This article is about the internet slang acronym. Laugh out loud” redirects pdf read out loud online. It was first used almost exclusively on Usenet, but has since become widespread in other forms of computer-mediated communication and even face-to-face communication. Other unrelated expansions include the now mostly obsolete “lots of luck” or “lots of love” used in letter-writing.
These initialisms are controversial, and several authors recommend against their use, either in general or in specific contexts such as business communications. LOL was first documented in the Oxford English Dictionary in March 2011. Molski, in their essay entitled The Lost Art of Writing, are critical of the terms, predicting reduced chances of employment for students who use such slang, stating that, “Unfortunately for these students, their bosses will not be ‘lol’ when they read a report that lacks proper punctuation and grammar, has numerous misspellings, various made-up words, and silly acronyms. Fondiller and Nerone in their style manual assert that “professional or business communication should never be careless or poorly constructed” whether one is writing an electronic mail message or an article for publication, and warn against the use of smileys and abbreviations, stating that they are “no more than e-mail slang and have no place in business communication”.
It’s a marker of empathy. It’s a marker of accommodation.
Pragmatic particles are the words and phrases utilized to alleviate the awkward areas in casual conversation, such as oh in “Oh, I don’t know” and uh when someone is thinking of something to say. Yunker and Barry in a study of online courses and how they can be improved through podcasting have found that these slang terms, and emoticons as well, are “often misunderstood” by students and are “difficult to decipher” unless their meanings are explained in advance.
He describes the various initialisms of Internet slang as convenient, but warns that “as ever more obscure acronyms emerge they can also be rather confusing”. Shortis observes that ROFL is a means of “annotating text with stage directions”. Hershock, in discussing these terms in the context of performative utterances, points out the difference between telling someone that one is laughing out loud and actually laughing out loud: “The latter response is a straightforward action. The former is a self-reflexive representation of an action: I not only do something but also show you that I am doing it.