Sir, - Anne Clune (August 6th) claims that text messaging somehow represents a deterioration of the English language. Not so! Languages and their presentation evolve and are constantly in flux, reacting to the needs of society, economics and technology.
The Azeri language officially changed to a Latin-based written form from a Cyrillic one within the past few weeks. Turkey "modernised" the official Turkish alphabet to be in line with the political direction of the state. The German government instituted a spelling reform in the past few years, and the Dutch did something similar.
Japanese computer users employ a regular keyboard with an input method editor (IME) software, typing their words phonetically before they are entered correctly in Kanji characters.
QWERTY keyboards exist because that layout originally solved a mechanical problem on early typewriters.
Text messaging's truncated, phonetic, semi-WYSIWYG style (What You See Is What You Get) is a response to the limitations of the device's input mechanism and user interface display.
However, if it helps people to communicate with each other, what is wrong with that? Text messaging is certainly more intelligible or recognisable than the English used in Finnegans Wake.
Ms Clune's arguments are similar to those levelled against Ebonics (or African American Vernacular English). However, Ebonics was recognised by the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) in 1997 as being systematic and rule-governed "like all natural speech varieties". It argued that to characterise Ebonics as "slang", "mutant", "lazy", "defective", "ungrammatical", or "broken English" was incorrect and demeaning.
I would argue that text messaging is being analysed out of context and is also being incorrectly judged by Anne Clune. - Yours, etc.,
┌na O'Brien, LLB, Desmond Street, Dublin 8.