Nenagh Kemp

Do Beez Buzz? Rule-Based and Frequency-Based Knowledge in Learning To Spell Plural -s.

There has been much discussion about whether certain aspects of human learning depend on the abstraction of rules or on the acquisition of frequency-based knowledge. It has usually been agreed, however, that the spelling of morphological patterns in English (e.g., past tense -ed) and other languages is based on the acquisition of morphological rules, and that these rules take a long time to learn. The regular plural -s ending seems to be an exception: Even young children can spell this correctly, even when it is pronounced /z/ (as in bees). Reported here are 3 studies that show that 5- to 9-year-old children and adults do not usually base their spellings of plural real-word and pseudo-word endings on the morphological rule that all regular plurals are spelled with -s. Instead, participants appeared to use their knowledge of complex but untaught spelling patterns, which is based on the frequency with which certain letters co-occur in written English.

Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy

This study investigated the effects of mobile phone text-messaging method (predictive and multi-press) and experience (in texters and non-texters) on childrens textism use and understanding. It also examined popular claims that the use of text-message abbreviations, or textese spelling, is associated with poor literacy skills. A sample of 86 children aged 10 to 12 years read and wrote text messages in conventional English and in textese, and completed tests of spelling, reading and non-word reading. Children took significantly longer and made more errors when reading messages written in textese than in conventional English. Further, they were no faster at writing messages in textese than in conventional English, regardless of texting method or experience. Predictive texters were faster at reading and writing messages than multi-press texters, and texting experience increased writing, but not reading, speed. General spelling and reading scores did not differ significantly with usual texting method. However, better literacy skills were associated with greater textese reading speed and accuracy. These findings add to the growing evidence for a positive relationship between texting proficiency and traditional literacy skills.

Phonological and orthographic spelling in high‐functioning adult dyslexics

Despite a history of reading or spelling difficulties, some adults attain age-appropriate spelling skills and succeed at university. We compared the spelling of 29 such high-functioning dyslexics with that of 28 typical students, matched on general spelling ability, and controlling for vocabulary and non-verbal intelligence. Participants wrote derived real and pseudo words, whose spelling relationship to their base forms was categorized as phonologically simple (apt-aptly), orthographically simple (deceit-deceitful), phonologically complex (ash-ashen), or orthographically complex (plenty-plentiful). Dyslexic participants spelled all word and pseudoword categories more poorly than controls. Both groups spelled simple phonological words best. Dyslexics were particularly poor at spelling simple orthographic words, whose letter patterns and rules must likely be memorized. In contrast, dyslexics wrote more plausible spellings of orthographic than phonological pseudowords, but this might be an artefact of their more variable spelling attempts. These results suggest that high-functioning dyslexics make some use of phonological skills to spell familiar words, but they have difficulty in memorizing orthographic patterns, which makes it difficult to spell unfamiliar words consistently in the absence of sufficient phonological cues or orthographic rules.

Texting versus txtng: reading and writing text messages, and links with other linguistic skills

The media buzzes with assertions that the popular use of text-message abbreviations, or textisms (such as r for are) is masking or even causing literacy problems. This study examined the use and understanding of textisms, and links with more traditional language skills, in young adults. Sixty-one Australian university students read and wrote text messages in conventional English and in textisms. Textism messages were faster to write than those in conventional English, but took nearly twice as long to read, and caused more reading errors. Contrary to media concerns, higher scores on linguistic tasks were neutrally or positively correlated with faster and more accurate reading and writing of both message types. The types of textisms produced, and those least well understood by participants, are also discussed.

Undergraduates’ attitudes to text messaging language use and intrusions of textisms into formal writing

Students’ increasing use of text messaging language has prompted concern that textisms (e.g., 2 for to, dont for don’t, ☺) will intrude into their formal written work. Eighty-six Australian and 150 Canadian undergraduates were asked to rate the appropriateness of textism use in various situations. Students distinguished between the appropriateness of using textisms in different writing modalities and to different recipients, rating textism use as inappropriate in formal exams and assignments, but appropriate in text messages, online chat and emails with friends and siblings. In a second study, we checked the examination papers of a separate sample of 153 Australian undergraduates for the presence of textisms. Only a negligible number were found. We conclude that, overall, university students recognise the different requirements of different recipients and modalities when considering textism use and that students are able to avoid textism use in exams despite media reports to the contrary.

Forensic scientists’ conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report-users?

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.

Undergraduates' use of text messaging language: Effects of country and collection method

Abstract Studies of mobile phone text messaging have reported widely varying proportions of textisms (e.g., u for you, 2 for to). We investigated whether conclusions about textism use are influenced by participant country, text message collection method, and categorisation method. Questionnaire data were collected from 241 undergraduate students in Australia and Canada, who also provided text messages via three methods used in previous research: translation from conventional English, writing a message in response to a scenario, and providing naturalistic messages. Significantly higher proportions of textisms were observed in messages written by Australians than Canadians, and in messages collected experimentally than naturalistically. A re-categorisation of textism forms as “contractive” versus “expressive” was explored and overall implications for text-message collection are discussed.

Mobile technology and literacy: effects across cultures, abilities and the lifespan

In the space of a decade, the use of mobile technology as a means of communication has been adopted by children, adolescents and adults across the world. As part of this process, users have adapted written forms and conventions to create an abbreviated form of writing variously known as text-speak, textese or txt. Individuals use, for example, number homophones (2day), contractions (txt), sound-based spellings (skool) and initialisms (lol), to save on message length (Ling 2004), to build social relationships (Thurlow 2003) and/or simply to have fun with language (Crystal 2008). The popular media regularly expresses concern that the use of textese threatens conventional standards of reading and writing. However, intensive investigation is only just beginning on the potential impact of such mobile literacy practices on traditional literacy skills. This special issue brings together some current empirical research in this area with texters of different ages, abilities and cultures. Children are receiving their first mobile phones at younger and younger ages (Plester et al. 2009). In many developed countries, the majority of children have their own mobile phones by the upper years of primary school. At 9 to 12 years of age, children are still developing and consolidating their conventional reading and writing skills. This is perhaps why popular opinion suggests that frequent exposure to textese may disrupt conventional literacy development. The limited amount of experimental research that has been published in this area has shown that the links between textese use and literacy skills in children actually seem to be positive (e.g. Plester et al. 2008, 2009). Further work is needed to confirm these conclusions as mobile phone usage becomes more widespread, and to extend research to people of a range of ages, with differing literacy skills, in different countries, using the wider range of text input methods now available. The work reported here extends current research in some of these ways. The first four papers consider the links between the use of text-messaging language and conventional literacy skills in children in the upper primary school years, in three different countries. Coe and Oakhill report on phone and texting use in 10to 11-year-old British children, about two-thirds of whom had their own mobile phone. There were mostly positive links between textese use and conventional literacy skills: good readers used more textisms than poorer readers when composing a text message (regardless of phone ownership) and good readers were faster than poorer readers at reading messages in both standard English and textese. Thus, in line with previous findings from a similar population (Plester et al., 2008, 2009), reading skill in these children was positively related to the ability to produce and decipher textese, beyond any effects of practice with texting. To date, most of the published research on textese in school-aged children has been in the UK, where mobile phones were adopted relatively early and widely. In other countries, including Australia, children’s phone ownership has become widespread only more recently, and the patterns observed may therefore differ from in British studies. Kemp and Bushnell asked 10to 12-year-old Australian children (82% phone owners) to read and write text messages on mobile phones, in both standard English and textese. They also considered the effects of conventional language skills, texting experience and text entry method. ‘Predictive text’ entry was faster than ‘multi-press entry’, although multi-press experience made typing faster. Like Coe and Oakhill (this issue) and Neville (2003), Kemp and Bushnell found that children were slower and less accurate at reading aloud messages in textese than in standard English, although unlike in previous research, using textisms in their typing did not make children any faster at message composition. It seems that at least in this Accepted: 28 October 2010 Correspondence: Nenagh Kemp, School of Psychology, Locked Bag 30, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia. Email: nenagh.kemp@utas.edu.au doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00401.x Editorial

Exploring the longitudinal relationships between the use of grammar in text messaging and performance on grammatical tasks.

Research has demonstrated that use of texting slang (textisms) when text messaging does not appear to impact negatively on children’s literacy outcomes and may even benefit children’s spelling attainment. However, less attention has been paid to the impact of text messaging on the development of children’s and young people’s understanding of grammar. This study therefore examined the interrelationships between children’s and young adults’ tendency to make grammatical violations when texting and their performance on formal assessments of spoken and written grammatical understanding, orthographic processing and spelling ability over the course of 1 year. Zero-order correlations showed patterns consistent with previous research on textism use and spelling, and there was no evidence of any negative associations between the development of the children’s performance on the grammar tasks and their use of grammatical violations when texting. Adults’ tendency to use ungrammatical word forms (‘does you’) was positively related to performance on the test of written grammar. Grammatical violations were found to be positively associated with growth in spelling for secondary school children. However, not all forms of violation were observed to be consistently used in samples of text messages taken 12 months apart or were characteristic of typical text messages. The need to differentiate between genuine errors and deliberate violation of rules is discussed, as are the educational implications of these findings.

The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience - police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientists specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.