The Teenagers Blamed for Wrecking English Are Quietly Building a Second One

I should be honest about how this article began. I sat down to write a satire; a brisk, superior little piece about the way the new generations are taking English apart, all “u” instead of you, and whole sentences apparently held together by nothing but emoji and good intentions. I had even drafted the opening scene. A parent leans over a teenager’s shoulder, reads something on the screen that looks like the wreckage of the language (no capital letters, no full stop, the word “you” demoted to a single lonely letter ) and feels that cold, inherited certainty that the young are killing English and rather enjoying the act.

Then I made the mistake of reading the research, and the research embarrassed me. Not gently. Almost everything I had lined up to mock turned out to be wrong, and the truth underneath it was stranger, and a great deal more flattering to the teenagers I had in my sights. So this is not the satire I meant to write. It is the correction.

“u” is Not Laziness. It is Phonics.

Start with the abbreviation that makes parents wince hardest: “u” for you, “gr8” for great, “l8r” for later. The instinct is that this is pure idleness, a corner cut by a brain that cannot be bothered with whole words. The instinct is backwards. To turn great into “gr8,” a child has to break the word into its component sounds, recognise that the name of the number eight supplies the one it needs, and splice the two together. That is not the absence of spelling ability. That is spelling ability, performed at speed and for entertainment.

This is not a hopeful guess. It is what the research keeps turning up. In a run of British studies, the psychologists Beverly Plester, Clare Wood and their colleagues measured how heavily children of around nine to twelve leaned on these “textisms.” The heaviest users were not the strugglers. They tended to score higher on reading, spelling, vocabulary and phonological awareness, the underlying knack for hearing and manipulating the sounds inside words, which is one of the strongest predictors of learning to read in the first place. The effect held even after the researchers stripped out the influence of age, memory and how long each child had owned a phone.

None of this proves that texting builds literacy; the likeliest reading is simply that the children with the sharpest ear for sound are also the ones who most enjoy playing with it. But it does demolish the opposite claim, that the abbreviations are a symptom of decline. They are a symptom of skill.

The broader doom forecast fares no better. A review of hundreds of teenagers’ actual messages found nimble, inventive communication rather than the collapse everyone was braced for. The teenager supposedly vandalising English turns out, on closer inspection, to be doing linguistics for fun.

A Second Language, Not a Broken One

If texting were truly eroding language, you would expect the erosion to surface everywhere; in essays, in job applications, in the way a teenager speaks to a teacher. Mostly, it does not. And that points to what is actually going on, which is far more impressive than decay.

The linguist Gretchen McCulloch, in her study of internet language, argues that informal online writing is not a degraded form of formal English at all. It is a separate register, and the fair comparison is not with a printed book but with casual speech, the chatter of a café or a school corridor, which has never bothered with full sentences or tidy punctuation either. Nobody accuses friends gossiping at a bus stop of destroying the language. The internet simply handed that kind of talk a written form for the first time.

Seen in that light, the “missing” words are not missing. They have been swapped for tools that do the same work. Capital letters now signal SHOUTING. Stretching a word (s o o o tired) adds duration the voice would once have supplied. A full stop at the end of a single-word reply can read as quietly furious. An entire system of typography has grown up to smuggle tone of voice into a medium that arrived without any. Emoji, on this account, are not infantile noises crowding out vocabulary; they behave like gesture, the digital cousin of a shrug or a raised eyebrow, laid on top of the words rather than in place of them.

What young people are really doing, then, is running two systems at once. They keep an informal register for their friends and a formal one for everyone else, and the genuinely demanding skill on show is knowing which to reach for, and when. That is not a smaller command of language than their grandparents had. It is a larger one.

The Catch Nobody is Panicking About

None of this means all is well, and an article that stopped here would be cheerleading rather than journalism. There are two real concerns hiding underneath the false one.

The first is register-bleed. The same research that clears texting of the charges also notes that the children who come unstuck are precisely the ones who cannot yet hold the two systems apart, the weaker spellers, who let the informal register seep into work where it does not belong. The skill that matters is the switch, and not every child is being taught to throw it.

The second concern is larger, and it has nothing to do with abbreviations. It is that children are reading less. The National Literacy Trust’s 2025 survey of nearly 115,000 young people across the United Kingdom found that just one in three of those aged eight to eighteen said they enjoyed reading in their spare time, the lowest figure in the twenty years the charity has been asking, and a drop of more than a third since 2005. Only one in five read something every day. The slide was steepest among primary-age children and among boys.

A teenager learns the difference between “u” and you without effort. What a teenager does not pick up from a group chat is the long, rare, exact word, the kind you only ever meet by reading something longer than a screen. Reading for pleasure is the quiet workshop where a large vocabulary gets built, and the Trust’s own research has found that the children who enjoy reading score markedly higher on reading tests than those who do not. The threat to the language was never the abbreviation. It was the unopened book.

What Their Children Will Speak

So what of the generation below, the children of the children currently accused of vandalism?

Here honesty demands an admission: nobody can hand you their vocabulary list. Language change is not a slope towards “worse.” It is constant, undirected and largely invisible to the people living inside it. The informal digital register will go on maturing into something rule-governed and teachable, the way every register eventually does. The formal register( the one that carries law, medicine, contracts and complicated argument ) will last for precisely as long as it goes on being taught and used, and for as long as people keep reading the sort of writing that feeds it.

That final clause is the whole game. The future of English vocabulary does not turn on whether tomorrow’s teenagers use emoji; they will, and it will be fine. It turns on whether they still read anything long enough to stretch them. Take the reading away and you do not get a generation that texts. You get a generation that can only text, fluent in the informal register and marooned without the formal one. That is the outcome to guard against, and it is a matter of libraries and habits, not of apostrophes.

The Inheritance

There is a grim comedy waiting at the end of all this. The teenagers being scolded today will, in thirty years, lean over the shoulders of their own children, read something on a screen that looks like the wreckage of English, and feel the identical cold drop in the stomach that their own parents felt about them. They will be every bit as certain, and every bit as wrong.

The language is not dying. It never was. It is doing what it has always done: shedding what it no longer needs, inventing what it does, and passing itself to the next set of speakers slightly altered. The one thing in the whole story actually worth protecting is not a rule of grammar. It is the quiet, unfashionable habit of reading something long enough to come out the other side carrying a bigger word than you went in with.

***

Literary sci-fi and fantasy coming soon at https://medium.com/@rennienovels. Follow if you want the first episode the day it arrives.

***

Sources: Plester, B., Wood, C. & Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: Does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Literacy, 42(3), 137–144./Plester, B., Wood, C. & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145–161./Wood, C., Kemp, N. & Plester, B. (2014). Text Messaging and Literacy: The Evidence. Routledge./McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. Riverhead Books./Gawne, L. & McCulloch, G. (2019). Emoji as Digital Gestures. Language@Internet, 17./National Literacy Trust (2025). Children and Young People’s Reading in 2025 (Annual Literacy Survey; 114,970 respondents aged 5–18).