Dana Stevens argues against Johnson's "claim for television as a tool for brain enhancement, which in his words seems deeply, hilariously bogus" (297). Stevens brings up a valid point when watching an episode of 24 which Johnson references in his article that supports his theory, that the show is "really good at teaching you to think... about future episodes of 24" (296). I would agree with that statement that most television shows don't really make you smarter, but draw you into more of the depth of the show and the anticipation of what will happen …show more content…
I do find it a quick and easy way to send a message to a loved one or for your child to let you know that they have safely arrived at his/or her destination instead of making a simple phone call. But once again, it takes away from that important and crucial person to person contact that we all need and who really understands all of those abbreviated words. David Crystal would argue that "it is merely the latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt to suit the demands of the diverse settings" (345). He also states that "the language as whole will not decline. In texting what we are seeing, in a small way, is language in evolution" (345). Some would argue that texting is breaking the linguistic rules, that punctuation and vocabulary and our sentence structure is paying the price. Crystal states that "[t]here is increasing evidence that it helps rather than hinders literacy" (337). I would agree with that texting isn't hindering literacy, but that it is removing the human contact or person to person contact that one gains from hearing the voice of a loved one over the