French President Nicholas Sarkozy is worried about the French language. It's not about the invasion of English words in the French language. His concern is over a new form of language - text-messaging - also referred to as "txt-msging" or "txtspk".
"Look at what text-messaging is doing to the French language," Mr Sarkozy was quoted in The Economist of May 24 as saying to a reporter last February. "If we let things go, in a few years we will have trouble understanding each other."
Neither is his concern unfounded, nor does it pertain only within French shores. Indeed, the "text-messaging" revolution has fiercely infiltrated our daily lives - especially those of young people and students.
Text-messaging per se is a very convenient way of shortening words to economise on time and character count. Writing "cu tmrw" has saved me nine keystrokes; adding an emoticon would enrich my message.
While explaining that most secondary school students have their own mobile phones, The Economist also referred to how common it is for these students to use the abbreviated phonetic language to communicate. It has become so common and analogous to youth culture, that French Bank BNP Paribas has chosen the slogan "Ta + K Entrer" ("T'as plus qu'entrer", or, "you only have to come in"), to break the idea that the bank is austere and closed for the young.
Yet, the concern is not over the common use of text-messaging, but over its penetration in school work and students' writings, and over the apparent blurred distinction in students' minds between text-messaging and the formal language.
Trevor Zahra, the leading author of children's books, says that although text-messaging can add a new dimension to language, it does not necessarily enrich it.
Mr Zahra believes that students are prone to confuse the use of text-messaging with the formal language, and therefore they should be advised as to when text-messaging is permitted, and when formal language is required.
"I believe they could confuse both codes, especially when they start using text language at an early age. We must admit that SMS language is easier and more accessible. We all use different language registers in our verbal communication. So one should differentiate between that which is acceptable as a text message and as formal writing."
Such a concern is also shared by researchers in the US. A month ago, a US study titled Writing, Technology And Teens, conducted by the Pew Research Centre and the National Commission on Writing, revealed that nearly two-thirds of teenagers (64 per cent) from among 700 interviewed students said they incorporated some informal styles from their text-based communications into their writing at school. Among these students, half of them said they sometimes used informal writing styles instead of proper capitalisation and punctuation in their school assignments; more than one third said they used text shortcuts in school work such as "LOL" (which stands for "laughing out loud"); while one fourth said that they used emoticons in school work.
"A considerable number of educators and children's advocates worry that James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, was right when he recently suggested that young Americans' electronic communication might be damaging "the basic unit of human thought - the sentence". They are concerned that the quality of writing by young Americans is being degraded by their electronic communication, with its carefree spelling, lax punctuation and grammar, and its acronym shortcuts. Others wonder if this return to text-driven communication is instead inspiring new appreciation for writing among teens," the report said.
The latter sentiment is shared by David Crystal, a British linguist, academic and author, who has carried out research for his book "Txtng: the Gr8 Db8".
"The panic about texting and its effects on language is totally misplaced. It adds a new dimension, enriches language, gives you a new option. Any reading and writing was good for literacy," he said.
"As part of the research I did, I asked teachers if work in the classroom was riddled with abbreviations, and it wasn't. If you ask kids if they use the same style in their work they look at you as if you are mad."
On the other hand, researchers Beverly Plester and Clare Wood from Coventry University admit the students' use of text-messaging in their writings, but also believe in a purpose behind it.
"They know when to use standard English and when to use textisms or genteel gangster speech, such as 'dat fing'. If they allow text language to enter their school or exam work, it is probably because they are doing it on purpose to make a point, such as demonstrating a lack of respect. It is not because they do not know how to spell or write.
"So far, our research has suggested that there is no evidence to link a poor ability in standard English to those children who send text messages. In fact, the children who were the best at using 'textisms' were also found to be the better spellers and writers," they said.
The researchers also believe that text language might increase children's phonetic awareness and linguistic creativity.
"We are interested in discovering whether texting could be used positively to increase phonetic awareness in less able children, and perhaps increase their language skills, in a fun yet educational way."
It seems that text-messaging is still evolving and waiting to be analysed insofar as its use in class and outside school is concerned.
But whether this will be allowed to happen in class is still to be seen.