I have to disagree with some of last week’s opinion piece “Texting language leaking into daily speech, academic areas.” I fully agree with the writer’s opinion that in academic and professional writing it is important to remain as formal and traditional as possible; steps into the casual should only be made after signaled OK by the superior party (for example, your professor or your boss). However, trying to stagnate the language by condemning all quirks of electronically-mediated language is futile.

Just ask Jonathon Swift, who wanted English to stop changing back in the early 18th century. Had he succeeded we would all be writing to each other completely differently. What is inherently wrong with saying “OMG” out loud instead of “oh my goodness?” Is it as wrong as saying “bus,” instead of “omnibus,” or “memo,” instead of “memorandum?” Even in her column, the writer uses the phrase, “Act intelligent,” using an adjective to modify a verb instead of using an adverb. But is she wrong for doing so? By the strictest, most prescriptivist standards? Yes. By the fluid changing standards of our language? No, I’d say she’s not.

The point of language is to get a message from one person to another. Even if the message is abbreviated, as long as it’s fully understood by the receptor, it is still so-called “correct” language. I applaud the writer for her urging students to think professionally in their professional lives, but keeping an open mind about language evolution is key to remaining sane in our technology-ridden world.

Emily Hadorn
English literature and professional writing major
Senior