The Demise of Language?/case study: texting

I was reading a post here about texting, and whether it is 'dumbing down' society. As someone who finds great pleasure in using language, I am obviously fascinated by txt-speak. Discussion of this subject seems to divide people in two groups:

Group 1: Those who think the demise of a uniform English language is equivalent to the Apocalypse...
Group 2: ...and those who embrace the change (because they can't spell)

Naturally, I think it is unfavourable to be in either camp, and yet I can only stand back to watch my beloved mother-tongue become ravaged by an inarticulate barbarian txt-vernacular, that cannot be pinned down. The main point that I can find with the issue, is that, if anything, the 'demise' of traditional English brings into attention the main purpose of language: communication. In this case, due to constraints of the text message as a medium, i.e. limit of 150 words, the language has been condensed, with words being condensed usually through the omission of vowels. In many cases, the contractions are so complete that the remnant could stand for any number of actual words. However, when both ends of transmission can understand the language, then it has served its function.

There is a precarious relationship in text-language (and any language, in fact), between the need to communicate information, and the need for efficiency. For somebody like me (who, albeit reluctantly, falls into 'Group 1' mentioned above), it is somewhat difficult to decipher the text messages of more advanced cellphone users: my command of the text 'dialect' is weak. However, for advanced cellphone users, who create and decipher these short messages constantly, it is as simple as turning on a light, or criticising politicians.

What I am really trying to do is just have a look at language itself, and its fluid nature. I can't think of a precedent for such a rapid change of language as has come with the advent of text-messaging, and I think that it is sensationalist scare-mongering to even suggest that such an unstable form of communication, texting, could ever replace 'proper' language.

The pervasiveness of text-speak in digital media, such as Cellphones and video games, is related to the ephemeral nature of these communications; in these new media, information is not intended to be kept for posterity, but is sent out of urgency (in most cases); the information is sent for [near] instant consumption, and does not need to be polished. As long as both ends of the transmission can understand each other, it is irrelevant whether or not they conform to strict spelling and grammatical norms - the information is discarded almost as soon as it is consumed.

However, the purpose of having unified, agreed-upon language systems is to ensure that encoding and decoding are synchronised. If one end of the communication is incompatible with the other, i.e. if you send me a message filled with cryptic acronyms such as 'lol', 'rofl', or 'lmfao', you are going to have to send me a key at the end of the message, so that I can decipher your message. Or, alternatively, wait six months for me to figure out myself that 'lol' stands for 'laugh out loud' (I hope it does, anyway...)

- David W.