C this takes twice as long

Last updated 23:02 09/12/2008

Relevant offers

National News

Shining light on a viable alternative Kiwi trainer top dog of screen Internet law change 'unjust' Tribute for 'forgotten' service Cricket to crack down on chuckers Six-week wait for Barlow verdict Waiting on lords' word Lieutenant-Colonel demoted after indecent assault Barlows wait for Privy Council news Army officer guilty of indecency

Abbreviated "text speak" may save time, but takes twice as long to read than normal language, a study shows.

Research by an Australian psychology lecturer found that common abbreviations used in mobile phone text messages could sometimes not be understood and were often misinterpreted.

Results from the 55 students tested by Nenagh Kemp of the University of Tasmania showed that text-speak saved time for the writer, but the recipient took nearly twice as long - 26 seconds - to read the message out loud. It took 14 seconds to read messages sent in conventional English.

The most common abbreviations that were easily understood included 2, 4, c and u. The most difficult abbreviations included ttyl (talk to you later), bbs (be back soon), pu (pick up) and cn (seeing).

Dr Kemp told The Dominion Post yesterday that combinations with numbers such as 2moro (tomorrow), 4get (forget) and l8 (late) took a little longer to read, but people always got them in the end.

"I think that we're so accustomed to reading words spelled in conventional English, which we can read without sounding out the words, that when a spelling like frendz comes along, we have to stop and sound it out, so it slows us down, even if we get to the right answer."

Abbreviations which left out letters or spelled words as they sounded took "longer than I expected" for people to read. Students in the study sometimes failed to guess words such as wld (would), myb (maybe) and xamz (exams).

Dr Kemp said more obscure abbreviations were tied to social groups, so not everyone would be able to guess what was meant.

It took students 220 seconds to compose a message in text-speak, but 258 seconds in conventional English.

TXT APPEAL

* Easily understood

2 – Two, to, too
4 – For, four
c – See, sea
u – you
r – are

* More difficult

ttyl – talk to you later
bbs – be back soon
pu – pick up
cn – seeing
np – no problem

Ad Feedback

- © Fairfax NZ News

21 comments
Glenn   #21   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Sarah, you are right, its not hard at all, most juvenile things aren't. But why would one want to learn how to use it? It was adopted as a way to get round the limited technology of 1990s cell phones and their txt limits prior to extended txt and predictive. Leave it for children to play with.

Simon   #20   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

#17

A way of society? It's scourge on society. It's EASIER to use predictive text. There is no excuse, or reason for using this ridiculous system, which people deign to dignify by referring to it as a 'language'. There is nothing to learn, because there is no set of rules dictating its use - any shortening of a word could be included.

Alex   #19   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

In the right context (text messaging) is fine. It is there to shorten words because you have a character limit and it can save time.

In emails, message boards, responses to articles, and anywhere else, NOT OKAY. It makes whoever wrote it look less intelligent.

Robert   #18   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Sarah I can use text language. Heck I speak fluent 1337, so text language isn't hard. The issue here isn't that people use it, it's that people who use it *can't* use real English if they try. Like you. Did you ever learn about capital letters, full stops, or grammar? Could you even use correct English if you tried? I'm genuinely curious here.

I'm noticing that more and more these days. I was talking to a twenty year old yesterday who didn't know what the word "obscure" meant. I died a little on the inside.

Sarah   #17   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Get over it. its a way of society. use it.learn it. UNDERSTAND IT!

not that hard!

John L   #16   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

These messages arrived on my mobile and I'm still trying to work out what they mean:

Hae dis issah...is dis api? My guess is "Hello, this is Isaiah ... is this Api?"

To which I replied that the sender might have a wrong number, prompting the following:

umm ahk mah bad sori lolz

BTW I've been on superann for yonks and just grasped T9 and wonder why I didn't use it years ago. The first few characters may look stupid but once a search of the database shows only one or two words can match that pattern I usually get the one I want, if not I cycle through the option with *. It's a no-brainer to press one key for s instead of hitting p 4 times.

John L   #15   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

These messages arrived on my mobile and I'm still not sure what they mean:

Hae dis issah...is dis api?

To which I replied that the sender might have a wrong number, in reply to which, the following arrived:

umm ahk mah bad sori lolz

Paulo   #14   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Anyone who uses text abbreviations shall be repeatedly struck over the knuckles with the edge of a ruler until they learn the Queen's English. If they persist, they shan't be allowed a cellular phone. Anyone using text abbrevations in a written document or in daily speech will be sent to live on Mana Island, where they will be forced to live in their own filth, and feed on others like them in order to survive. - The Book of Paulo

john   #13   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

t9 is stupid

Matt   #12   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I thought that text speak was obsolite due to every phone having T9, it's far quicker just to text using proper English.


Show 1-11 of 21 comments
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content