These days there is much discussion about the supposedly calamitous decline in punctuation and spelling among young people. This is surely a truthful declaration - you only need to observe fan-created banners on shows like Australian Idol to realise the ubiquity of errors such as the substitution of "your" for "you're". The bestselling book Eats, Shoots and Leaves advocates a "zero-tolerance approach" to spelling. Such critics of loose literary standards would no doubt tear viciously into blogs like the one that was the subject of a debate on the old forum, a site which includes language like "hohoho..keke! welp welp wot did i do 2daiz?", which is unorthodox at best. However, I disagree that the existence of language like this in certain spheres is symptomatic of the decline of the English language.
English is not in danger of collapsing under the weight of youth jargon and misspelling, for a few reasons. First is the informal nature of these texts. When these people grow up and have to write business reports or other official documents, they will be forced to pay more attention to spelling if they are to keep their jobs. They already do have to ensure correct spelling in their schoolwork. Society as a whole has not rejected the need for proper literary standards in formal circles. Herein lies the second reason - that the vast majority of our written material is created by people - such as authors, journalists and playwrights - who are generally skilled in English and are able to correctly shape their words. Publishers rectify typographical errors before printing and are unlikely to sign people who lack skill at writing. The literature which will be preserved to influence future generations is overwhelmingly written to correct literary standards. Remember also that many of the greatest works in the English language were created during periods - Tudor England had Shakespeare, and Dickens and Byron lived in Victorian times - when the common man, let alone child or adolescent, was completely illiterate. To expect the informal, personal writing of a teenager to be a paragon of literary correctness, in any era, is an illogical goal.
Finally, consider the fact that the language of any civilisation is simply a tool to help it communicate. If modifications or changes enable more efficient communication, they should not be rejected simply for the sake of tradition. Now, the extent to which SMS jargon and abbreviations, leet-speak and their ilk allow more efficient communication is highly debatable because of their lack of standardisation which often makes meaning cryptic to the reader. English's adaptability and acceptance of new words has always been its greatest strength though, and by enforcing an intolerant and high-handed approach to literary standards in informal circles, not simply formal ones where I am sure most would agree proper spelling is necessary, the supposed defenders of English are perhaps doing more harm than good.
