text messages

Texting
David Crystal

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Introduction by Jill and Charles Hadeld (series editors)

Texting is a startling modern phenomenon, one that has gripped the imagination of the UK in a very short space of time and already has its own language, its own etiquette and its own humour (Baker 2002). Text messaging was never originally envisioned as a means of communication between individuals, certainly not one that would rival or replace voice messages. It was originally conceived as having commercial use, or possibly as a service for mobile phones to signal the arrival of a voicemail message. The rst text message was sent in December 1992. The message, which seems today strangely unabbreviated, read Merry Christmas. The service gradually became available commercially during the 1990s. Between then and now its huge surge in popularity has taken everyone by surprise. Recent text use in the UK alone has averaged over 4 billion messages a month with an annual total of around 45 billion messages (source: Mobile Data Association). Textspeak is largely the language of the youngand a lively controversy has sprung up around its usemainly from the older generation who seek variously to analyse, interpret, or decry its use. John Sutherland, for example, nds the language of texting, thin and unimaginative . . . mask[ing] dyslexia, poor spelling and mental laziness, and concludes it is penmanship for illiterates (Sutherland 2002) while Crispin Thurlow nds it communicatively adept having linguistic creativity and a robust sense of play (Thurlow 2005). Our commentator on the language of text messaging needs no introduction. Professor David Crystal is an eminent linguist and the author of over 100 books on language. A new book Txting: the Gr8 Db8 will be published by Oxford University Press this year. He comments below on two poems by the text poet Norman Silver.

The texts Txt commndmnts Langwij by Norman Silver

txt commndmnts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

u shall luv ur mobil fone with all ur hart u & ur fone shall neva b apart u shall nt lust aftr ur neibrs fone nor thiev u shall b prepard @ all times 2 tXt & 2 recv u shall use LOL & othr acronyms in conversatns u shall be zappy with ur ast*r*sks & exc!matns!! u shall abbrevi8 & rite words like theyr sed u shall nt speak 2 sum1 face2face if u cn msg em insted u shall nt shout with capitls XE PT IN DIR E EM ER G NCY + u shall nt consult a ninglish dictnry
77

E LT Journal Volume 62/1 January 2008; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm080

The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

. 2006. Norman Silver: Laugh Out Loud :-D txt cafe langwij langwij is hi-ly infectious children the world ova catch it from parence by word of mouth the yung r specially vulnerable so care shud b taken how langwij is spread symptoms include acute goo-goo & the equally serious ga-ga if NE child is infected with langwij give em 3 Tspoons of txt b4 bedtime & a tablet of verse after every meal . 2006. Norman Silver: Age, Sex, Location txt cafe

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Language notes

& @ 2 a ninglish abbrevi8 aftr ast*r*sks b b4 capitls cn conversatns dictnry em emergncy

and at to an English abbreviate after asterisks be before capitals can conversations dictionary them emergency

78

David Crystal

equllay exc!matns face2face fone hart hi-ly insted langwij

equally exclamations face-to-face phone heart highly instead

language laughing out loud love mobile message any neighbours never not other over parents prepared are receive write said should someone theyre thieve teaspoons text you your except young
79

luv mobil msg NE neibrs neva nt othr ova parence prepard r recv rite sed shud sum1 theyr thiev Tspoons tXt, txt u ur xept yung

Text messages: Texting

Commentary

A new medium for language doesnt turn up very often, which is why the linguistic effects of electronic communications technology have attracted so much attention. And with mobile phones, where the small-screen technology is so constraining, the effects have generated one of the most idiosyncratic varieties in the history of language. I call it Textspeak. Textspeak is characterized by its distinctive graphology. Its chief feature is rebus abbreviation. Words are formed in which letters represent syllables, as seen in b, b4, NE, r, Tspoons, u, ur, xcept. Use is made of logograms, such as numerals and symbols, as seen in &, @, 2, abbrevi8, b4, face2face, and sum1. Punctuation marks and letters are adapted to express attitudes (the so-called smileys, or emoticons), as seen in the :-D after the title Laugh Out Loudyou have to read the symbols sideways to see the point. Such forms are by no means restricted to Textspeak; they turn up in other electronic domains, such as emails, chatgroups, and blogs. Indeed, rebuses have a much longer linguistic history. The Victorians played games with them, and childrens Christmas annuals have long contained puzzles using them. The only type of traditional rebus that does not appear in Textspeak is the use of pictures such as a bee representing the word be. But in Textspeak something more radical has taken place. The nature of telephony, plus the on-screen limitation to 160 characters, has motivated a much more wide-ranging and innovative set of conventions. Textspeak has its own range of direct-address items, such as F2T (free to talk?), PCM (please call me), M MY T (Mail me your thoughts), and RUOK (are you OK?). Multi-word sentences and response sequences can be used, reduced to a sequence of initial letters. LOL is used in the poem, and is explained in the title of the book in which it appears; other examples are SWDYT (So what do you think?), BTDT (Been there, done that), and YYSSW W (Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, whatever). Even more ingenious coded abbreviations have been devised, especially among those for whom argot is a desirable safeguard against unwelcome surveillance. Texters seem to be aware of the high information value of consonants as opposed to vowels. It is fairly unusual to lose consonants, unless the words are likely to be easily recognized, as in the case of hi-ly and rite. But there are lots of instances where one vowel is dropped (aftr, capitls, cn, emergncy, hart, insted, mobil, nt, othr, prepard, theyr, thiev, txt, yung), or two (conversatns), or three (dictnry), or four (recv). Neibrs is an interesting example, losing two consonants and two vowels (only one in American English, of course). Msg loses three vowels and one consonant. Equllay seems to be doing something differentmaking a word look strange for its own sake (the standard spelling contains the same letters, equally). A ninglish is also different: by moving the position of the word-break, the spelling suggests a non-standard pronunciationthough in fact running the n into the e of English is a perfectly standard practice. Texters also seem to be well aware of the low information value of punctuation marks. There is no sentence punctuation at all in the poems, with the exception of the double exclamation-mark in the sixth commandment, and apostrophes are dropped in neibrs and theyr. On the

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

80

David Crystal

other hand, certain punctuation marks are given new functions, being used ludically in ast*r*sks and exc!matns, and there is a contrastive use of space (in the second commandment), type-size (in the fth and seventh), and colour (hart in the rst and X E P T IN D I RE E M E R GNC Y + in the ninth are printed in red). Hyphens are sometimes respected (three uses in the langwij poem). Capital letters are conspicuous by their absence at the beginning of sentences, but are often used for effectin the ninth commandment, for example, and also in some of the acronyms (such as LOL). Why abbreviate? There is ergonomic value in abbreviation, given that the number of key-strokes saved bears a direct relationship to time and energy and formerly (depending on your service-provider) even the eventual size of your telephone bill. In a creation such as ru2cnmel8r (Are you two seeing me later?), the full form uses over twice as many key-strokes. In 2004 I published A Glossary of Textspeak and Netspeak, andignoring the difference between upper-case and lower-case usagecollected about 500 Textspeak abbreviations. However, only a small number of these actually turn out to be in regular use. The vast majority are there just to be clever, illustrating the possibilities of language play. ROTFL (rolling on the oor laughing) may have had some use at the outset, but its later developments (such as R O T F L M A O and ROTFL MAOWTIM Erolling on the oor laughing my ass off . . . with tears in my eyes) illustrate idiosyncratic communicative one-upmanship rather than genuine community usage. And I doubt whether many texters actually use such creations as L SHMB B (laughing so hard my belly is bouncing). The method isnt without its difculties. Leaving out letters always runs the risk of ambiguity. From the receivers point of view, a single sequence can have more than one meaning: BN been or being, CID consider it done or crying in disgrace, CYA see you or cover your ass, N and or no, Y why or yes. If a message of transmitted love gets the reply LOL, it is up to you to decide whether it means laughing out loud or lots of love. It could make a big difference to an emerging relationship. And you have to know your recipient before you decode GBH, which can be either a great big hug or grievous bodily harm. There are similar ambiguities in the Textspeak of other languages. From the senders point of view, there are also choices to be made. Good to see you can be GTCY, GTS Y, G2CY, or G2SY; I love you can be I L U, ILUVY, or I LY; thanks can be THNX, TH X, TX, or TNX. I found a remarkable eight variants for talk to you later: T TU L, T TU L8R, T TY L, T TY L8R, T2UL, T2UL8R, T2YL, and T2YL8R, and there are probably others. Even more exist for whats up?depending on how many Us you bother to send: W A S S U P, SUP?, WU?, WSU?, WSUU?, WSUUU?, etc. Doubtless text-messaging dialects are already evolving. No texter is entirely consistent, and no two texters use identical conventions. While a few abbreviations are widely (possibly universally) used, such as txt and msg, others are not. I have seen texters write shl or shll for shall, but Silver doesnt. Some would write consult as cnsult or cnslt. The seventh
Text messages: Texting 81
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

commandment is only partly respected, in these poems: em, fone, langwij, luv, parence, sed, and shud are indeed quasi-phonetic representations of the way these words are pronounced, presumably in Silvers accent. (That the spelling reects a particular accent is clear from such words as neva and ova, where there is no r. A West-Country speaker would presumably not want to leave the r outnor, for that matter, would most Americans.) But other words are not given a phonetic form. The full standard English spelling given to infectious, children, vulnerable, symptoms, serious, and so on indicates that we are dealing here with a literary genre, not a real text situation at all.
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

To my mind, this is one of the most interesting things about the way texting has evolved. It is a new genre. It began to be used in poetry very early on, in The Guardians text-messaging poetry competitions. It was only a matter of time before a texting poet arrived on the scene, and a website (www.txtcafe.com) where doubtless the genre will be fully exploited and explored as time goes by. Text-message storieseven novelsare also already being circulated. The Silver poems illustrate the strengths of texting, and also its limitations. The more unusual the word, the more it needs to be spelt out in full. There must be a serious limit to the amount of information which can be conveyed using abbreviation, and a real risk of ambiguity as soon as people try to go beyond a stock set of social phrases. The set of possible messages is really very small, and only a few abbreviationssuch as C (see), B (be), 2 (to, too, two), 4 (for, four, -fore), and U (you)can be used in lots of sentences. Will Textspeak have an effect on the language as a whole? This is unlikely. The whole point of the style is to suit a particular technology where space is at a premium; and when that constraint is dropped, abbreviated language no longer has any purpose. Its cool associations amongst young (or at least, young-minded) people will allow some of its idiosyncrasy to achieve a use elsewhere, and there are occasional reports of Textspeak creeping into other forms of writing, such as school essays. But these are minor trends, part of the novelty of the medium. They can be controlled as part of the task of developing in children a sense of linguistic appropriatenessin the UK, one of the basic principles behind the National Curriculum in English. The genre could gain strength from its literary applications, but it is too soon to say whether these have a long-term future. Some people object to Textspeak. Some are bemused by it. I am fascinated by it, for it is the latest manifestation of the human abilityand young human ability, at thatto be linguistically creative and to adapt language to suit the demands of diverse settings. In Textspeak, we are seeing, in a small way, language in evolution.
References Baker, P. quoted in BB C News 15 April 2002: available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/ tech/1926272.stm. Crystal, D. 2004. A Glossary of Textspeak and Netspeak. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
82 David Crystal

Crystal, D. 2008. Txting: the Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Mobile Data Association statistics available online at www.text.it/home.cfm.

Silver, N. 2006. Laugh Out Loud :-D. Age, Sex, , 57 Priory Street, Location, both published by txt cafe Colchester, CO1 2QE. Sutherland, J. 2002. Cn u txt? The Guardian November 11 2002: available online at www.guardian.co.uk.

Thurlow, C. 2005. Generation Txt: The Sociolinguistics of Young Peoples Text Messaging. available online at www.txt2nite.com.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Text messages: Texting

83