We may ask ourselves, “What is the linguistic rationality in texting?” However; a rational person would say that the implication of texting has been to erode the linguistic essence and drivers of prompt language. The technological advancement has only come to betray the efforts of developers of grammatical and stylistic languages. According to John Humphrys, texting is synonymous to linguistic vandalism in terms of destroying the functionality of the grammatical authenticity by pillaging the structures of sentences, savaging them and above all raping the authenticity of the vocabulary.
Ideally, the conventional starting point of short messages was seen as a response to various requirements of short and quick messaging system by corporations. This was an important part in the business communication technology. However, the expansive development of technology has compromised what was originally thought of texting bringing about grammatical distortions, abuse and destruction of the essence that ought to be implied by grammatical linguistics. As of essence, it is paradoxical that many texters use this kind of impressions to bring out their rhetorical and novelty cultures. However, the distorted rhythmic provisions within these texts do not qualify in any manner to meeting standards of any linguistic development. Traditionally, short massages as novelty culture brought some sense of precedence than mere puzzle. (David, 2008)
However, the current nature of texting has only been used equivocally as an abuse to the legitimacy of linguistic developments. The foundations of these texts have been known to lack the discrete harmony in language that models the implied view of novelty. Elsewhere, the traditional essence of texting was to give feedback to the requirements of technological development. This is when the responses to technological systems required only short messaging systems. However, the current use of texting has been aimed at saving energy and costs in writing long and comprehensive texts which meets grammatical authenticity. In the same process however has been the compromise of the linguistic requirements in communication. (David, 2008)
David Crystal (2008) Why Texting is Goog for Language. Retrieved on 4th September 2008 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jul/05/saturdayreviewsfeatres.guardianreview