To the Editor,
I am responding to the article (‘Twtr?Its majorly bad!’)
posted of March 24th on the Mail Online.
The article is very well written but some of the points
mentioned within have been exaggerated and very much generalized. I think that
the title above could have been just a normal abbreviation (I understand
Twitter is a social network of which brevity is pushed) but to generalize the
whole app as being “majorly bad” and from my point of view you are underlining
Twitter as the cause of of “Pupils eroding language”.
On another topic, I completely disagree with some of the
article subheadings of which are majorly generalized. For example “Hitler was majorly bad' and 'Hamlet was
mental' also written in work” does not necessarily mean that the whole grade or
class writes these things. I think that this is very harsh and the article
overall can be looked at as over exaggerated.
I and many others
feel as Text speak to be great for kids. 80 % of texters are adults and use text
speaks often. In order for people to abbreviate words they must know how to say
and spell the world and therefore does not degrade language at all. I can agree
that social and interactional factors are mainly negative but the fact is that
language has had a positive impact due to text speak. The language is enriched
and helps many of us understand language rather than misinterpret language. I
strongly disagree with the article and teacher who suggests that it erodes pupil’s
language and therefore bans it. Kids must also practice reading and writing. Text-speak is a form of both reading and writing and can vastly improve literacy- Grades have been proven to be better if they text or use text speak. I hope you understand the consequences of the article and how text speaks is better for an average pupil rather than than therestricted standard use of language. Professor David Crystal is an expert of linguist and has had a supported theory that text speak does indeed improve literacy skills.
Kind regards.
Kind regards.
