I've been convinced by linguists (Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, etc) that it looks like evolution of syntax to convey meaning and emotions. Syntax evolution i

I've been convinced by linguists (Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, etc) that it looks like evolution of syntax to convey meaning and emotions. Syntax evolution isn't just introduction of old ideas like lowercase+uppercase, Capitalization rules, punctuation (spaces between words, periods & commas to mark rests & beats, etc). Syntax evolution also includes new strange word reorderings, deliberate word omissions, and deliberate word misspellings. I disagree with the other comment about The Culture Industry as an explanation. That's not relevant. Instead, people are trying to share extra meaning (emotion, irony, etc) through extra channels of new syntax manipulation. Let's say a writer wants to be sarcastic when writing out bad reasoning. Examples: Congress keeps buying tanks the Army does not need. Why? 1) explicit labeling of concept with backreference: "It's good because it maintains jobs. (That was sarcasm.)" 2) HTML tag inspired syntax: "<sarcasm>It's good because it maintains jobs.</sarcasm>" 3) /s (inspired by Unix command line switch?) "It's good because it maintains jobs. /s" 4) grammar incorrect because of missing words "Because jobs." (It's as if the general public is creating syntax options in English to parallel the computer language verbosity of Objective-C and Java EE to terseness of Perl and Haskell.) That type of word subtraction creates an interesting abruptness that conveys to the reader a meaning of idiocy or lunacy. Similar phrases can be constructed like "because freedom" or "because science". Why is the TSA now performing mandatory cavity searches of preschoolers? "Because freedom." The substraction of words may have been motivated by the mechanics of 2 thumbs typing on smartphones or the Twitter 140 char limit but I think even desktop users with 100wpm typing speed have adopted it.