Dear Isabelle Kerr
I do not agree with your statement about how our language has become “linguistic calamities”. An organism adapts when introduced to new environments over time. Costant stimulus causes the organism to evolve whether that be a mild alteration or a huge change in its biochemistry. If you did not understand that analogy, I’m in fact referring to language and how it changes to suite our traditions over periods of time. So it doesn’t die out, this can happen over thousands of years or it could happen in a matter of days. For example before the new generations “colloquial” language there were many alterations on Shakesperean English, we don’t hear words like “abatement” or “garbois” used very often this century. In addition the great father of modern english Shakespere created his own form of slang so I disagree that he will be turning in his grave. That is because, what you refuse to understand is that people change, and with that language changes, if it doesn’t change language would just die out,
I totally disagree with the statement that traditional youth slang is a “pitiful emblem” due to the fact that it’s just that; a tradition. Traditions change language like a TV remote changes channels. For example traditions have shaped the way we speak to each other. In Victorian England the lower class often spoke in Victorian slang with words like “tom tug” meaning idiot, but then tradition brought the upper class and lower class closer together which then caused language for the upperclass and the lower class to adapt to become similar with each other.
Now that brings me on to our generation, what tradition has caused an alteration in language, the Internet, arguably the greatest invention of this centuary and the greatest influence to culture, it has allowed language to evolve rapidly so change is obvious, hence your rant. When a creature evolves slowly, change is not really detected by others, however when a creature evolves quick, it is easily seen as something very different and thus easier to criticise.
However what we can both agree on is the “sexually provocative” “twerking” I agree that this kind of dance is not suitable. Which to an extent makes me too “embarrassed and ashamed” however this craze has taken “centre stage” thus it will die out like other popular crazes in the past.
When you critisise teens not using vowels in certain words, this could just be to shorten the word in text e.g the word “seriously”. You see what I’m inferring is that just cause language is changing as quick as traditions, does not mean it’s a bad thing even if that language is seen as “fugly” in your eyes, oh and by the way, youths barely use the words “butters” see how quick language is evolving.
I do not agree that these new additions to language are “bizarre, nonsensical or downright pointless”. So what if Oxford dictionary is giving some of these words like “selfie, unlike, digital detox, food baby” a degree of permanence, it means that our language is being noticed as advancing and being accepted. Youths are the futre, why can’t their language be celebrated rather than critisised? Youths shouldn’t be brainwashed into only using your so called “language of literary triumph” they should be free to use slang. In addition you state that these words are pointless, which is a ridiculous statement as some of these words make up a teens ideolect with their companions. So therefore how is it pointless.You also stated that new words should allow teens to “express themselves”, newsflash they do they express their individuality. As I stated earlier it’s a way to keep the English language alive, to keep the species alive or else it could just go extinct.
As you can see I feel very strongly about this topic this is due to the fact that I’ve lived to see language change as people have changed, it’s a literary phenomenon which I believe should be accepted not hated.
Your Sincerely Jaber kabiri
January 25, 2015 at 6:25 pm
Jaber, this is an interesting response to the task set. Your approach is original and interesting to read.
Targets:
1) Your sentence structures throughout the piece (particularly the first paragraph) need some work. Many are far too long.
2) You must ensure you are taking points from the original article and developing your response around these. Your reading grade is severely limited as a result of the lack of points taken from the original piece.
Current grade:
Writing: 30/40 (C1)
Reading: 4/10 (E3)
January 29, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Jaber, this is a hugely improved draft.
Targets:
1) Your second to last paragraph is the strongest in regards to challenging Kerr’s argument. This style should permeate the rest of your work.
2) You should check some of your sentences to ensure the structure is secure.
3) Develop more of the writer’s original arguments within your article.
Current grade:
Writing: 30/40 (C1)
Reading: 5/10 (E1)
February 3, 2015 at 9:21 am
Targets:
1) I think you need a clearer introduction that outlines your position on the topic. At the moment it is a little unclear and you begin responding to a point from the article within the text.
2) Your paragraphs need restructuring. There are times when a new paragraph should be started because your point changes.
3) I am not sure your point about Elizabethan language is valid as these words didn’t make it into the dictionary. Remember this debate is about slang in the dictionary, not slang in general. Be clear about this.
4) ‘Yours sincerely’ needs a capital letter. Check for other simple grammatical errors.
Current grade:
Reading: 5/10 (E)
Writing: 33/40 (B)
March 26, 2015 at 7:43 am
Jaber, you’ve spelled Shakespeare incorrectly, without a capital letter.
You need to check that the logic of your letter makes sense and builds from one paragraph to the next.
You need to respond to points from the article more closely.
Reading: 6/10
Writing: 33/40