luv it or hate it: txt spk is here 2 stay

For most of us text messaging is as much a part of everyday life as brushing our teeth. (Well, we hope it is!) Most of you will have resorted to substituting you for u, or to for 2, at some time. There's few better ways to get your message across in record time.

Texting and the inevitable use of 'txt spk' has come under fire in the past for dumbing down the English language. Particularly when it came to education and teaching, there seemed to be a genuine fear that we were hurtling towards an uncivilised future where vowels were disregarded, and 'proper' English was wickedly abbreviated by the questionable editorial judgement of the SMS generation.

But as mobile technology moved on, so predictive text increasingly became the norm. And while the airwaves were buzzing with impeccable spelling, something new and exciting was happening: the Book/Cool trend.

Predictive text isn't perfect, so when you write 'cool' usually the first suggestion given to you is 'book'. If this happens enough the meaning of 'book' gradually changes to adapt to the technology, not the other way around. As The Times says, it's easier for texters to reinterpret the meaning of a word than hit the options button repeatedly.

This evolution is being led from the front by teenagers and it's fascinating to see the profound effect technology can have on shaping written communication. Indeed, some linguistic experts say this inventive approach to language requires a high level of literacy in the first place. We like this new way of thinking. After all, if you don't know the correct meaning and spelling of a word, you're not going to be able to change its use very effectively.

Will these new words stay with us in the future? Will they become a permanent fixture in how we all speak? Or will they be dropped and forgotten?

At The Feed we think some words will stick as slang terms, but not permanently. What do you think?

Image courtesy of Leonard Low.

  • (11) comments
  • permalink

comments (11)

  1. I can't stand it but thats because i'm 32 and that probably means I'm too old to understand now! I realise it saves the kids time but I don't like it spilling into the normal spoken language...

    04 November, 2008 16:22

    Braeg Heneffe says:
  2. Funny, I just read a review of a book about this - http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/10/20/081020crbo_books_menand -apparently “luv” for “love” dates from 1898 and “thanx” was first used in 1936.

    04 November, 2008 16:43

    John says:
  3. Yes I agree, some words will stick, some won't. Language only stays alive by its usage.

    Some seem to overlook the fact that language is constantly moving, adapting and changing - generally at a slow pace. For instance, spelling was not standardised until the advent of mass printing, or that the language we all call English did not exist once and is an amalgamation of many other languages. The changes occurred over time and most people did not notice it in their lifetimes. What is alarming is when we notice changes happening quickly before our eyes; spurred by the catalyst of new technology. Language will change, it's the only thing we can be certain of.

    04 November, 2008 17:42

    MattR says:
  4. hello Ria!

    welcome to the sphere!

    Now then - language. See the thing about dictionaries is that they confuse description with prescription.

    Language isn't permanent. Words are not fixed. It is a constantly evolving thing, shaped by how we all chose to use it. And it's a wonderful amazing magical thing.

    Now then - teenagers. See the thing about kids is they have what Chomsky called the grammar instinct - their brains naturally create grammar around new lexicon - we lose the ability as a grown up.

    That's why it takes a generation for a pidgin to become a creole - it needs kids to make it linguistic.

    They are also more open to newness in general, and are subconsciously trying to define themselves in contradistinction to the previous generation - and language is one of the first ways they do this, identifying each other as distinct from grown ups and outsiders.

    i suspect however, that the book / cool thing was a hoax.

    anyway - lovely blog. keep it up.

    rockON>FX

    04 November, 2008 19:44

    Faris says:
  5. John - fascinating stuff with 'luv' and 'thanx' so thanks for the link. I have read somewhere that it's been documented that kids have been adapting language for their own use since Victorian times, so this would make perfect sense.

    MattR - I think you're spot on. The beauty of language is its fluidity. We can be sure that there's some interesting developments to come as we embrace new technology.

    FX - thank you for your erudite and kind words!

    05 November, 2008 09:12

    Ria@The Feed says:
  6. I'm an old so and so now and in my 60's but I'd like to make the following comment: In the good old days of my youth during the 50's and 60's, (Yes, I was a teenager once!)at first a "Teddy Boy" and later a "Rocker", we also developed our own words and "Slang". Most of which has disappeared from our day to day speech although one or two words are still used by the present generation who contrary to their thoughts,did not invent them!
    No doubt most of this txt spk will also disappear in the fullness of time.

    I'm the proprietor of a caravan repair company and when I have an admin job vacancy, I'm amazed at the number of applications I have from over eighteen year olds who use txt spk on their application forms.

    Sorry boys and girls, that's not the way to endear yourself to your prospective employer! We all make the occasional spelling mistake on documents, I know I do even when using the spell checker, but txt spk will never get you a position with my company or I'm sure with any other company. So please boys and girls, use the Queens English as it is in 2008 on your application forms, and with the judicious use of the spell checker and a good English Dictionary,you'll get the job if you have the necessary qualifications and personality.

    07 November, 2008 20:02

    The Boss says:
  7. I understand why text speak is used on mobile phones what with their limited keyboard and 160 character limit per message. However, there is no excuse for text speak when using a computer that has a full size QUERTY keyboard. It's nothing but lazy and ignorant to use it in discussion forums or when creating web pages (just take a look at MySpace or Bebo) or when writing a moderately formal email or letter.

    I can read text speak but it's much slower to take in than full text and it's impossible to scan read. It's confusing to kids because they mix up text speak with full English without realising what's txt spk and what's not. You just need to chat with teachers to realise how destructive it is and how poorly educated a lot more kids are these days. It's not their fault. Several factors controlled by adults have badly let down a whole generation.

    15 December, 2008 19:55

    Gary F says:
  8. First person I know in their 60's thats able to use a phone and the internet so well done. i text using the shortest possible words i can. Most people who have a mobile will understand this. By doing this it saves so much time. at the end of the day what would you prefer writing. "oh my god" or "omg". to be honest or "tbh" it saves so much time. it also helps to save texts for people who only have certain amount of texts because when you send a long text it goes into a second text messages instead of one, by using shorter words it will save texts

    15 December, 2008 20:18

    Chris says:
  9. It seems to be human nature to want to abbreviate things. And contextualizing grammar is hardly unique to the current youth. Any young generation naturally looks for new ways to invent the world as they grow.

    MattR's bang on when he talks about pidgin vs creole - that's been happening for countless generations - since the beginning of slavery and the importing of workers around the world. Languages mixing is the first reason for new lexicon appearing.

    And Christmas has been 'Xma's since I can remember and that was long before the internet or cell phones could influence things.

    15 December, 2008 20:21

    Jocelyn says:
  10. If we combine txt spk with gamez sp34k we're in for a lot of trouble. I can understand the reasoning behind abbreviating words in text messages, with kids, trying to squeeze as much as they can out of their 8p-worth of 160 letters (or however many letters you get per text these days). But, to use the same language in online chat forums is just plain lazy.

    I can, also understand using l33t sp34k in online games, for speed reasons. Chat-fraggers, eh?!?

    However, I refuse to talk to my daughter over the many online chat forums, if she assumes I'm going to dumb down my intelligence level to that of one of her school friends. I'd rather wait the extra few seconds it takes her to spell it correctly. I wouldn't mind so much if her written English was great, but it's not.

    With mobile phone costs coming down all the time and many services offering free texts, the 160 letter limit is forgotten about and people start texting using the full alphabet. Even better... It's a phone. It has a microphone and an ear-piece. Speak to someone, for gawd's sake!!! Merry Xmas evry1! LOL :)

    15 December, 2008 23:29

    Neil says:
  11. I used to use text speak in the days of the 3210, since predictive text and my QWERTY keyboard on my Blackberry Pearl I have been using the queens! I now can not stand this awful text slang!

    16 December, 2008 08:46

    Rachel says:

post a comment

field marked with an asterisk* are required

Submit Comment