LOL Isn't Funny Anymore

Meanings change. LOL used to mean laugh out loud. It conveyed an appreciation of the frequently irrational, absurd and uncontrollable nature of life, especially at work. It implied that we are all in this together, whatever 'this' may be. And it suggested, as novelist Rafael Sabatini wrote about Scaramouche, one of his characters from an earlier time, that whoever used that shorthand texting contrivance, 'was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.'

But just as grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary have evolved in more traditional narratives, so have the sources and uses of language in texting. And not, as some would have it, because we are lazy or stupid or uneducated or in precipitous moral decline.

Rather, it may well be that the opposite is true. That in a global society whose means of communications have rapidly and dramatically changed, new forms of expression represent a bold and pragmatic means by which connections can be established and enhanced. Instead of condemning experimentation, we should be supporting it because adaptation is essential to survival.

LOL now means different things to different people, as the following article explains. But its usage is understood within context. This is an advance, not a retreat because it represents a broader acceptance of form and function. We value efficiency, effectiveness and, most of all, convenience. And adapting language to new circumstances is how we exchange that information. LOL. JL

John McWhorter comments in CNN:

Texting is not the mangling of language -- it's the birth of a new one.

The going idea is that texting has, in essence, made graffiti a universal pastime: Barely punctuated, sparsely capitalized and with decidedly creative spellings throughout, texting means that today's America is reveling in writing badly.

Ten years ago (we'll soon get to why it would only be back then) the proper answer to this would have been LOL -- "laughing out loud" -- because in reality, texting is sprouting new grammar all the time. Yes, grammar, as subtle and sophisticated as subjunctives and such.

Take LOL. Today, it wouldn't signify amusement the way it did when it first caught on. Jocelyn texts "where have you been?" and Annabelle texts back "LOL at the library studying for two hours."

How funny is that, really? Or an exchange such as "LOL theres only one slice left" / "don't deprive me LOL" -- text exchanges often drip with these LOL's the way normal writing drips with commas. Let's face it -- no mentally composed human being spend his or her entire life immersed in ceaseless hilarity. The LOLs must mean something else.

They do. They signal basic empathy between texters. What began as signifying laughter morphed into easing tension and creating a sense of equality.

That is, "LOL" no longer "means" anything. Rather, it "does something" -- conveying an attitude -- just as the ending "-ed" doesn't "mean" anything but conveys past tense. LOL is, of all things, grammar.

Of course, no texter thinks about that consciously. But then most of communication operates below the radar, where things tend not to mean what they would literally. Over time, the meaning of a word or an expression drifts. "Meat" used to mean any kind of food. "Silly" used to mean, believe it or not, blessed.

We can see LOL-type expressions happening in speech.

"I know, right?" means little; it assures the listener of agreement and acknowledgment. Or, there is the phrase "You know what I'm sayin'?" used most in what is best known as "Ebonics," but increasingly by young people of various shades and demographics.

Technically, it is composed of seven words: do, you, know, what, I, am, and saying. However, it is now more often pronounced as two syllables -- "noam sayin'?" -- or sometimes even just a single one, roughly: "Msehn?"

It, too, is now a piece of grammar, soliciting the same sense of empathy and group membership that LOL does. LOL is one of several texting expressions that convey nuance in a system where you don't have the voice and face to do it the way you normally would.

Civilization, then, is fine. People banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, but a code it is, to which linguists are currently devoting articles.

People have been warning us that language was going to the dogs ever since Latin started turning into French. Yet the dogs in question never seem to emerge yelping on the horizon.

There is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide, people speak differently than they write, and texting -- quick, casual and only intended to be read once -- is actually a way of talking with your fingers.