Is slang ruining the English language ?

NO !!!!!!!!!

Informal words and expressions that are not considered standard English - otherwise known as slang has always been a subject of great lament for prescriptivists who perceive it to be an indicator of a low or disreputable character and the  driving force in the "deterioration" of the English language. This contention is to ignore both the functions and history of slang. 

The use of the vernacular has always attracted criticism, particularly from older generations who feels as though the language innovations of the youth are ruining the language. This is often due to the inherent function of slang in defining a social group and asserting its values through language. Young people especially are experimental with their language across a range of contexts so as to express their different individual and social identities through building covert prestige. The tribal nature of slang as expressed by David Crystal "the chief use of slang is to show that you're one of the gang" means that it can isolate anyone who is not privvy to the linguistic paradigm of a particular social group. This is often the case with older generations who feel threatened when they don't understand what the kids are talking about.

This is nothing new, but thanks to the ubiquitous nature of technology and the increasing pervasiveness of social media, the slang that may have once been confined to one environment, such as school, is spread far and wide at an unprecedented rate. This concept is reflected in the prevalence of text speak such as "OMG" "lol" and "yolo" in the popular lexicon.

When considering whether young people are indeed destroying our language, it is imperative to think about it with an understanding of linguistic history. Words which we would all think of as Standard English such as "capture" "fun" "nowadays" and "pants" were once argued to be too informal in the 17th century by people like Samuel Johnson. In our own context, of course this notion seems ridiculous.

Despite this, the UK government is being warned that teenagers of today can "barely talk", possessing a vocabulary of only 800 words, much of which is comprised of text-speak and slang. This phenomenon is, apparently rendering teens as unemployable and is being blamed on the prevalence of technology and social media. However, these findings were based predominately upon transcripts of day-to-day communication with peers and similarly aged individuals. Given the social function of language to facilitate solidarity through covert prestige which, especially in young people, is achieved through a typically low level of formality and use of individualistic slang and idioms, these findings are flawed. In contrast to the study, Moniker Wagner (of the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English) states that in her 15 years of experience in the classroom, students have demonstrated and awareness of context and appropriateness, known linguistically as descriptivism, which sees them able to switch between essay writing language and playground language. Similarly, Monash University professor of linguistics Kate Burridge  backs up this claim, stating that young people in fact write very well, and not at all like how they speak (unless the context calls for it)

Interestingly,  in encouraging text-speak and slang within popular lexicon, it seems as though Electronically Mediated Communication is facilitating a shift in societal attitudes towards Standard and Non Standard varieties of English.

According to a recent study by Knox University in Galesburg, writers whose emails include more errors were believed to be more apathetic, and participants were more likely to assume the writer was a superior.  It seems that typo-laden, abbreviation-ridden and grammatically incorrect emails are perceived to be a sign of social dominance as it implies that the writer of the "sloppy" email is too busy to adhere to the Standard conventions of English and that their audience is not significant enough to warrant such attention to detail.

Similarly, deliberate lack of punctuation (specifically question marks) seems to insinuate a similar type of social hierarchy in by rendering the modality of a request higher to make them seem peremptory.  This phenomenon was addressed in a recent Huffington Post article by Susan Cain who contends that the elision of the question marks in question are not born from laziness, but deliberate social cues in an attempt to signal power and authority
As the shift towards descriptivism progresses, it is inevitable that young people will extend their already sufficient knowledge of context and social appropriateness. A negative approach to slang is to disregard its value. Slang includes some of the most vulgar, but equally expressive language in all of English. The fact that young people can adorn their language with such irony, creativity and wit whilst simultaneously building social connections is an undeniably positive thing. A prescriptivist approach to informality overlooks the value of slang in expressing insight into how we think and feel as humans as well as being a reflection of social climate and pop culture.