Text speak: creating or destroying language?

In our Generation Why two-parter examining the pros and cons of text speak, Rachel Carpenter offers her anti-text thoughts from France.

''As those using text speak in exams are presumably quite young, does this mean that they don’t actually know how to write in proper English?'' ''Text speak, like shorthand, is quicker to write, and more economic on word limits, but it is a timesaver rather than a true alternative to formal English.'' ''How could you convey the awesome beauty of a majestic sunset by simply saying it was ''gd''?''

"G TT, C bien, a 2m1"

I frowned and puzzled over my mobile screen carefully, hoping for more of a clue. What on earth was she on about? Gee TeeTee See bien - it didn't make any sense! I'd never seen 'Two Em One' as an abbreviation before. Then suddenly I realisd how stupid I was being. Here in France, G is pronounced more like Jay, and C as Say. After a quick conversation with a bilingual 12 year old the rest of the words formed under my eyes: J'ai tout, c'est bien, à demain (I have everything, it's fine, see you tomorrow).

I felt like I'd been transported back to my first painful attempts at sending and receiving text messages. Back then a message full of abbreviations made me wonder if my phone had made a mistake and intercepted some transmission from an alien civilistion.
Even now, I tend to write text messages in full English, only transforming 'you' to 'u' when I run out of space and am too stingy to pay for two messages.

I find abbreviations exclusive. They rely on both the sender and receiver to understand the secret code. You may be allowed to use them in exams in New Zealand now, but this is not only lazy, it also risks losing marks if the examiner doesn't understand your shortened version of a word. Also, as those using text speak in exams are presumably quite young, does this mean that they don't actually know how to write in proper English? This would be very worrying indeed.

Shorthand has been accepted for years as a means of recording things quickly and efficiently but it is always written up into proper English afterwards. Text speak, like shorthand, is quicker to write, and more economic on word limits, but it is a timesaver rather than a true alternative to formal English.

Using text speak as a formal language would seriously limit our communication. How could you convey the awesome beauty of a majestic sunset by simply saying it was "gd"?
Imagine if everyone just used text speak - would this prevent people from communicating ideas and concepts, in writing, outside of their vocabulary? Surely this would put an end to imagination, invention and intelligence?

My opposition to text speak is not a traditionalist point of view, moaning about any modernisation and change. I am quite happy to see new words enter our language, through slang for example. Rather than reducing language to a series of symbols, it adds to vocabulary. It offers a way to express feelings or actions that are not encompassed in existing words - enriching language rather than destroying it.

However, I definitely dislike seeing my communication options reduced to a selection of unimaginative letters and numbers that lose the beauty and richness of language. Text speak should be kept for text messages and short hand - the purposes it was designed for. It should not be accepted in the exam hall or replace our language in everyday situations - we want language to move forwards not backwards.