“The
English language is in a bad way.” This quote from George Orwell sums up my
opinion on the subject. We can see this in just about everything, from
television to the Internet to books to everyday conversation. I am irked every
time I see or hear a word (literally) misused, or a word (weird) or phrase (I
know, right?) that has no meaning used so often that it seems like you are
swimming in the sewage of the language. These are examples of how the language
changes. “Weird”, for example, was a word used habitually some decades ago. Now
it is a word we use normally, again. We all know that change happens to
language, but what are the causes and effects of the changes, and can the
changes be stopped?
George
Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” was what started my thought
process on this topic. He explains in detail the problems that he saw and heard.
Ambiguous words, words that no one knows the meaning of because they were too
uncommon, words and phrases that are so old no one knows what they mean, and
generally complex language are all used to confuse, according to Orwell. At
least they were when Orwell wrote this. Orwell’s audience seems to be other
professional authors and writers. He believed that the decay is reversible.
“The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially
written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can
be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble” (par. 2). The point
is clearly stated and identified by Orwell. Now, because this article was made
in 1946, we can see how the world has or has not changed in the past seventy
years. Politicians were the main abusers in his time, but now we can see how this
problem is in just about everything: politics, law, science, art, music, etc.
Now, admittedly, if you are a specialist in one of these areas, you know the
language. But say you are an art major that loves science, and you get a
lawsuit against you. You may have no idea what to do. What even is a lawsuit?
All you know is that you need a lawyer who knows the language. These effects of
poor use of English are frequent in everyday life. Although I enjoyed Orwell’s
article, I have to find some newer sources that can identify the changes we are
dealing with today.
Looking
for new sources on my own at the library, I found a newspaper article, “Media
and the Degradation of Language” by Michael F. Curtin. This would not be one of
my first choices in using sources, despite its name. Whenever we hear the words
“bad language” we do not think of the poor uses of language; we think of
profanity. Profanity is the degradation in Curtin’s view; and, although it
might seem like that is irreversible, he says, “…there is reason for optimism”
(3). He compares it to three similarly disgusting habits: littering, drunk
driving, and public smoking. He says that all of these were stopped by public
determination to end them. Be that as it may, all of these were stopped not
only by public determination but also by laws, and although profanity may be a
similar problem, it has one subtle difference: it is protected by the freedom
of speech. It cannot have a law made against it. This article seems to be
written to the older generation that is worried about all the profanity going
around. It is about encouragement; to encourage the parents not to worry and to
encourage them to take a stand against the profanity: make it a big deal.
Curtin uses his three examples to provide a relatable standpoint that his
audience would remember. Overall, I think this was more helpful than I would
like to give it credit for: it helped me understand that profanity is part of
the degradation in language, maybe even a cause thereof. But even with this,
his logic falls apart in its argument that this change will be stopped. The
examples he gives are just different enough from profanity that they are not a
suitable metaphor.
Still
at the library, someone offered a book called Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss for a source. Truss shows
how the language is degenerating in the way we use punctuation. Sometimes we
get excited about punctuation, so much so that we overuse it. Even though we
want to use punctuation correctly and not just forget about it, we use it so
poorly that it changes the meaning of what we write. The purpose of language is,
after all, to communicate what we mean to say; and, if we cannot do that, what
is the point in it? Truss believes that proper writing can be achieved by
proper education. She points out instances that, with her audience, would be
relatable and possibly humorous because of the relation to everyday life. The
audience are “Grammar Nazis” in everything, people who want so badly to correct
others’ punctuation and misspellings that they are criticized when they do so.
Such uses of emotion are great for capturing attention, but when she tries to
educate the readers, it seems to me to be useless. The audience already knows
what she is trying to teach. Maybe it would be more helpful if the introduction
did not say, “… [Example] ‘Come inside… for CD’s VIDEO’S DVD’s and BOOK’S.’ If
this satanic sprinkling of redundant apostrophes causes you no little gasp of
horror or quickening of pulse, you should probably put down this book at once”
(6). In reality the people who are not offended by this punctuation are exactly
the audience she is trying to educate with the book after the introduction. Truss
seems to think that this particular “change” in the English language is
fixable, and I agree. Punctuation, no matter how much it is misused, will be a
part of a formula in writing. Misusing a formula will only get you into
trouble, so it will not become an English-affecting change.
When
I was away from the library I searched on Google for “language degradation.” One
of the sources I found was called “Global English” on PBS.org by David Rohde.
It showed me how the language is not just degrading inside the borders of
native speakers but also outside. This article was interesting because not only
does it say that the degradation is caused by foreigners trying to learn
English to have a common language, it also alludes that this spread is not
stoppable. This is a bit of a struggle for me because I have always thought
that it was stoppable and that it was altogether a bad thing. If everyone in
the world spoke one language it would unite the world in a way it has not been
since the Tower of Babel. We could finally put aside differences because we
could converse easily and clearly in one tongue. Maybe this spread of English
is not a bad thing, even with the problems it brings for the language. The
changes in the language are obviously problematic though. At this point you
would still have more than one language. You would have High English, which
would be the language you and I know. Then you would have the lower English,
which would be the pidgin Englishes that are already popping up around the
globe. You would also have a trade English, which is the broken English that
people everyplace are using right now to talk commerce and trade. This would be
worse than splitting up peoples by different languages. This source was a little
less biased than the others, and it had a more informative standpoint. Rohde
said “the spread of English can’t be halted.” This really took a different
opinion than the others. I was thinking that it would be possible to stop the
change if we actually tried. But now, the option is open for not being able to
stop it even if we try.
The
previous source got me thinking, so I decided to look for more along the same
lines and found an article on PBS.org by Walt Wolfram called “The Truth about
Change.” This was fairly similar in audience and purpose to the “Global
English” article, but was a bit more opinionated on the subject of change. “The
only language not in a perpetual state of flux is a dead language” according to
Wolfram. He thinks that the change is natural and acceptable. Change in
language is one of those things that is different all over the world. Although
the changes have side effects, they are not all that problematic. The main
changes start small and insignificant and subtly move into the language
unnoticed. Another thing the article said was that the media is not responsible
for the change, the society is. The change does not happen from television or
from impersonal celebrities who want change to happen; it happens when friends
say things and you want to be like them. This was informative, but it did not
have a lot of meaning to most of it. The last part of it was not even useful to
me. It seems to me that the article was more of a stance in impartiality
towards the subject saying that change just is, rather than pointing out the
problems with it.
After
reading all these sources I have come to think that the problem of change in
language is not stoppable, but we should do something about it still. The
articles that were against stopping the change were not so actively against it
as they were just stating fact. The ones for stopping change, or rather
reversing the changes that have already happened, are coming up with clever and
reasonable plans to stop it; but, as time shows, the language will not stop
changing. Perhaps instead of trying to stop the change we should shape it: mold
it into something we want it to be.
Curtin,
Michael F. "Media and the Degradation of Language." Vital Speeches of the Day 72. 20/21
(2006) p578-580. August 2006: Speech.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” Horizon April 1946: 252-265. Print.
Rohde,
David. “Global English.” PBS: Global
American; The Christian Science
Monitor. 2003. Web. 18 October 2015.
Truss,
Lynne. Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The
Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. New York: Gotham, 2006. Print.
Wolfram,
Walt. “The Truth about Change.” PBS: Language
Change. Web. 24 October 2015.
