David Crystal Opposing View
Krishna Manda
Barbara Abendschien
COM 122 NNS
March 8, 2013
E2
English is the most volatile language of all the languages. Something new and spicy is constantly being added to this mixture in this large cauldron. First, the Anglo-Frisian dialects started brewing this potion, and since then, every generation has contributed something new to the potion and used it in their time and passed it on to the future generations. Today, we have taken a part of this and started brewing another potion called “The language of texting”. Unlike English, we extract stuff out of this cauldron and pass it on to the future generations. It tastes good for a short time but, over a period of time when most of the essence is taken out, this cauldron turns out to be a pile of rubbish. The language of texting was invented on the sole purpose of conveying a message clearly and phonetically. Now texting has digressed off its original idea and is irreversibly harming English grammar.
“RSVP.” For those of you who don’t know, RSVP stands for please reply. This is how the new language of texting looks like. It has completely no relation to whatsoever it means. It has no grammar, words that directly refer to a word. It
P2
Opposing View: David Crystal builds his claims based on six main points: (1) in a typical text message, less than 10% of the words are abbreviated; (2) abbreviating has been in use for decades, and thus is not a new language; (3) children and adults alike use text language, the latter being more likely to do so; (4) students do not habitually use abbreviations in their homework and examinations; (5) before people can text, they must first know how to spell. Texting can therefore not be a cause of bad spelling; (6) since texting provides people with the opportunity of engaging with the language through reading and writing, it improves people’s literacy. A third school of thought contends that it has no effect on grammar. In the modern advances of texting, all
Barbara Abendschien
COM 122 NNS
March 8, 2013
E2
English is the most volatile language of all the languages. Something new and spicy is constantly being added to this mixture in this large cauldron. First, the Anglo-Frisian dialects started brewing this potion, and since then, every generation has contributed something new to the potion and used it in their time and passed it on to the future generations. Today, we have taken a part of this and started brewing another potion called “The language of texting”. Unlike English, we extract stuff out of this cauldron and pass it on to the future generations. It tastes good for a short time but, over a period of time when most of the essence is taken out, this cauldron turns out to be a pile of rubbish. The language of texting was invented on the sole purpose of conveying a message clearly and phonetically. Now texting has digressed off its original idea and is irreversibly harming English grammar.
“RSVP.” For those of you who don’t know, RSVP stands for please reply. This is how the new language of texting looks like. It has completely no relation to whatsoever it means. It has no grammar, words that directly refer to a word. It
P2
Opposing View: David Crystal builds his claims based on six main points: (1) in a typical text message, less than 10% of the words are abbreviated; (2) abbreviating has been in use for decades, and thus is not a new language; (3) children and adults alike use text language, the latter being more likely to do so; (4) students do not habitually use abbreviations in their homework and examinations; (5) before people can text, they must first know how to spell. Texting can therefore not be a cause of bad spelling; (6) since texting provides people with the opportunity of engaging with the language through reading and writing, it improves people’s literacy. A third school of thought contends that it has no effect on grammar. In the modern advances of texting, all