"Textspeak"

Technology is ruining this generation. At least, that's what any of your stereotypical older people would say. But let's be honest in about 10 more years those same people are going to be relying on the technology of our generation to keep them alive. Yet for some reason they continue to prattle on and on about one thing in particular: texting. If someone heard my grandfather talk about texting and cell phones they would think that he was describing the end of the world. Texting and the so-called "Textspeak" are quite controversial topics. While many people view them as a negative thing, some linguists take the opposite stance on the topic instead.

David Crystal is a linguist who has dedicated much of his time to analyzing this textspeak and has even wrote a book on it. In the his article "Texting" he explores the various ways that textspeak has transformed the standard English and morphed it into something else entirely. He discusses why abbreviations are so popular in textspeak and also looks at exactly how words or phrases are abbreviated. According to him the use of abbreviations became standard in textspeak due to the energy it used to require back when phones didn't have the handy full keyboard that they all come equipped with nowadays. He also comments on the lack of punctuation in textspeak stating that punctuation has "low information value".  Crystal is fascinated by textspeak and believes that is an example of linguistic creativity and language evolution.

John McWhorter is another linguist who has a fairly similar opinion on the topic of how technology has impacted language. In his words texting is not considered writing. He considers writing to be fingered speech. I know that sounds a bit weird so let me clarify, he believes that texting is writing how you talk. This involves a more casual and less structured language than one would use if writing an essay due to the fact that writing is a much more conscious process while texting is considered to be less reflective. He also touches on how some textspeak has evolved even more than just a simple abbreviation. He uses the example of "lol" which, as he points out, no longer actually means laughing out loud. Instead "lol" has become a way of expressing empathy and in some cases it simply serves as a conversation filler. Now he brings up the interesting idea of "slash" which is a prime example of texting simply being fingered speech. When having a conversations with people we have many ways of indicating that we want to change the subject whether this be through verbal or non verbal cues. "Slash" is an example of these cues being translated into textspeak, a way to let your conversation partner know that you're changing the subject.

Both linguists bring up valid yet different points on the topic. Crystal tends to focus on the creativeness of textspeak and the limitless opportunities it offers.  On the other hand McWhorter focuses on the idea of textspeak as a whole, how it has developed over the years as fingered speech, and how it differs from writing. However both linguists have the same general opinion that textspeak is ingenious and should be embraced instead of being labeled as a simple nuisance.