R u down wiv txt speak?

It’s a subject I have touched upon in previous posts, but since reading an article specifically aimed at how text speak has the potential to threaten the English language as we know it, I thought this topic needed a little more exploration.

There are many scenarios in which text speak can cause embarrassment and numerous websites aimed at highlighting such misfortune. One example that came into my inbox recently was a lady mistaking LOL to mean ‘lots of love’ when most people read this as ‘laugh out loud’; probably not appropriate when announcing the death of a relative, but let us not forget why text speak exists and why it is increasingly popular amongst the younger generations.

Back in the day text messages were limited to 160 characters (with Twitter being a more modern day example, limited to a mere 140) and, unless lucky enough to have parents that would subsidise a contract phone, under 18s were bound to the restrictions of pay as you go phones, which don’t always offer the same ‘unlimited text’ allowances. Therefore cramming every last morsel of information in to just 160 characters is only going to be achieved by the severest of abbreviations, some of which are open to interpretation (such as LOL) and others could warrant a translation service.  As we absorb more information as an adolescent this could explain why, as we grow older, such habits die hard.

Linguistic experts fear that these habits can harm our academic development but according to research carried out by Manchester Metropolitan and Lancaster Universities, texting and Twitter are not the first time we have got our knickers in a twist about preserving the English language. The Edwardians’ worried that the informal tones of postcards would change the way people communicated, which undoubtedly they did but formal communication still exists today and there is nothing to suggest that it will not continue to do so for the foreseeable future.