Introduction

Language plays a crucial role in our social communications and how we form meaningful interactions with others. While the current evidence suggests the possession of language remains a defining characteristic of what it is to be human. In some cultures the status of being a person is not attributed until language is acquired. Such is its importance, for example, in some African groups that a newborn child is termed a ‘kintu’ or ‘thing’ only becoming a ‘muntu’ or ‘person’ once some semblance of language has been acquired and developed (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2013). However, it is not simply culture that shifts the goal posts as to the nature of language. Language has always been shaped by technology – the printing press is a case in point (Blake, 1969; Crystal, 2012). There is also a feeling that new digital technologies have accelerated that change, particularly with the rise in online communication tools and the sheer popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook. Undoubtedly, technology has had a profound impact not only on how we communicate but how we engage with new orthographic features of written text, particularly when communicating through social networking sites, instant messaging (IM) and text messaging. Many children enter school with an unprecedented amount of technological experience and skills that many parents lack, especially in the form of online communication and social networking skills (Revelle, Reardon, et al., 2007). As their engagement with new technology increases so does their range of styles of online communication. For example, teenagers spend considerable time sending text messages, ‘tweeting’ friends, or communicating through IM and are continually in touch with a phenomenon that is currently unknown to older generations. The Ofcom (2010) UK-wide survey shows that typically 16–24 year olds declared greater time spent on their mobile phones and the social networking sites than time spent watching television. Over a quarter of adults (27%) and almost half of teenagers (47%) now own a smartphone and the frequency of sending text messages is highest among smartphone users; 79 per cent of smartphone owners claim to make and receive SMS texts on their mobile every day, compared to 50 per cent of standard phone users.

This chapter considers how learners’ engagement with online social interaction and communication has had a prolific effect on their use of language practices. According to Prensky (2001), the rapid dissemination of digital technologies has seen a rise in the number of ‘digital natives’, that is individuals who are native speakers in the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. With this increase towards using new digital forms of communication, and a reliance on mobile technologies, there is a notable change in the orthographic and phonological features found within written language, one that has given rise to new forms of abbreviations to facilitate effective communication. The evolution of new forms of written features of language illustrates the effect of being part of a digital revolution. Given that we are facing a digital revolution then perhaps teachers and other educators need to rethink the traditional conventions of spoken and written language.

Communicating Online

The very nature of our social interactions is changing through the introduction of new communication tools: is this a good thing? Social presence is often thought to be crucial to learning, and social exchanges and interactions can help guide thinking and reasoning on a number of levels. As Vygotsky (1978) suggests, language and learning are primarily a human activity occurring within a highly valued social context and higher cognitive processes such as thinking, problem-solving and reasoning can arise from such intimate social interactions. The use of online communication may, therefore, prove to play a critical role in developing our communication styles and our ability to engage with others in order to promote those higher-order cognitive skills most often associated with learning.

Despite initial concerns that technology would reduce human interaction and impoverish the language this has not proven to be the case. Analyses of electronic discourse show that conversational language rules are still adhered to (Crystal, 2006; Greenfield & Subrahmanyam, 2003). Indeed, the evidence to date suggests users appear to be aware that they need provide contextual information resulting in a honing of the individual’s pragmatic language skills. A study by Greenfield and Subrahmanyam that investigated adolescent interactions in chat rooms showed that the participants were developing new communication strategies and creating a new communicative register.¹ Crystal (2006) argues that there is evidence that chat groups and online forums are developing dialects. Users appear to be very aware of social context (Mesch, 2009) and adapt their relational tone, personal language, sentence complexity and message composition time depending on their target recipient (Walther, 2007). All of which suggests a high level of cognitive awareness in terms of pragmatic skills.

In line with Vygotsky’s assumptions about the role of language within social interactions, we can see how learners’ engagement with digital communication tools, such as Twitter and Facebook, may be influencing their understanding of written language. One notable change is the shift from private to public forms of online communication. Traditionally, with the use of the telephone or handwritten letter, this involved a one-to-one form of personal communication among friends, families or close acquaintances. Essentially you knew whom you were conversing with. However, given the rise in internet chat rooms and social networking sites like Facebook, Bebo and Myspace, which thrive on the one-to-many forms of conversations, those interactions are frequently published online for anyone to see within more open and unrestricted arenas. The shift towards sharing ideas, thoughts and personal opinions is becoming increasingly more apparent online and our interactions are observable by others (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, 2006).

A related point concerns the level of ownership and the extent to which our communications can be restricted or unrestricted. As learners begin to engage more with public forms of communication it brings with it greater opportunities for engagement with unrestricted levels of communication. An example of how technology is supporting this change is through unrestricted student blogging and online discussion boards, both of which are becoming more popular within educational environments. Blogs have become a very popular way of producing digital text and illustrate learners’ tendency to blend the personal with the public (Davies & Merchant, 2009; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). This move towards unrestricted forms of communication is often considered to be beneficial given that it allows greater freedom of expression, opportunities for collaboration, discussion and reflection: all indicative of higher levels of cognitive processing (Deed & Edwards, 2011).

So rather than the solitary activity of sending a letter or making a telephone call, each of which are likely to be directed towards one specific individual, learners are using a range of new communication tools to interact with a range of individuals at any specific time: one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many. One-to-one types of social interactions can be most commonly found in the use of email, text messaging and IM. Often the content of these communications are aimed at one particular individual, and provide a direct, immediate point of contact (Schiano, Chen, et al., 2002). If we take IM as an example here, it seems to be the only form of one-to-one synchronous online activity that is currently available. It is designed for one-to-one dialogue that allows real-time, spontaneous discussions with friends, family or acquaintances allowing for an almost immediate response (Paolillo, 1999). Through a series of studies, Valkenberg and Peter (2009) have consistently found positive associations between IM and the quality of adolescents’ existing friendship networks online, often indicative of their willingness to disclose intimate information or reduce social anxiety that can often be found in more face-to-face forms of communication (Pierce, 2009). However, like many of these new forms of technology, they are primarily developed to encourage adolescents to communicate with existing friends rather than encourage interactions with complete strangers online. The use of one-to-one forms of online communication is therefore allowing greater control over the types of networks established and strengthens existing friendship groups.

However, one-to-many forms of online interactions are increasingly popular, and can be seen in the sheer rise in student’s engagement with Internet chat rooms and social networking sites (such as Facebook and Myspace). Within these social networks, individuals create a public or semi-public profile, with connections made with close friends, relatives and even partial strangers. We are relying less on one-to-one interactions and focus on sharing ideas with a larger group of individuals online. Facebook remains an interesting case because although profiles are open to many, and often seen to be a one-to-many form of interaction, not all individuals behave in the same way. Underwood, Kerlin, and Farrington-Flint (2011) in their exploration of undergraduate students’ interactions with the increasingly popular social-networking site Facebook, identified two distinct groups: broadcasters (one-to-many communication) and communicators (one-to-one or one-to-few) and these groups varied in how they chose to communicate with others. The communicators had smaller social-knit groups, had regular high-quality interactions and often sent messages to one person or a small group. Broadcasters, by contrast were found to have less quality interactions and engaged in self-promotion online, often engaging in one-to-many forms of communications. What the research does show is how we communicate on Facebook and with whom we choose to communicate with may be very similar to everyday face-to-face communications practice (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007).

Another example of one-to-many forms of interaction is through the use of Twitter, a micro-blogging tool, which offers free-flowing just-in-time social connections and interactions. Given that it happens in real time, the exchange of information is immediate and allows individuals to respond almost immediately to tweets and feeds. Twitter can be seen as unidirectional – used for the sharing of resources and following individuals online, namely celebrities. However, more recently there has been a shift towards using tweets to engage in direct conversations with other people, often by using the @ symbol to send messages directly to others. Tweeting, seen as a new form of literacy experience, can lead to improving distributed cognition through the sharing, collaborating and brainstorming that can be seen in many one-to-many forms of interactions and illustrate how individuals construct meaning through their sustained communications (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009). However, an important question remains with regard to how these forms of online communication are changing the nature of our writing and the orthographic representations of written language.

Changes in Written Language

There is no doubt that changes have occurred in our access to textual resources, and this engagement with new technologies, and the availability of digitized materials, questions the very relevance of what we mean by reading and literacy, something which Healy (2000) clearly acknowledges.

Terms such as ‘screening’ and ‘visual acuity’ are accepted as aspects of reading the media and texts on digital screen. Text now refers to multiple forms of communication including information on a digital screen, video, film and other media, oral speech, television, and works of art as well as print materials. Electronic texts in particular have become part of children’s everyday lives to the extent that before they commence school, a growing number of children have more experience with electronic texts than they do with books. It is important to recognise that print is now only one of several media which transmit messages in our culture.

(Healy, 2000, p. 156)

So if, as Healy suggests, if electronic texts and written communication are clearly changing in response to cultural expectations, how are these texts affecting our written communication? Given the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones, and one-to-many forms of online communication, it is hardly surprising that the conventions around written language are changing within our current generation of learners. Certainly earlier chapters have alluded to the notion of a digital divide occurring between children and adults and current data around social networking and mobile phone uptake certainly supports that assertion. For example, the UK-wide data from Ofcom (2010) suggests that a new digital divide is emerging, with 16–24 year olds almost ten times more likely to go online via their mobile phone to access social networking sites than older adults. This is also true with regard to the frequency of text messaging behaviours. The Ofcom data also shows how 8 to 11 year olds send an average of 27 texts per week with 12 to 15 year olds sending on average 113 messages per week. Text sending was much less frequent in adults. This resulted in the emergence of terms, such as ‘Net Generation’ (Rosen, 2007) and ‘Generation txt’ (Thurlow, 2003) that are often seen within the popular media.

This sheer increase in text messaging is also having a profound effect on learner’s written language skills. As it is now widely recognized, text messaging has evolved as a new language, often seen as a hybrid between traditional forms of written and spoken English because of its representation of features often found in spoken language. This new form of abbreviated messaging is commonly referred to by many as text speak or textisms (Wood, Kemp, & Plester, 2013). Changes to the structure of written language come out of necessity as a result of the limitations imposed by the technology itself. For example, with Twitter, a 140-character limit is imposed for any individual tweet while for text messages these were originally constrained to 160 characters per text. This meant that individuals needed to find a more efficient and cost-effective way of communicating as much information as possible within the shortest space available.

Showing some similarities to speech, text abbreviations are spontaneous, loosely structured and focus on the invention of new spelling–sound patterns. Many of these abbreviations, despite deviating from the grammatical structure found within traditional written forms of English, do share many similar features with the phonological aspects of speech. For example, common abbreviations can include letter/number homophones (gr8 for great or 2day for today), phonological contractions (txt for text), non-conventional spellings (foned, nite for phoned and night), shortenings (Uni, poss), G clippings (goin, borin), other clippings (hav, wher), acronyms (BBC), initialisms (lol), symbols (@, :-) ), and accent stylizations (wanna, wivout) (see, Wood, et al., 2013). So while the phonological aspects of our language are preserved, the orthographic written features are constantly changing with this exposure to new forms of online communication.

However, there are some arguments that the use of text message abbreviations serves to threaten more traditional forms of literacy leading to a generation of ‘linguistic ruin’ (Cingel & Sundar, 2012; Crystal, 2008; Thurlow, 2006). There are similar arguments to the use of messages on Twitter, suggesting that abbreviations found in tweets are often shorthand, which reflects nothing more than examples of poor grammar (Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008). For many people, both educators and researchers alike, the use of abbreviations has been seen as having a detrimental effect on traditional aspects of the English language. The social popular media has regularly expressed ongoing concerns about how the use of text message abbreviations may serve to threaten more conventional standards of literacy, particularly in relation to reading and writing. In his review of media headlines from 2001–2005, Thurlow found that many national and international media sources represented this new communicative discourse in a relatively pessimistic light, citing specifically the pervasive nature of the discourse and the potential degeneration of some of the traditional aspects of the English language.

Many educators fear that the use of alternative language forms, such as phonological contractions or non-conventional spellings, is filtering inappropriately into students’ academic work and serves to threaten the very premise of academic literacy. The study by Cingel and Sundar (2012) reports that the culture of text messaging raises concern among parents and teachers that ‘textual adaptations’ are altering their child’s sense of written grammar. Furthermore, their own study shows broad support for a general negative relationship between the use of text speak in text messages and scores on a grammar assessment. However, this study has been roundly criticized by Mark Liberman (2012) who conducted a critical review of the research, questioning both the data and the analyses used to make the very strong claims put forward by Cingel and Sundar. There is growing evidence that that many students do actually recognize the clear boundaries between formal and informal use of written language and see a clear distinction between digital technology for social and academic activities (e.g., Rosen, Chang, et al., 2010, Underwood & Okubayashi, 2011).

Psychological theories have attempted to explain why text messaging may have such a detrimental effect on students’ formal literacy skills, the most common of which relate to the Low-Road/High-Road Theory of Transfer of Learning (Salomon & Perkins, 1989) and models of situated learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). According to Salomon and Perkins, low-road transfer occurs when learned skills are unconsciously and automatically transferred across activities and high-road transfer occurs when previously acquired skills require more conscious effort and thought. Therefore, if the prevailing media reports are correct, then low-road transfer should be occurring whereby knowledge of these text abbreviations or short-cuts will be unconsciously and automatically transferred from informal contexts to more formal styles of written English. Similarly, Brown et al.’s model of situated learning would also stress the importance of unintentional transfer of skills, or in this case, the transfer of text abbreviations, from one context to another without any deliberate thought or intention. The study by Rosen’s team (2010), which examined the impact of text abbreviations on formal and informal styles of writing, found evidence of low-road transfer of learning. They found that the increasing use of linguistic-based text abbreviations (phonological contractions, clippings) was related to poorer levels of formal writing. However for informal styles of writing, sending more text messages was related to better levels of performance. Nevertheless, it is important to note that other studies by Drouin and Davis (2009) and Drouin (2011) found contradictory evidence to the findings of Rosen’s team. In their analyses these authors show how students were able to make conscious decisions in their use of abbreviations, applying them only when deemed appropriate (such as in informal settings) thereby suggesting evidence for the high-road theory of learning.

Abbreviations Mediated Through Technology

Changes in the orthographic features of written communication are partially mediated through the type of technology that learners adopt. As evidenced by the literature, the use of informal written abbreviations are not just constrained to mobile phones, but evident in many other media, including Internet chat rooms, social networking sites and IM, all of which are growing in popularity, especially among teenagers and adolescents (Baron, 2010). Drouin (2011) noted how an individual’s frequency of adopting short-hand text abbreviations often varies as a function of context, often determined by their choice of communication technology. For instance, as they note in their findings, abbreviations were most frequent when US college students were using SMS text messages but less so when using IM and chat functionalities within social networking sites. This suggests a greater awareness and recognition of the use of appropriate forms of language within different modes of communication.

As far as IM is concerned, some authors have systematically assessed fine-grained changes in the linguistic features of written communication during students’ interactions in online chat rooms. Some studies have analysed shifts in the types of contextual cues used to initiate interactions (Merchant, 2001) while others have focussed on the identification of different social identities portrayed through instant messaging (Lewis & Fabos, 2005). Other studies have focussed on exploring individual-level characteristics of age and gender to explain the frequency and type of linguistic features often associated with messaging (e.g., Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009).

As we know, similar types of abbreviations to those found in text messaging can also be found in IM. IM language is simply mirroring the tendency for written forms of language to be more like speech, becoming more colloquial in nature. Research by Varnhagen, et al. (2010) examined this rise in students’ use of new abbreviated forms of language through the reliance on acronyms, word combinations and punctuation by analysing the actual content of users’ IM communications among 40 adolescents. They highlighted commonalities with text message abbreviations, G clippings (e.g., doin for doing), acronyms (e.g., bf for best friend) and letter/number words (e.g., u r for you are) and found fewer cases of using pragmatic devices and misspellings/typographical errors. One of the most striking findings concerned the lack of relationship between students’ scores on traditional formal tests of spelling and the reliance on the use of different abbreviation categories, suggesting that this new written language may not have any detrimental effect on formal spelling ability. The data provided by Varnhagen and colleagues, comparable to Driscoll’s (2002) earlier analysis of similar short-cuts used in adults’ interactions during online gaming, suggest that engagement with this new form of written language is not damaging to traditional literacy skills.

However, one distinction concerns the frequency with which individuals use these abbreviated forms of written language. Unlike the popularity of abbreviations in mobile text messages, abbreviations are used far less within social networking sites or instant messaging (Ling & Baron, 2007). Baron (2004) and Tagliamonte and Denis (2008) suggest there is little evidence that IM language is riddled with abbreviations, shortcuts and symbols, as the popular media would contend. Baron (2004) noted that based on corpus data collected from US students, many forms of communication actually follow traditional forms of written text. Only 0.3 per cent of words contained phonological abbreviations and 0.8 per cent contained initialisms (lol, brb). Similarly, Tagliamonte and Denis analysed over a million and a half words of natural and unmonitored IM discourse from 71 teenagers and found little evidence of new forms of written language. Unlike the fears and scaremongering in the media they found similar types of abbreviations, phonological contractions and short-cuts to those identified in text messages, but these only accounted for 3 per cent of all the naturalistic data on IM that they collected and analysed. Although IM communication may be part of a broader trend towards more informal language use generally, the data suggests that the actual use of this new hybrid language is limited and that students do perhaps demonstrate a tendency to outgrow the stylized form of written communication at a relatively young age. Nonetheless, the actual influence of digital literacy in the classroom and its effect on learners’ performance is under-researched. There are growing attempts to examine the hybrid language of digital texts seen in synchronous online communication, emails and text messages and a stronger focus on new digital literacies (Merchant, 2007).

Perhaps in light of current psychological evidence, there is limited support for claims that new abbreviated forms of written communication represent a breakdown of the English language nor does it reflect students lay attitudes towards spelling and grammar. An alternative suggestion is that the use of text message abbreviations represents the evolution of new forms of written communication (Baron, 2010), one that incorporates phonological aspects of our spoken language and prepares students for engaging in new digital literacy practices (Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008).

The Effects of Text Abbreviations on Literacy Skills

So, as the social transfer theory suggests, are individuals simply wasting their time by inventing and playing with new forms of written language at the expense of their academic learning? Perhaps we are all too eager to dismiss text messaging. The evidence from recent psychological research seems to suggest this may not be the case at all and that there is little evidence to suggest that text messaging is threatening traditional standards of literacy. In fact, a growing number of researchers have argued that our engagement with text messaging, and our understanding of text message abbreviations, may actually lead to an improvement in our reading and spelling abilities. In their initial study, Plester, Wood, and Bell (2008) directly examined the relationship between children’s understanding of text message abbreviations and their performance on standardized tests of spelling and writing with a group of 10 to 11 year olds. The study incorporated a detailed translation exercise in which the children were asked to translate a sentence from text register language (Hav u cn dose ppl ova dare?) into Standard English and from Standard English (I can’t wait to see you later tonight) into text speech. Plester and colleagues also analysed the frequencies of different types of text message abbreviations in students’ texting behaviours, including: letter/number homophones (CUL8R), phonological reductions (nite, wot, wuz) and other abbreviations. Correlations revealed that the level of ability on traditional tests of spelling and writing was positively associated with the better translation to text message abbreviations. Further studies by these authors have similarly shown how knowledge of text abbreviations not only predicts gains in both word and non-word reading ability (Plester, Wood, & Joshi, 2009) but also predicts gains in spelling ability when tested a year later (Wood, Meacham, et al., 2011). Overall, the relationship between text use and formal tests of spelling and writing appear promising.

It also seems that many individuals can quickly learn to adopt text message abbreviations even when exposed to abbreviations for the very first time. An interesting study by Wood, Jackson, et al. (2011) used an intervention design with 114 children who had never owned a mobile phone and assessed their ability to learn how to generate text message abbreviations. Half of the students in this sample acted as a control group, while the other half (or the intervention group) was given a mobile phone (for texting only) to use at weekends and over half-term during a 10-week period. While there were no significant differences between the two groups of children in terms of their literacy attainment during that period the findings do not show that this new-found ability to send text abbreviations does in fact lead to any positive gains in spelling ability.

There are caveats, of course, which we should be aware of when reviewing this research (see, e.g., Vosloo, 2009). The effects of socio-economic status, parental education or cultural values have not been taken into account. While Plester and Wood (2009) acknowledge that they have not established a causal link between children’s experience and skill with texting and word reading ability, there may be alternative explanations. As Vosloo argues, it is possible that children who are comfortable with writing, particularly those with good literacy skills, may be allocated to the experimental conditions and use textisms more frequently than other less-skilled or less-confident children. However, a further note of caution is perhaps needed. Barks, Searight, and Ratwik (2011) reported negative effects on academic performance with undergraduate students achieving lower exam scores if they were active texters. They found that students exhibiting higher levels of text messaging skill had significantly lower test scores than participants who were less proficient at text messaging. They suggest that their findings question the view, held by many students, that this form of multitasking has little effect on the acquisition of lecture content.

These, some would say counter-intuitive, findings resonate with the findings of Bushnel, Kemp, and Martin (2012) and Drouin (2011). Bushnell’s team studied of 227 10 to 12 year olds and found 82 per cent reported sending text-messages using both predictive and multipress entry methods. The level to which the children used textisms was significantly positively correlated with general spelling ability, which fits with previous findings of positive relationships between children’s textism use and literacy. Drouin found that in a sample of US undergraduates there was a significant positive relationship between text messaging frequency and literacy skills such as spelling and reading fluency. He also found significant negative relationships between text-speak usage in certain contexts, for example, on social networking sites and in emails to tutors, with such students tending to have lower reading accuracy. Students who do not recognize the inappropriateness of the use of text speak to a tutor are not likely to understand the traditions and etiquette of academia and are likely to struggle in this educational environment.

Additional studies have similarly found that our ability to engage with, and send, text message abbreviations may also lead to a greater reading fluency and reading comprehension scores (Johnson, 2012) although, as we have already discussed, others question whether they hinder the development of grammatical skills (Cingel & Sundar, 2012). While the findings seem promising what is not known is whether the new-found ability to send text abbreviations does, in fact, lead to any positive gains in spelling ability.

The advantages of using text abbreviations extend well beyond young children. Quite recently, evidence has emerged that suggests that using abbreviations in written language may help encourage those with learning difficulties in sustaining online interactions, particularly through IM. New technologies may be providing opportunities that would otherwise impede individuals with learning difficulties. Individuals with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) are a good example, as they often show profound difficulties in language production and comprehending written text. While many do struggle with using online communication, presenting lower uptake in online interaction and fewer text abbreviations (Durkin, Conti-Ramsden, & Walker, 2011), there are many who choose to engage with online interactions to stay in touch with their friends and who use these online features in pretty much the same way as typically developing peers (Durkin, Conti-Ramsden & Walker, 2010). Similarly, as Veater, Plester, and Woods (2010) have highlighted, children with dyslexia also show comparable numbers of text message abbreviations to age-matched controls, the only difference being in a reduction in the use of phonetic types of abbreviations. It is suggested that many individuals, especially those who may struggle in forming face-to-face communications, can form online interactions through emailing, text messaging and communications via social networking sites (Lenhart, Arafeh, et al., 2008). Perhaps this can be explained by the relaxed and informal nature of this new form of written language. Features of IM and text messaging are less stringent: they do not follow conventional rules of English spelling and grammar leading to a much more relaxed and informal communication and interaction. Language and literacy requirements within text messaging and IM are less arduous than more traditional formal modes of online communication and therefore allow greater opportunities for all learners.

Risks, Skills and Opportunities

There is a key concern regarding the use of new digital communication tools and online safety. By moving away from one-to-one towards one-to-many forms of social interactions children are increasing the probabilities of communicating with strangers. Enhanced communication technologies, therefore, raise concerns for not just how we communicate, but also with whom we communicate during our time online. Aside from the media hype around the enhanced risks of communicating with strangers, the evidence appears to suggest that communications are irrevocably changing and adapting and more students are turning to Internet chat rooms and social networking sites, like Facebook, Bebo and Myspace, to establish one-to-many forms of online communication (Ellison, et al., 2007). There is also speculation that this over reliance on the use of digital communication tools, particularly IM, tweeting and texting on mobile phones is having a detrimental effect on traditional features of the English language. However, it may be appropriate to acknowledge that mobile technology is not simply used for social and leisure activities, but can offer a real potential for allowing educational learning to occur beyond the constraints of the classroom. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that mobile technology can be used to support language learning, especially for those who may have English as a second language (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008) and new theories of mobile learning are beginning to emerge within the literature (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005). However, despite promising opportunities for mobile technology in education, we may have some way to go before the full benefits of mobile learning are fully integrated into the school curriculum.

Conclusions

There is a growing body of research to suggest that learners’ engagement with computer-mediated communications plays a key role in the development of written language. We have focussed on the pragmatics of language use by illustrating changes in the nature of online communications from one-to-one to one-to-many forms of interactions occurring. However, learners’ engagement with these new forms of communication tools, such as text messaging, IM and social networking, has given rise to changes in the nature of their online communications and a notable shift in their use of the orthographic features contained within written language. The rise in the use of new informal styles of abbreviated language is most prominent within children and teenagers, and has caused great controversy among teachers, parents and the social media. Learners have begun to play with language in a way that has given rise to a new abbreviated form of written language. This new informal language register is now used worldwide among learners and can be seen as a hybrid between written and spoken English. However, despite ongoing controversies about the detrimental effect on more conventional written forms of language, the empirical evidence on text messaging appears more promising. Perhaps our reliance on a new written orthographic form of language may simply reflect a natural progression in the evolution of language, most generally one that is associated with the youth of our digital age and is transforming our literacy practices as a result.