I’m writing in response to a recent article, by Isabelle Kerr about how the language of young people are destroying the future of the English language. I firmly disagree with her view as I believe young people use their language to help divide themselves from others and strengthen their relationships. She may disagree with our language because she does not understand it.  Therefore if she doesn’t understand the words then she won’t understand how they are useful to us young people.

Isabella Kerr refers to slang in her article as “linguistic calamities”, however she does not address how it can be useful. In my life, slang can be used as it helps people know where different people are from. If a person from a different area said “cuz”, “blud” or “bro” it would make us aware that they are not local. Firstly, slang strengthens the bonds between the community and it also helps the outsiders become more unique. Using slangs allows people from my community to recognise people from a similar background and who I can trust.

Isabelle Kerr is against the language that we kids are using. I know this because she goes on about this in several occasions. One of which is when she says ‘As a member of the younger generation … I can only apologise .’  This is wrong, she shouldn’t be ashamed of her generation’s language but instead be grateful, happy, she should be ashamed of herself for neglecting it.  The language we youth use is often extremely clever. The language is particular to our age, our location, our friendship groups, even what football team we support. Isabelle Kerr “apologies” for the language of young people. She claims to be young herself, however, at 20, she is already sounding more conservative than my dead great grandmother. 

Isabelle Kerr ignores how some slang can be sophisticated and useful. Isabelle Kerr refers to words like ‘vom’ which I admit is not useful. However, if we look at the acronym yolo it describes how you should enjoy life with dangers without fears of risks. This would be useful as there isn’t any word which can represent this very witty and creative side to slang. Additionally Isabella Kerr moans about words like “twerking” but would you prefer it if there were no new words created to describe something new?

She then ends her conclusion by saying how the language is already good and shouldn’t be changed and says ‘Shakespeare will be turning his grave’. Shakespeare himself wasn’t a very formal person and created words during his time some of which is used now. As he wasn’t very original he created a large range of words e.g. majestic, epileptic, circumstantial, he would be grateful delighted and positive about the language. He would feel negative towards the language and create words which are as unique as his own. In a pathetic and rushed attempt to persuade the audience she says ‘the Oxford dictionaries are awarding these dismal words a degree of permanence’ that is both unrealistic and unnecessary.

Isabella Kerr went on to say ‘these words give out the completely wrong impression’ , this isn’t true at all in fact the language represents the friendship which a group have, if you to use their distinguishing language only the group will understand which gives their friendship a more unique and special touch, it also dis-includes everyone else so they wont understand what they are talking about and as well the obvious factor which is that it is quicker.

People have different backgrounds and different tones and words may signify were there from and keep the background strong as well as helping others who may not know where from recognize their background. This is special and Isabella Kerr is fighting against keeping peoples origin alive this is wrong and every simple minded of her.