[ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 14-May-2008
[ | E-mail Share Share ]

Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-207-611-1274
New Scientist

Teens reach linguistic peak in online chat

LOL, OMG and TTYL: parents and teachers worry that teenagers’ use of these and other forms of online shorthand is harming their language skills. Perhaps they will take comfort from a study suggesting that instant messaging (IM) actually represents “an expansive new linguistic renaissance”.

Sali Tagliamonte and Derek Denis at the University of Toronto, Canada, say teenagers risk the disapproval of their elders if they use slang, and the scorn of their friends if they sound too buttoned-up. But instant messaging allows them to deploy a “robust mix” of colloquial and formal language. In a paper to be published in the spring 2008 issue of American Speech, the researchers argue that far from ruining teenagers’ ability to communicate, IM lets teenagers show off what they can do with language.

“IM is interactive discourse among friends that is conducive to informal language,” says Denis, “but at the same time, it is a written interface which tends to be more formal than speech.”

He and Tagliamonte analysed more than a million words of IM communications and a quarter of a million spoken words produced by 72 people aged between 15 and 20. They found that although IM shared some of the patterns used in speech, its vocabulary and grammar tended to be relatively conservative. For example, teenagers are more likely to use the phrase “He was like, ‘What’s up?’” than “He said, ‘What’s up?’” when speaking - but the opposite is true when they are instant-messaging. This supports the idea that IM represents a hybrid form of communication.

Nor do teens use abbreviations as much as the stereotype suggests: LOL (laugh out loud), OMG (oh my god), and TTYL (talk to you later) made up just 2.4 per cent of the vocabulary of IM conversations - an “infinitesimally small” proportion, say the researchers. And rumours of the demise of you would appear to have been greatly exaggerated: it was preferred to u a whopping 9 times out of 10. Tagliamonte and Denis suggest that the use of such short forms is confined mostly to the youngest users of IM.

###

IF REPORTING ON THIS STORY, PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE AND, IF REPORTING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A LINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com

UK CONTACT - Claire Bowles, New Scientist Press Office, London:
Tel: +44(0)20 7611 1274 or email claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk

US CONTACT – New Scientist Boston office:
Tel: +1 617 386 2190 or email j.heselton@elsevier.com

This article is posted on this site to give advance access to other authorised media who may wish to report on this story, or quote extracts as part of fair dealing with this copyrighted material. Full attribution is required, and if reporting online a link to www.newscientist.com is also required. The story posted here is copyrighted therefore advance permission is required before any and every reproduction of each article in full. Please contact claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk

THIS ARTICLE APPEARS IN NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE ISSUE: 17 MAY 2008.
EMBARGOED UNTIL WED, 14 MAY 2008, 13:00 HRS EDT (18:00 HRS BST)

EDITOR’S NOTE: PRIOR PERMISSION IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY REPRODUCTION OF THIS STORY IN FULL



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail Share Share ]

 


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.