Protecting the English Language from language used 100 years ago?

When making the argument that we must protect the English language against the dangers of new technologies and their new words and grammars, has anyone thought about how we would be texting each other if nothing had changed since Shakespearean language? Just a quick “u ok?” text would be “thee tis fine?” and take you 3 times the amount of characters. Surely it makes sense for the language we use to change and adapt to the way we are communicating, especially with the different technology we now use.

However, one thing everyone can agree on is that this doesn’t mean we should be using text speech in everyday conversations. Just as texts are meant to be quick messages that don’t always have to be perfectly constructed, conversations with people face-to-face shouldn’t be full of contractions. Saying “lol,brb” to someone, especially if they’re not familiar with the meanings, maybe because they’re from an older generation or just don’t use technology very often, is basically pointless because they won’t know what you’re saying and you would have to explain it, taking up more time.

This is a good example of showing that we are able to change the type of language depending on the context of the situation. If, for example, someone goes from texting a friend to writing a school essay, there will be a big difference in the language features used in the two. When teachers were asked if students using text speech in essays and exams was a problem, they said that they very rarely come across mistakes of using these features in their work because the students are able to differentiate the appropriate situations to use the language in.

The English language doesn’t need to be protected because there isn’t anything that is trying to destroy it. There has never been one English language that has travelled from the start of speech to now, it has constantly changed over time, and this is what’s happening now. There isn’t a way that we would be using the words and language we do now if there wasn’t changes over time. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the idea of degrees of appropriateness with the language used in different situations. In addition to this, the idea that abbreviations that are commonly associated with text speech and are thought to only now being introduced into our language were actually used 100 years ago and in Victorian times, and therefore cant be a danger to the languages as they have already been used in the past.

In conclusion, the English Language doesn’t need to be protected from language from new technology because it was either already used in the past and is just being used again in a new context, or we are able to use the degree of appropriateness and decide what language we use for the conversation were having.