I'm a linguist by trade, and used to teach (not in recent years, but once a teacher, always a teacher), and just the thought of chatspeak in writing makes me twitch uncontrollably.
Agrees with Lilias. Breakdown of language in talk can be itchy, but forms like didja, 4u, Inorite!, he Z yo wazzup?
and the like in anything that's meant to be read on its own are something like criminal.
The idea that suburban young people with an immigrant background from any major city now speak a particular, unified dialect which sets them apart from the others around the country, the "natives", had a big vogue in Sweden too some years ago, it's been bandied about by a couple of media pundits, bloggrrs and magazine/paper/radio entrepreneurs with some connections to those suburbs and more or less immigrant backgrounds. But nearly all of those who made a career by hanging on to those concepts are completely fluent in the standard language, they are able to write pages and pages of correct and coherent newspaper prose or blog posts without slipping into the lingo they say is the new dialect. They have never had any problems in that direction, most likely not even in elementary school - so in that way they're nowhere near like the mixing-language kids, often children of half-impoverished or jobless parents, that they claim to represent, those folks who are jumbling Spanish-inspired syntax, Arabic intonation and some Swedish, English and slang words. And sure enough they do not run the "ghettospeak" when talking to their bosses or doing interviews. the ghetto sauce is, well, something that gets sprinkled
over the stuff they write after the rest of the dish has been prepared and cooked.
Anyone can pick their own style repertory for sure, but when it is claimed that the new mixed language is, like, the road we gotta follow and that it should be accepted in writing also, in order not to insult the suburban kids, that's a dumb simplification of what happesn in language change. And it is also about exoticizing the population
of certain suburban districs, and this isn't really helpful.
I really don't buy the attitude "I am allowed to quarrel with my difficult brother for free, to smack him loudly on the head in public/in print/in a tv discussion, but *you* or anyone else that don't belong to our family (our special set, our particular ethnic, social or sexual class, our club for mutual glamourization and namechecking) can't use the same arguments I used - to him, to or about me, or anybody else of our "family". Yo, that's forbidden, that's exploitative." Excuse me but that's BS - most of the time. There are situations when you have to weigh in that some group has faced oppression and so on but it's not a catch-all thing with any one group to be making this sort of claim and say "no one can speak openly to my peers unless they first buy into their ways, their tastes and their special mindset". It's just a trendy way to mark out a half-private arena in the public space for talking and selling yourself and exempting yourself from talkback and feedback.