The interesting thing is that I don’t need to teach it to anyone except those who learn English as an additional language – the native speakers know how to do it already.
That’s an important point to consider: If the ESL learners need to be taught “how 2 rite lyk dis”, it suggests that it’s not obvious and not a regression of the language – if it were, it would be naturally how they write. They don’t. They make mistakes, but they measure their performance against the standards presented to them in classrooms and ESL textbooks.
Writing ‘correct’ or ‘proper’ English is (the main point I made earlier is as @Dr_Lawrence outlined very succinctly) a subjective judgement.
People agree (consciously or not) on ‘rules’ – there are none inherent in language.
I guess the point I’m making is that really we need to reconceptualise what language actually is. Language is ultimately not just a means for communication, but is also a system of social signs indicating belonging to groups, attitudes to others, attitudes to self and attitudes to the world. If you look at the kind of language that is being deployed on this thread, you’ll notice that it is of a distinct and disticntive type. If you compare with with the kind of language deployed in in-game chat in online games, you’ll notice several distinct and distinctive features.
The same goes for txtspk, which is a genre all of its own with its own ‘rules’. Shakespeare’s writing style would be inappropriate for an SMS because it’s too verbose for a genre that is focused on efficient communication of information.
All of the claims I’ve seen about declining standards are supported with examples from different genres of written English which are quite different from the genre they in use at that time (look at the composition guidelines on Fluther for an idea of what I’m talking about) and arguably that the contributors are familiar with or use. This is akin to claiming that standards of social etiquette at wedding ceremonies are declining by pointing to the behaviour of men at stag parties.
Personally, I dislike txtspk – and don’t use it – but I’m aware enough of the uses of language to understand that it isn’t ‘incorrect’. There are discernible patterns to the structure of the language and its use. I reserve my judgement on it for myself because it does the job it evolved for.
It would be inappropriate (i.e. not fit for purpose) to use txtspk in an academic essay, for example, but apart from the apocryphal tales of sea monsters the student in Arkansas who handed in a university essay in txtspk, there’s little-to-no evidence that this actually happens. David Crystal goes into a lot more detail about it here.
More people are reading and writing more than ever before. Standards aren’t declining, literacy has never been more widespread.
You’re perfectly entitled to disagree with opinions. It’s kind of difficult to disagree with facts. Not impossible, but it does require special effort.