Killing Our Language: A Short Story

In the article “2b or not 2b”, David Crystal begins with discussing how others such as John Humphry argued that texters are “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors 800 years ago. They are destroying it” (335). This is also the common belief of most people. People often argue about the bad points of technology over our language. However, Crystal believes that texting can improve children’s ability to read and write rather than hinder their literacy as many people claim. He also argues that not all texting are done in abbreviated words. Complex messages and institutional messages are often texted in standard form of

Texting is harming the ability for this current generation of children to write in a formal manner. “Digitalk” is what Kristen Hawley Turner of Fordham University calls, text-speak.For example, many teens will text “g2g” in replace of the actual words “got to go”.In my opinion, texting is ruining students’ abilities to write a formal essay,letter,etc.

We as a society are evolving with each generation to come. We are getting stronger, faster, and smarter. Just as cell phones are no longer square blocks with numbers on them and TV’s are not in black and white, writing itself has also evolved. Once upon a time many wrote and spoke in a Shakespearean form of language and over the years it has evolved into something we call modern English. In recent years, technology has advanced greatly and cell phones have become one of our primary use of communication. With cell phones came a new form of writing called text messaging. Text messaging is used to send short, concise messages to anyone around the world. Often times text messages involve the use of abbreviations which stand for different things and also involves frequent use of emoji’s as a form of expression. This form of writing is now considered informal writing and is not acceptable in academic settings. In Michaela Cullington’s essay “Does Texting Affect Writing?” she touches on both sides of whether texting is hindering students writing or if it’s actually having a positive effect. She then makes is clear that she believes most students are educated enough to know when text speak is appropriate and when it’s not so therefore it has no effect on students. Although, I agree with her thesis, she lacks credibility due to her insufficient evidence. In addition, I also believe

Recently I read ‘Feed’, by M.T Anderson, a dystopian novel about how advancement in technology is negatively affecting our society and the way we communicate with each other. The author led me to believe that these advancements, such as texting, are causing our language to deteriorate. Further research proves that texting may be improving and many are learning to accept. When the era of the written word dies, will we be left with an illiterate generation with poor grammar? Students are texting constantly. In and out of class, it is becoming a bigger and bigger part of their lives. Some might say that we are creating a less literate generation, but research shows that texting improves student literacy for three reasons. First, texting improves

After reading Texting and Writing, by Michaela Cullington, I do not agree with many of her viewpoints. Cullington argues that texting does not affect a students writing. Textspeak, the abbreviation and shortening of words like used when writing a text message, does affect the way a student writes because they use the abbreviations, and their writings tend to lack punctuation. When a writer uses excessive abbreviations on a regular basis they can get stuck in the writer’s head causing them to use them in all of their writings. Cullington did make good points of her own opinion on texting and writing in her piece, but I disagree with her and believe that texting and

Texting has become a common way of communicating between peers. It isn’t just used to chat with your friends, it has also become essential in the workplace, creating a bigger connection between work and your personal life. An article was published on The Liberal on the risks of texting, but I actually believe texting is great for us. It has made communication easier and its negative impacts are very avoidable. The risks mentioned in the article are the driving impairments, the physical injuries, and the effect it can have on your grammar. Although these risks seem dangerous, they can be avoided easily.

In the United States there are fifty one million people that can speak and understand another language.

1. In paragraph 3, Fairman says that the history of offensive words shows that “words themselves are not the culprit.” What does he mean? Do you agree with his rationale?

The way in which our world functions today is a result of colonialization. Language death and linguistic endangerment is woven with colonialization and the history of oppression toward indigenous communities. We cannot speak of language death without first acknowledging the speakers and the systematic oppression that indigenous communities continue struggling to resist. In present time language shifts due to economic incentive of hegemony and the mediating role of language ideologies are two of the most important causes of language death. Language shift and language ideologies that ultimately cause language death are current consequences of colonialization. The death of a language has both of linguistic and cultural consequences to the particular community affected and to the world’s diversity as a whole. Languages serve as carries of cultural knowledge, as identity and verbal art, hence when a language is lost cultural resources, identity and verbal art are lost.

Everyone has heard adults complaining and debating about how texting is destroying the younger generation’s ability to write and speak properly. However, people have argued agnaist this point. “Texting properly isn’t writing at all — it’s actually more akin to spoken language,” writes John McWhorter in Is Texting Killing the English Language?. McWhorter has a quite different opinion on if texting is destroying the English Language. He argues that texting is just a way of writing that reads like speaking, which is now the way people communicate with each other.

Subsequently after reviewing your diabolical rant about texting "wrecking our language", I strongly disagree with your argument for multiple reasons. Initially you present your compassion for our language as you mention how the OED 'has removed the hyphen from no fewer than 16,000 words'. Your initial response to this demonstrates how unsophisticated you are as a person, in addition to how your effortlessly effected by minor issues such as hyphens resultantly being removed from the OCD .

Many people do not realize that a language can become extinct, it can die. In New Mexico, many Spanish speaking families decide not to teach their children their language. This does not mean that the language is dead; it means that the language will gradually die within the family since it will not be passed on to the younger generations. Multiple factors influence the decision for not teaching the next generation Spanish. Many of these families become ashamed of their ethnic origin or want to feel accepted.

In the article” Is Texting Killing the English Language?” from TIME, they start the article off with one critic referring to texting as the downfall for the written word. “Penmanship for illiterates,” The article goes not agree with the critic. The article explains that texting is the new kind of talking. In these times there is hardly any hand written correspondence. If you want to reach out to someone you send then an email or the most common is a text. Texting has made reaching out to someone so easy and convenient. If you have a thought, or an idea you grab your phone and send a text message. You usually have a response within seconds. I don’t think that technology is killing the written language; I feel that it is just making it easier to have quick communication with others. I feel that texting is like short hand you are abbreviating words to get your message across quickly. Our society is so rushed and

Language is the inevitable medium that people use as a means of communication. However, how that person uses the language that they have varies from person to person. Some view language as a persuasive political instrument and others view it as a means of expression and empowerment. In the essay “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” by James Baldwin, he was able to illustrate the history of the discrimination of language and how black English is not accepted as its own language. Baldwin also shows that due to the lack of acknowledgement of black English, it lacks the power it needs to empower the people who speak it. In the essay “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell, he was able to break down language and explain how language shapes reality. Orwell expresses that he is not considering the literary use of language, but language is an instrument of expression and the promotion of cognitive deliberation and persuasion. Furthermore, both these authors agree that language is a political instrument, however, Baldwin uses this instrument to unite people and Orwell uses the instrument to persuade people.

Lauren Collister is correct in arguing that, instead of ignoring or deriding the variation in written language, embracing the change in language and the ability of speakers and writers to code-switch can lead to better communication skills in all contexts. In agreement with her point, she describes that text messaging is a conversation that involves a lot of back and forth, which is right because people use textspeak, not to generate thoughtfulness and literary communication, but to keep in contact and facilitate communication. We see this with the increased use of ellipses, which can invite the recipient to continue the conversation, says Collister by giving an example of the period which is a definitive stop that signals, as linguistics professor Mark Liberman has explained, “This is final, this is the end of the discussion” (qtd. in Collister). To recall, she says earlier this year, psychologist Danielle Gunraj tested how people perceived one-sentence text messages that used a period at the end of the sentence; whereby, participants thought these text messages were more insincere than those that didn’t have a period. “Texting is lacking many of the social cues used in actual face-to-face conversations,” lead researcher Celia Kin said in