. A. M. 2013. The impact of technology (BBM and WhatsApp applications) on English linguistics in Kuwait. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 2(4): 64-69. Shortis, T. 2007. Gr8 txtpectations: The creativity of text spelling. English Drama Media 8: 21–26. Smith, H. 2003. Letter-writing, e-mail and texting essentials. London: Foulsham. Tabatabaei, O. and A. H. Goojani 2012. The impact of text-messaging on vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. Cross-cultural Communication 8(2): 47–55. Tagg, C. 2009. A corpus linguistics study of SMS text messaging. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/253/1/Tagg09PhD.pdf (accessed 24 February 2015). Tagg, C., A. Baron, and P. Rayson. 2010. ‘I didn’t spel that wrong did i. Oops’: Analysis and standardisation of SMS spelling variation. PowerPoint slideshow presented at ICAME 2010, Gießen, May 27th. http:// comp.eprints.lancs.ac.uk/2310/1/CorTxt_and_VARD_-_ICAME_ presentation-Final.pdf (accessed 24 February 2015). Thurlow, C. and A. Brown. 2003. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s textmessaging. Discourse Analysis Online 1(1): 1–27. Varnhagen, C. K., G. P. McFall, N. Pugh, L. Routledge, H. Sumida-MacDonald, and T. E. Kwong. 2010. lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing 23: 719–733. Vosloo, S. 2009. The effects of texting on literacy: Modern scourge or opportunity? Available at http://vosloo.net/wp-content/uploads/pubs/texting_and_literacy_apr09_sv.pdf (accessed 24 February 2015). 244 Thubakgale and Chaka Possible effects of text messaging on Grade 11 EFAL learners Vosloo, S., M. Walton and A. Deumert. 2009. m4Lit: A teen m-novel project in South Africa. Paper read at the mLearn2009 Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA. 30 October 2009. Available at http://marionwalton.wordpress.com/files/2009/09/mlearn2009_07_sv_mw_ ad.pdf (accessed 24 May 2015). Wood, C., N. Kemp and S. Waldron. 2014. Exploring the longitudinal relationships between the use of grammar in text messaging and performance on grammatical tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 32: 415–429. Yin, R. K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage. Yousaf, Z. and M. Ahmed 2013. Effects of SMS on writing skills of the university students in Pakistan: A case study of University of Gujrat. Asian Economic and Financial Review 3(3): 389–397. 245