In the article; “Why blaming social media for ‘dumbing down’ language is a flawed argument”, Lauren Fisher disagrees with Ralph Fiennes’s theory that social media, especially Twitter is accountable for deliberate diminution of the English language.
Firstly, Fisher states change is often viewed negatively thus the inability to cater to the evolution of English language is not accepted. Secondly, the writer claims language is not a fixed entity and therefore, the ability to use a shorter form of language is not a bad thing. This is especially so when it’s intended meaning is well understood. ‘Brevity is the soul of wit’, as Shakespeare defined that it is an art to express something in few words. Thirdly, she further goes on to say that lesser rules are imposed to the foundation of grammatical rules, which is recognized by many others. Lastly, Fisher also suggests communicating in short-form builds up a new skill. She concludes by saying, with English language evolution, the need and its usage for short-form should be given its due recognition.
Learning something new is always deemed positive thus building new skill is definitely an asset on our learning curve, however, I do not agree that change is not viewed positively, short form with restricting vocabulary is acceptable and it’s own foundation of grammatical rules are satisfactory.
English language is evolving, and this is due to a massive technological shift and geography (Kane, Omniglot.com). I disagree on Fisher’s argument that change is often viewed negatively, thus the inability to cater to the evolution of the English language is not accepted. With the advancements in technology today, words are transmitted faster through social media as compared to before where it took years. Words such as “LOL” and “OMG” are recognized in the dictionary today (Kolowich, 2014). Moreover, Twitter was voted as the highest rising social platform in the world (Hedencrona, 2013) and we have users from different age group...