Ashley Fagre

Briggs
English 1010, 1:00-2:20,TR
October 20, 2015
Does Texting Affect Writing? Rhetorical Analysis
Michaela Cullington writes,
Its taking over our lives. We can do it almost anywhere walking to class,
waiting in line at the grocery store, or hanging out at home. Its quick, easy, and
convenient. It has become a concern of doctors, parents, and teachers alike. What
is it? Its texting! (361)
This is the opening paragraph in her essay, Does Texting Affect Writing? which
originally appeared in Young Scholars in Writing, an undergraduate journal of writing
published by the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Cullington was a student at
Marywood University in Pennsylvania when she wrote this essay. In 2014, she received a
masters degree in speech and language pathology from Marywood.
Cullington examines the positive and negative affects of texting, ultimately
deciding that texting has no impact in the lives of students as well as her own. Her craft
to construct current, logical, and trustworthy techniques make this piece effective.
To begin with, her argument is successful since it is relevant. Texting is extremely
common in todays society; anyone who owns a phone is in some way impacted by it and
therefore becomes a part of Cullingtons audience. This makes Cullingtons use of kairos
effective because its easy for readers to join the conversation, and it gets them thinking
about the piece long after they have read it since its relatable.
Cullington also presents an appeal to logic by demonstrating she understands the
complexity of the issue. The entire first two sections of her essay are dedicated to

showing both sides of the subject. For instance, she refers to Jacquie Ream who blames
the use of acronyms and shorthand in text messaging for students inability to spell and
ultimately to write well (362). Cullington then counters this by adding author David
Crystals comment, texting actually helps foster the ability to summarize and express
oneself concisely in writing (364). As a result of recognizing opposition, Cullington
purposefully makes her argument stronger by acknowledging that not everyone will agree
with her.
In addition, Cullington provides references to experts, which further help her
establish logic. These references include the USA Today newspaper, which competes with
The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, Dennis Baron, who is a professor of
English and linguistics at the University of Illinois, and David Crystal who has authored,
co-authored and edited over 120 books.
Since these are all credible sources, they build a sense of trust between readers
and Cullingtons ideas, making her argument more believable. Cullington further
convinces readers by including that she herself is a frequent texter (369), as well as
interviewing her friends and two of her former teachers. These experiences help readers
identify with Cullington on a personal level.
Although all of these rhetorical techniques mentioned so far have been useful in
Cullingtons attempt to persuade readers, her attitude towards the issue is not. The piece
feels like a standard academic paper with no interesting word choices or imagery to make
it pop. Cullington spends most of the essay getting us, the readers, to invest in what she is
saying, only to let us down by concluding students and experts see no effect. Why spend
the time writing a whole essay weighing the pros and cons of texting if you arent

devoted to one side or the other? Seeing that Cullington herself was a student I thought
she would be more passionate about the topic but the fact that she isnt is probably the
reason why the paper lacks energy. She was simply informing us, not converting us.
Essentially, her detachment from the piece may turn readers away, but her ability
to blend current, logical and credible techniques is what really makes her argument
effective.

Works Cited
Cullington, Michaela. Does Texting Affect Writing? They Say I Say. Graff,
Birkenstein, Durst. New York: Norton, 2015. 361-370. Print.