When teenagers shorten and abbreviate their messages, the language they use can go over some adults’ heads. But the meaning of their words isn’t lost at all, says a University of Toronto linguistics professor.

Six years ago, Sali Tagliamonte watched her own children — teenagers at the time — creating a “living language” talking online to their friends and using acronyms and shortened words.

“I realized what was happening at my kitchen table was just as fascinating as anything else (I was researching in the field),” she said.

This behaviour made her want to explore how most communication is now written through email, instant messaging and text messaging.

So, she decided to study actual conversations from the source.

“I even offered to pay my children if they would give me their conversational logs,” she said.

After declining to let their mother read their texts, Tagliamonte went another route, and studied four months’ worth of text messages from four GTA girls – all friends – whom she found when she put a call out through the Toronto District School Board for text message “donations.”

Tagliamonte and then-undergrad student, Derek Denis, who is now finishing his PhD in linguistics, published a paper titled, “Linguistic Ruin? LOL! Instant Messaging and Teen Language.

In it, they argued that instant messaging isn’t leading to a breakdown of the English language, but is actually firmly rooted in existent language.

“In fact, what teenagers are doing is banal,” Tagliamonte said. “Absolutely everything you heard about is teenagers littering their speech with acronyms and it’s just not true. There’s a difference between the form and its function.”

There are distinct, unwritten rules between text messaging, email language and instant messaging, said Tagliamonte. For example, the meaning of “are you going,” “r u going” and “r u goin” are all the same, but they’re used almost exclusively with one of the mediums.

The patterns of language, structure and grammar are the same, but the spellings vary.

“These kids are doing the same thing,” she said. “They differ in the way they use linguistic forms.”

Tagliamonte just wrapped up a third installment of a first-year linguistics course called “Language and the Internet” in April. The class prerequisite: every student had to be willing to provide samples of their text messages, emails, instant messages and an academic paper from high school to be studied.

“I was actually excited that the research involved my conversations because then I would be able to compare how I spoke and what the data the class collected,” said first-year student Kay Otsubo, of the course.

She said the class shattered common misconceptions of teenagers and language.

“Instead of the improper grammar, acronyms, abbreviations, misspellings, etc. used on the Internet destroying the English of the young, students showed that they knew where to use proper English from their professionally written papers,” she said in an email to the Star.

“Also, comparing past observations and data, it can be seen that language is always changing. Language does not get worse or better, but just changes over time with the growth of new generations.”

Tagliamonte’s students participate in an end of term conference where they studied the findings of the class data. This year one presentation, “Staying Plugged in to the Lingo of Laughter” examined the way students conveyed laughing and humour through their text messages.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

With instant messaging nearly obsolete, and autocorrect affecting text messaging, Tagliamonte will have to find a new way to continue the study. Email is passé with young people, so she may have to shift to iPhones, she said.

“You have to move with the times on this,” she said. “It’s a moving target.”