Response to Article by Isabelle Kerr

Isabelle Kerr’s article argues that slang is ruining the English language and new words being added (twerking, selfie and unlike) are pointless and appalling. Kerr is even embarrassed on behalf of her generation. Although she hates that they were added to the online dictionary, she also feels that they will just come and go as a fashion trend. Kerr used the example of “Groovy”, and argues “when was the last time you heard someone describe something as “groovy”?  I agree with the use of slang and I feel what she is arguing for is irrelevant and of no concern to her and the way she speaks. All Isabelle Kerr is doing is insulting the way some people speak and I believe this is unacceptable and an unfair judgement to make.

The new additions are described by Isabelle Kerr as “pointless”. If society is using these words frequently, then it’s clear that they are worth a little more respect than you give them credit for. All of these words have meaning, whether the meaning is important is debatable, but clearly these words are widely spoken amongst today’s society and could be considered as popular terms when the amount of people who use them is taken into account. and some people may think they are only used amongst the stereotypical youth, but with a new generation of people, comes a new generation of words and this evolution deserves to be a part of the Oxford online dictionary.

The complaining continues as she argues that it’s a: “constant battle for young people to prove we’re not all pathetic, ASBO-wielding yobs…” but by starting her article with a sarcastic tone on how young people use this language, she is only reinforcing this judgement. Her attempts of sarcastic humour begin to dry thin as she mentions that she had to “google this word”, this, however,  was not a sloppy attempt to be humorous but a common use of slang. ‘Google’ is a fairly recent addition to the ‘Colloquial dictionary’ and has only recently been used as a verb (‘googling’) and her demise towards slang should ensure that she doesn’t use a sliver of colloquial language but she somehow manages to, which just brings her argument to the ground and only continues to be buried deeper.

The article goes on to define ‘twerk’ followed by a sarcastic “Right.”.  The English language is evolved by us. The People. If ‘the people’ are unliking then add unlike to the dictionary. If the people are twerking then add twerk to the dictionary. This is the evolution of the English language, NOT the downfall. ‘The people’ must have seen Shakespeare as mad for creating new words, but the people followed and allowed the English language to take shape. This is a process you can’t stop and this may be just a fashion trend but currently it is a part of our language. It may end up as something from the distant past, but it will still be remembered. Not many people may use ‘Groovy’ but many people will still be able to define it and it is still a part of the English language.

Kerr then makes a very bold statement,  “the future of the English language looks bleak.” Using three words to determine the future of the English language is inaccurate and just a daft prediction. She then begins to apologise for “these linguistic calamities” on behalf of ‘her generation’. I agree that these additions do relate heavily to “image, reputation and sex” but you could still say that these words are about people ‘expressing themselves’ as today’s generation care more about how they look and the image they reflect towards other people. Kerr then backs up her points using her trusted source of her “twitter followers” She uses tweets from her, arguably, biased followers, which is just pathetic and argues, she is not alone.

Kerr complains that ” Twerk, selfie and unlike” do not reflect on how youths speak but then counters the point and argues that if they do then “The dictionary needs a reality check”. The new additions were placed onto the online dictionary, which can be easily altered or deleted. Which is the great thing about the internet, it’s not permanent and never will be. It’s fair for the online dictionary to add these popular terms to help individuals searching for the definitions and can only benefit the online dictionary for this purpose. Kerr says the additions are not doing us any favours, but are they doing any harm?

Isabelle Kerr’s Article raises strong arguments and views. She questions slang and argues that it is unacceptable for twerk, selfie and unlike to be used in the online dictionary. I believe it is our right to have these commonly used words within the online dictionary. If it was being published in the form of a book then many more would have a problem with it, but many are currently using these words on a daily basis and the rest rely on using online dictionary’s to find out more. This is all apart of today’s digital generation, Which Kerr refuses to accepted but the majority decide the popularity of these new words and if it is just a trend then they could remove it online with ease. The problem doesn’t lie with the words being published onto a dictionary, the problem lies within the connotations of the word and how the words can be used to better our society. Only time will tell if these words do better our means of communication. All words have their purposes and Isabelle Kerr may just be afraid of how these drastic changes will affect us. New words will always bring positive outcomes.

Joe Daniels