Sound Off: Is Textspeak Here to Stay?

I know you’re probably going to deem me a “luzr,” but upon reading George Orwell’s 1984, I couldn’t help but notice a strange resemblance between the novel and our modern-day society – specifically between Newspeak, a language the characters use in the book and the abbreviated language we teens use today when we communicate online, which I will henceforth dub, Textspeak.

For those who have not read 1984, it depicts a society run by a totalitarian regime. One of the many ways in which the government controls the public is through the implementation of Newspeak, a much-abbreviated version of English. The primary goal of Newspeak is to rid the language of words that can express two or more meanings, and render heretical speech, and, by extension, heretical thought, impossible.

The majority of humans are capable of more complex thoughts when they have access to a greater vocabulary. It is incredibly challenging to express a concept for which there is no word. Just think about it: a young boy will scream and cry if he smashes his fingers in a door, whereas people with an expanded vocabulary will produce a greater range of reactions – from saying a simple “ouch!” to exclaiming an angry profanity.

Newspeak is in many ways detrimental, especially in the way the public’s vocabulary progressively declines. Does that sound familiar? Think about the abbreviated language we use to communicate via mobile phone, web and even in common speech today. Before you recoil in denial, there are several provisions to be made in comparing Newspeak to today’s Textspeak.

First, our budding language hasn’t been implanted in the public consciousness; it is a product of the public consciousness – we’ve all had a hand in creating this new shorthand language.

Secondly, it is not endorsed by the government, but by altogether more influential beings: manufacturers of new technology and social networkers (Big Brother isn’t watching. Big Business is).

Finally, the purpose of Textspeak isn’t to eliminate heretics... but does it do that anyways? Textspeak conforms to the ideals of popular culture, and I would argue that it is difficult to express any other ideals through it.

Also, take note of the increasing popularity of Textspeak. Admit it: how many times in your last text message conversation did you use the letter “U” to replace “you?” Or typed out LOL, CUL8R, OMG or TTYL? Not long ago, I even heard a woman who must have been around 70 years old only half-jokingly exclaim, “O-M-G!” to another woman of her age.

It is not my intention to appear a snob. I’m not saying that anyone who uses Textspeak is inferior to someone who doesn’t say or type “OMG.” What I am saying though is that anyone claiming that the popularization of Textspeak doesn’t have linguistically destructive potential is most definitely wrong.