Mixed Messages - Semiotics and Text Message Initialisms Don't Mix

If you see someone

DROWNING

lol

CALL 911

If it weren't for the initialisms created through text message communication, this sign would not have appeared on Fail Blog.

In the old days, the image would have been interpreted semiotically as a swimmer's head and two arms waving for help, not as a comment that suggests people should "laugh out loud" at the sight of a drowning person.

WTF ROTFL LOL - JK

WTF does ROTFL mean? I am truly not a prescriptivist, but I am still not LOL.


This past December, Language - The Journal of the Linguistic Society of America published a review of The gr8 db8 by David Crystal. I have not read the book but I have been meaning to mention my initial thoughts about the frequency of initialisms in texting.

The thing that annoys me most about the initialisms associated with texting is that the majority of the most common initialisms are not abbreviations for phrases that anyone I know actually used before the invention of instant messaging.

On the other hand, when I was coming of age and we sent messages that were not so instant ("Hey, please pass this note to so and so.") the only abbreviation/initialism that I recall using with any frequency was "JK" and we used the phrase "just kidding" in normal conversation on a regular basis.

Just sayin. (See, I am really not a prescriptivist)

Thoughts on Text Message Communication

In response to the comment sent in by reader Emily Ryall regarding text message communication:

Pragmatically, text messages are not incomplete conversations. Emily's suggestion that there is "a tacit acknowledgement that the sender doesn't really expect a response (to every message)" is right on. Text messaging should be thought of as its own context and different contexts have different norms. The norms of text messaging are not the same as those of face-to-face conversations. Additionally, as long as the expectations of both speaker and listener (in this case sender and receiver) are met, the communication should be considered a pragmatic success.

Text Message Communication

Reader Emily Ryall sent the following:

"I was thinking about the conversational analysis of text messages and how they might be something interesting to think about. My experience of text messages is that they are an incomplete conversation, i.e. we feel an obligation to keep the conventions of 'normal' conversation, but are unable to do so. So I'll often just ignore people's questions on text message if I think they're just some kind of phatic communication. Yet, I'd never do this in 'real' life. I don't know whether this is an issue of time or money (if text messages cost 10p) or whether there's a tacit acknowledgement that the sender doesn't really expect a response. Have you thought about this at all? Do you have any comment on it?"

I am putting this out there to welcome other readers' comments while I am working on my response - which will follow soon.

By the way, thank you Emily for sending your question. I encourage all readers to send any thoughts, questions, comments or feedback you may have.