Does txt spk belong in business?

Lately I’ve been hearing more and more arguments and complaints over the use of text speak in regular communication and I have to say that I’m divided on the issue. While I accept and use text speak in social settings, I do not agree that it belongs in business or formal communication settings.

For the non-technically savvy, “text speak” refers to short forms used primarily when communicating through technology to help shorten and speed up the delivery of information.

It’s not unusual for students and tech savvy Gen-Xers to send thousands of instant and text messages in a given month. I myself regularly send over 2500 messages monthly. My top form of communication is my Blackberry, with client communication coming in through email or instant messaging. I have multiple IM accounts and multiple email addresses so using short forms definitely speeds up the information flow when I’m on the go. Yet despite the need for speed, there is always a question of when to use text speak short forms, and how.

Acronyms have always been accepted as a language tool. By definition, acronyms are abbreviations formed using the first letter(s) of the phrase or name. There are many globally recognized and acceptable words that began as acronyms, but are now read, written and discussed as a word. For example, we no longer spell out the letters s, c, u, b, a… we simply say “scuba” (Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus). Very few would argue “laser” is not a word (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), and the same goes for “radar” (RAdio Detection And Ranging). How about CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read-Only Memory)? Or even USA?

If text speak were restricted to acronyms, it might be easier to accept. Unfortunately the majority of text speak short forms are bastardized versions of the real word that have some or all of the vowels removed, or have letters replaced with similar sounding numbers. For example, the word “before” would be shortened to “b4″. This compressed language makes things much easier to communicate when you have limitations in available character space such as with text messages, however when you are working with word documents or email, restricted character length is no longer an issue.

As well as the argument on available character space, another roadblock to acceptance of text speak by the masses is generational. Because the Net Generation created these short forms in a social setting, they are not accepted by the older generations’ “professionals”. Most known acronyms (like scuba and laser) were invented in a corporate world with data and research as back end support. Text speak was created by a younger, socially driven, tech savvy generation who, instead of coming with with random word slang to define their generation, have developed a written language all their own.

Regardless of who created it and why, text speak has expanded into a digital language with cultural slang and geographic references that far exceed the possibility of any global adoption. This in itself poses yet another barrier to adopting text speak as a standard communication set. There are too many variables. The business world, no matter what industry you are in, contains many different ages, backgrounds, and cultural factors to have so many different text speak options integrated across the board. A short form used culturally in Canada may not carry the same translation internationally with potential business associates.

Another argument against using text speak in formal communication is vocalization. Communicating in text speak does not work as well when you are saying it out loud. This makes it incredibly difficult to integrate text terms into the business world where telephones and other vocal communication tools are still the top form of communication. Can you imagine the reaction if a politician burst out with an “OMG” in the middle of a debate? It just doesn’t work.

Do I believe text speak is a valid form of communication? Yes. Do I believe it should be adopted in business? No. And I’m not the only one. Here’s what some of the creators (net gen students) had to say when asked their opinion on the matter:

“When I see people type phrases such as “wut r u doin” my first impression is that they are not intelligent.”

“If we allowed it in formal communication the English language would be destroyed.”

“The problem is there is no universal code. New short forms appear every day and they can mean different things depending on who is using them.”

“Text messaging short forms sound unprofessional when used in a business meeting or interview. I do not mean it should not be used at all, of course, because I myself use it while texting or on the internet, but it should stay there and not be brought into real life.”

“You can relay messages to your friends faster in short form, but when using short forms, the messages can be misunderstood and misinterpreted and cause problems, especially when they are used for business purposes.”

“They are disrespectful and show a lack of professionalism in a formal environment.”

“Short forms are not understood by everyone.”

“Short forms do not have a universal standard on their true meaning. This universal standard is required in formal communication because it eliminates any margin of error.”

“SMS short forms were developed to facilitate and speed up communication between users. However, these short forms should not be accepted in formal communication because there are certain expressions and remarks that can only be satisfied by the use of correct language… not a smiley face.”

So where do we stand on adoption of text speak into our regular communication? Still divided. After years of use, scholars have begun to recognize text speak terms and have allowed OMG (oh my god), LOL (laugh out loud) and <3 (a sideways heart) into the Oxford Dictionary. However these terms are still classified as slang, and not considered to be formal words.

Which may not b a bad thng when u thnk about it.

L8R.

~