Editing LOL (section)

==Analysis==
Silvio Laccetti (professor of humanities at [[Stevens Institute of Technology]]) and Scott 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 'lol' when they read a report that lacks proper punctuation and grammar, has numerous misspellings, various made-up words, and silly acronyms."<ref name=LacettiStevens2003/><ref name=SIT2003/> Fondiller and Nerone in their style manual assert that smileys and abbreviations are "no more than e-mail slang and have no place in business communication".<ref name=FondillerNerone2007/>

Linguist John McWhorter stated, "Lol is being used in a particular way. It's a marker of empathy. It's a marker of accommodation. We linguists call things like that pragmatic particles..." 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. McWhorter stated that ''lol'' is utilized less as a reaction to something that is hilarious, but rather as a way to lighten the conversation.<ref>{{cite web|last1=McWhorter|first1=John|title=Txtng is killing language. JK!!!|date=April 22, 2013 |url=https://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk/transcript?language=en#t-485351}}</ref>

Frank Yunker and Stephen Barry, in a study of online courses and how they can be improved through [[podcast]]ing, 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. They single out the example of "ROFL" as not obviously being the abbreviation of "rolling on ''the'' floor laughing" (emphasis added).<ref name=YunkerBarry2006/> [[Matt Haig]] describes the various initialisms of Internet slang as convenient, but warns that "as ever more obscure acronyms emerge they can also be rather confusing".<ref name=Haig2001/> Hossein Bidgoli advises that such initialisms should be used "only when you are sure that the other person knows the meaning" as they "might make comprehension of the message more difficult for the receiver", and differences in meaning may lead to misunderstandings in international contexts.<ref name=Bidgoli2004/>

Tim Shortis observes that ROFL is a means of "annotating text with stage directions".<ref name=Shortis2001/> Peter 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. Or indeed, I may not actually laugh out loud but may use the locution 'LOL' to communicate my appreciation of your attempt at humor."<ref name=Hershock2003/>

[[David Crystal]] notes that use of LOL is not necessarily genuine, just as the use of smiley faces or grins is not necessarily genuine, posing the rhetorical question "How many people are actually 'laughing out loud' when they send LOL?".<ref name=Crystal2001/> Louis Franzini concurs, stating that there is as yet no research that has determined the percentage of people who are actually laughing out loud when they write LOL.<ref name=Franzini2002/>

[[Victoria Clarke]], in her analysis of [[telnet]] talkers, states that capitalization is important when people write LOL, and that "a user who types ''LOL'' may well be laughing louder than one who types ''lol''", and opines that "these standard expressions of laughter are losing force through overuse".<ref name=Clarke2002/> Michael Egan describes LOL, ROFL, and other initialisms as helpful so long as they are not overused. He recommends against their use in business correspondence because the recipient may not be aware of their meanings, and because in general neither they nor emoticons are in his view appropriate in such correspondence.<ref name=Egan2004/> June Hines Moore shares that view.<ref name=Moore2007/> So, too, does Sheryl Lindsell-Roberts, who gives the same advice of not using them in business correspondence, "or you won't be LOL."<ref name="Lindsell-Roberts2004"/>