Response to Jonh Humphrys

583 Words3 Pages
16 Crowland Road Tottenham London 23rd september 2013 The editor Tottenham Gazette Park End Street London Dear, sir/ madam at the Tottenham gazette I am writing a response to an article written by John Humphrys “how texting is wrecking our language”. Humphrys believes that texting is destroying our language and preventing our children from learning. This is so unfortunate as it is a proven fact that texting is an effective way of communicating and an asset to children spelling and development. Personally I disagree with some of the points and assumption that Humphrys has made. Firstly, Humphrys points out that “The Oxford English Dictionary has removed the hyphens from 16,000 words”in doing this he makes it sound like it was a fashion statement. This leads to Humphrys sub-consciously calling texters lazy for abbreviating words and missing out hyphens. This may seem true at first with most texters undoubtedly leaving out hyphens but if you look closely not all texters miss out punctuation even if they did the word is still understood. In addition most of the texts Humphrys refers to are between teenagers, and they understand each other enough not to send formal texts that they would send to they older – parents or older family members. If John Humphrys was to study the texts between an adult and teen he would see that the teens adapt their texting styles to suit the audience. Secondly, John Humphrys refers to texters as “vandals who are destroying our language” he clearly feels that texters are deliberately trying to damage the English language. However this is not the case because texters are not creating new words, they only use abbreviated words that they already know. For example the IOU has been around since the 1618, as is “SWALK” (sealed with a loving kiss) I accept that there are changes to our words and language but people come
Open Document