Dear Miss Kerr,

I have read and reviewed your article on modern day slang. You do not seem to agree with these words being added into the Oxford Dictionary, as you seem to believe that each of these words is a fad that will come and go, and that they are “linguistic calamities”. You believe that these words should not be added into the the Oxford dictionary, and that they should not be mixed in with the more elegant words in the English language. I disagree with you and am writing to tell you my own opinion on the matter.

Miss Kerr you argue that slang such as “wicked”, and “fugly” are no longer in use when communicating using slang any more, and have been replaced with “sick”, and “butters” even though they are all slang. However you do not understand that once a descriptive piece of slang has been overused it does not retain the same effect it once did. It is in the same context as when a writer overuses a certain word when doing a piece of writing; the word will lose its meaning when overused, and thus another must take its place. This is the same rule with descriptive words in slang.

You stated that “words like twerking, unlike and selfie are nothing more than slang which, just like any fashion trend, come and go”. Words that express emotion or are descriptive examples of slang tend to be fashion trends that “come and go”, however the slang words you quoted in this extract do not fall into these categories. The words in the extract above are all verbs that describe an action. Verbs are almost impossible to change which is why I disagree with you, my proof being, the verb ‘walk’ has not been replaced by any slang words as far as I know. The same goes for many other verbs. A slang version of any verb would be unneeded as most verbs aren’t meant to express anything or describe anything.

Throughout your article you slander anybody who uses slang, however most people only ever use slang when with their peers and in informal occasions, like talking to their friends. I for one, and I’m sure many others have enough common sense to know when to use slang or not. While talking to someone higher than myself, (e.g. a teacher, my parents) I tend to use formal English, as in some way I agree with your point that people that will use slang with people higher than them are seen as “apathetic, ASBO-wielding yobs who cant communicate properly”, to a certain extent.

At the beginning of your article you use the words, “Srsly though, these words make me wanna vom”. This extract is hardly even slang. These would be three examples of abbreviations that are hardly ever used outside of the digital. Newer technology has seen the introduction of newer language uses, (e.g. ‘LOL’ would be an abbreviation for ‘laugh out loud’). Abbreviations are used to make texting easier and slightly less time consuming, which is why it is logical and practical, and should not be ridiculed. Also the younger generation didn’t come up with the abbreviation technique, like they did with slang. Abbreviations are used in ordinary language too, some examples could be ‘I’m’ instead of ‘I am’, or ‘haven’t’ instead of ‘have not’.

In your article you wrote that the constant introduction of new slang is harmful to the English language, and that to have them in the Oxford dictionary would be an even worse idea than the words themselves. I disagree with you as one of the best screenwriters of all time William Shakespeare used vast amounts of slang when writing his own screenplays. These words are now in the Oxford dictionary and are also probably one of the words you consider to be “eloquent”. Shakespeare used many of these words and some of the ones we owe to him are still used today, e.g. disheartened. Shakespeare also created some of his own words by adding prefixes where they had not been seen before e.g. invulnerable, indistinguishable, inauspicious, among many others. You argue that “Shakespeare will be turning in his grave”, I’m sure that will only because of your own views. From your point of view Shakespeare is a despicable person for using slang and not using the “great”, “eloquent” words instead. To the rest of the world, however, Shakespeare is a literary god, and a father of language and not an “apathetic, ASBO-wielding yob who can’t communicate properly”, as you stated slang-users are.

Slang is not such a bad idea, and although recently there have been new additions to the slang language, slang has been in language for a long time. Most people know when slang is appropriate to use. With the introduction of new technology, and new methods of communication, (e-mail, instant messaging, etc.), the world has also seen the necessary change in language, to make it more practical to use when texting. If I haven’t convinced you that slang has some good qualities about it, I’m not sure what will.

Thank you for time and consideration Miss Kerr