Change is Well
Novelist and Language professor, George Bernard Shaw, complained “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it” (readprint.com 2006). Shaw may be directly referencing the people of England, but scholars and teachers of American English also identify with Shaw’s feelings about the English language. Educated people share the idea that, by allowing children to use slang, contractions, and “bad grammar”, the English language is being watered down and destroyed. However, linguists understand that this supposed “degradation” of English, or any other language, is a necessary change that all languages must undergo throughout time in order for the language to stay active. Mario Pei, a linguist, once accused the editors of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of 1961, of confusing “to the point of obliteration, the older distinction between standard, substandard, colloquial, vulgar, and slang” (Pei 1961) . Upper class and educated speakers of English have developed a system of euphemistic phrases that sound more scientific or pleasant than simple and vulgar words. This practice has existed since the very beginning of the language. English is a “Creole” language; a language composed of other languages. The language was derived from a combination of several dialects of the Germanic tribes of the English isles, the most prominent of which was the Anglo-Saxon tribe. However, when the Normans invaded and conquered those tribes, they enforced a French/Latin government on the people, forcing them to use French-based words. The Anglo-Saxon vocabulary initially consisted of simple, descriptive words like father, land and work, whereas the Latin words represent abstract ideas and education, words like concentrate, crucifix, and primate.
Because the Latin Normans were a more educated and refined culture, their words became the words of the upper class, and the language of the working-class Anglo-Saxons became vulgar and taboo. A perfect example of that distinction is still common today, as modern English speakers prefer the scientific, refined sound of the Latin word vagina to the harsh, Anglo-Saxon word, cunt. The two words have the exact same meaning, but because one sounds better, and was enforced by upper class, the other became taboo, and vulgar. We still look down on lower classes that use simple words in place of scientific, or drawn-out verbiage, even though the difference is nothing more than sound and origin.
Those people who speak “proper” English perceive slang and bad grammar as a threat to the wellbeing of the English language. Educated persons tend to judge others on their accent and ability to use correct grammar, and society labels those people who are not well spoken and grammatically correct as linguistic degenerates. Persons who speak English with a heavy foreign accent are often looked down upon as uneducated and Neanderthal, regardless of their education and intelligence level.
While language purists fight the losing battle of forcing generation after generation to conform to the rules and anomalies of English, linguistic experts know that the “degeneration” of English is not necessarily a prediction of the language’s downfall, but a necessary change that every language must go through in order to stay active.
One of the most famous lines of a poem comes from Shakespeare’s sonnet116: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” While current speakers of English view Shakespeare’s English as proper and flawless, it is important to understand that Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets for the poor people of England. He was known as a writer that everyone could enjoy, regardless of education. By that standard, Shakespeare did not use the educated, formal language of the aristocracy. He used common English. It is important also, to notice that His form of English is archaic, meaning is has changed and morphed in order to conform to the word in which it is spoken. For example, several common articles have been replaced, such as thee and thou. Perhaps language purists of the past were made uncomfortable when modern people began to say your instead of thine.
Shakespeare is known by English speakers as one of the most influential persons in the creation and change of the language. Shakespeare alone introduced hundreds of words to the language, including the infamous f-word. Without Shakespeare, the endless synonyms that English utilizes might not exist. What makes Shakespeare different from a modern rap musician? Several words and word modifications have recently been added to the English lexicon via rap songs and artists. The word Bling, recently added to the English lexicon by rap group Cash Money Millionaires, means excessive jewelry. While the word is considered a slang term, it fits the definition of an actual word. A word is a unit of language that carries meaning. Linguists consider a unit of language a word if it has a meaning understood by more than one person. bling is a word just as much as word is a word.
Words must be added to languages in order for a language to continuously adapt to changes in the physical world. For example, the name for an acoustic guitar was not formed until the invention of an electric guitar. With new words come new parts of speech and new ways to use the words that we already have. Few people understand that words do not have a specific part of speech. A noun is only a noun if it is placed in the noun part of a sentence. In other words, for a linguistic purist to correct someone for using a noun as an adjective is pointless. If the word is in the adjective place of a sentence, then that word is an adjective.
While some linguist purists understand and embrace the addition and subtraction of new words to our language, many have a hard time understanding that, like words, grammar and syntax must also change in a living language. English Teachers have spent the past century telling students to say “I am well” in place of “I am good” as if the language police will handcuff the grammatically incorrect children and lock them up for breaking a grammatical rule that the majority of society breaks. Of course teachers and linguistics alike feel that English should be taught properly, and that the rules of the language must be adhered to, but the problem is that students are being taught to use rules that are changing right under their noses.
A major problem with English grammar began, once again, when the Normans invaded the Anglo-Saxon tribes. After years of mixing the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary with French/Latin grammatical systems and vocabulary, the result is an amalgamation of suffixes, infixes, and prefixes—parts added to the beginning, middle, or end of a word to create a new meaning—that are mismatched and make little sense. Unlike classical languages, English does not follow any specific rule for prefixes or suffixes. In fact, in spoken English, the only phonetic rule that always works in every situation is the “mn” rule, which states three rules of pronunciation:
Because of the Creole nature of English, the rules that govern the language are complicated and easily confused. Even native speakers often make fundamental mistakes in their speech. The change, or “degradation” of our language is an attempt to simplify the rules and make the language uniform.
The average person learns to speak through listening and imitating other people. The change in language comes when generation after generation of children learn the same grammatical inconsistencies from their parents and, in turn, pass those inconsistencies on to their own children. This brings about a grass-roots change in the way English is both spoken and written. Language should not be a force to be feared, yet educated people across America seem afraid to break a grammatical rule, lest the language police snatch them up like the child who said good instead of well.
The truth is, however, that grammar is not a set entity. It is not carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. Most linguist experts cannot agree on most of the commonly disputed rules. The good vs. well rule, for example, is almost always used wrong by the very people who feel impressed upon to enforce it. Linguists often argue whether the words do not mean the same thing in the context of describing one’s self. Formally, all of those people who insist that saying I’m good or I feel good is wrong, may be incorrect, depending on what is being described. If someone says, I feel well, that could mean that he or she knows how to feel things skillfully. Rather, one would say I feel good, because good describes I, not feel.
Grammar was not even an issue until the invention of the printing press in the late 1450’s by Johannes Gutenberg. Before the press, written English varied across England as people spoke the language they were taught by their parents. Only after the press made printed language less expensive and time consuming, did the first rules of grammar begin to be enforced as printers attempted to make the language universal. At first, even common words were spelled differently according to the printer who printed them. After the discrepancies between spelling and word order became a problem, rules began to be formed, allowing printers and readers alike to come to a common agreement on the spelling and arrangement of words. The point of the rules was not to create a perfect, unified, pure language, but to prevent each printer from phonetically spelling words and arranging sentences according to his own ideas about the language. Without these rules, the spelling of many of the words we use today might be much different.
Centuries after the rules of English were agreed upon, and after English became the primary language of the new America, John Adams proposed a “national academy to be established…to standardize American English, but this view was roundly rejected as not in keeping with the goals of liberty and justice for all” (“National American?” 2005). John Adams was not the first person with ideas about purifying and standardizing a language. According to An Introduction to Lantuage, a popular textbook on Linguistics, the ancient Greek grammarians in Alexandria (200-100 B.C) tried and failed to purify their version of Greek, insisting that it was different, and therefore, less pure than the Greek spoken by Homer. Throughout time, linguists have tried in vain to purify one language or another to its original form, and all have failed. (456).
Regardless of the attempt made by linguists and scholars to enforce and maintain the rules and vocabulary of the English language, if enough people continue to misuse the rules, the rules will change. Language change is not an executive decision. It is a grass-roots change, meaning it changes from the common people and moves its way to the experts. No one person decides one day to add a word to the dictionary and then sends a memo to every English speaking person on the planet to explain the addition. The word must be used commonly enough that it almost adds itself to the lexicon.
The point is, the rules and constant debates over the rules have become so complicated, that the rules are beginning to change and simplify. People who speak English seem to assume that English came pre-packaged like a new laptop with a power cord, wireless card, and mouse, and everything needed, but that is not true, especially, without the constant change of our language, there would be no such words as cord, wireless, card, or laptop, and even mouse has developed a new meaning. No one person opened the box labeled English, read the manual, and found the power chord to plug the language in and use it; the English language evolved over thousands of years, and it is still evolving, simplifying itself as generation after generation of people subconsciously use “bad grammar” that is less complicated and makes more sense.
Because the Latin Normans were a more educated and refined culture, their words became the words of the upper class, and the language of the working-class Anglo-Saxons became vulgar and taboo. A perfect example of that distinction is still common today, as modern English speakers prefer the scientific, refined sound of the Latin word vagina to the harsh, Anglo-Saxon word, cunt. The two words have the exact same meaning, but because one sounds better, and was enforced by upper class, the other became taboo, and vulgar. We still look down on lower classes that use simple words in place of scientific, or drawn-out verbiage, even though the difference is nothing more than sound and origin.
Those people who speak “proper” English perceive slang and bad grammar as a threat to the wellbeing of the English language. Educated persons tend to judge others on their accent and ability to use correct grammar, and society labels those people who are not well spoken and grammatically correct as linguistic degenerates. Persons who speak English with a heavy foreign accent are often looked down upon as uneducated and Neanderthal, regardless of their education and intelligence level.
While language purists fight the losing battle of forcing generation after generation to conform to the rules and anomalies of English, linguistic experts know that the “degeneration” of English is not necessarily a prediction of the language’s downfall, but a necessary change that every language must go through in order to stay active.
One of the most famous lines of a poem comes from Shakespeare’s sonnet116: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” While current speakers of English view Shakespeare’s English as proper and flawless, it is important to understand that Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets for the poor people of England. He was known as a writer that everyone could enjoy, regardless of education. By that standard, Shakespeare did not use the educated, formal language of the aristocracy. He used common English. It is important also, to notice that His form of English is archaic, meaning is has changed and morphed in order to conform to the word in which it is spoken. For example, several common articles have been replaced, such as thee and thou. Perhaps language purists of the past were made uncomfortable when modern people began to say your instead of thine.
Shakespeare is known by English speakers as one of the most influential persons in the creation and change of the language. Shakespeare alone introduced hundreds of words to the language, including the infamous f-word. Without Shakespeare, the endless synonyms that English utilizes might not exist. What makes Shakespeare different from a modern rap musician? Several words and word modifications have recently been added to the English lexicon via rap songs and artists. The word Bling, recently added to the English lexicon by rap group Cash Money Millionaires, means excessive jewelry. While the word is considered a slang term, it fits the definition of an actual word. A word is a unit of language that carries meaning. Linguists consider a unit of language a word if it has a meaning understood by more than one person. bling is a word just as much as word is a word.
Words must be added to languages in order for a language to continuously adapt to changes in the physical world. For example, the name for an acoustic guitar was not formed until the invention of an electric guitar. With new words come new parts of speech and new ways to use the words that we already have. Few people understand that words do not have a specific part of speech. A noun is only a noun if it is placed in the noun part of a sentence. In other words, for a linguistic purist to correct someone for using a noun as an adjective is pointless. If the word is in the adjective place of a sentence, then that word is an adjective.
While some linguist purists understand and embrace the addition and subtraction of new words to our language, many have a hard time understanding that, like words, grammar and syntax must also change in a living language. English Teachers have spent the past century telling students to say “I am well” in place of “I am good” as if the language police will handcuff the grammatically incorrect children and lock them up for breaking a grammatical rule that the majority of society breaks. Of course teachers and linguistics alike feel that English should be taught properly, and that the rules of the language must be adhered to, but the problem is that students are being taught to use rules that are changing right under their noses.
A major problem with English grammar began, once again, when the Normans invaded the Anglo-Saxon tribes. After years of mixing the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary with French/Latin grammatical systems and vocabulary, the result is an amalgamation of suffixes, infixes, and prefixes—parts added to the beginning, middle, or end of a word to create a new meaning—that are mismatched and make little sense. Unlike classical languages, English does not follow any specific rule for prefixes or suffixes. In fact, in spoken English, the only phonetic rule that always works in every situation is the “mn” rule, which states three rules of pronunciation:
1. Mn placed at the beginning of a word pronounces only the “n” - as in mnemonic.
2. Mn at the end of the beginning of a word only pronounces the “m” - as in hymn and damn
3. Mn in the middle of a word pronounces both letter sounds - as in gymnasium (Yarrison 2006).
In spite of the various rule for writing and pronunciation of the English language, none work for every instance. Children are taught in school that adding un- to the beginning of a word will make it negative, but what about the prefixes a-, dis-, or non-? How about words that simply have an opposite? For example, consider the word do. To make do negative, we add the prefix un- and create undo. A speaker of English, however, cannot create the same meaning by adding the other negative prefixes: ado, disdo, or nondo. We often add not after do to make the word negative, but it still has a different meaning. Observe how, by the rules of English, adding un- should have the same effect as adding not, but undo is not the same as not do or even as do not.2. Mn at the end of the beginning of a word only pronounces the “m” - as in hymn and damn
3. Mn in the middle of a word pronounces both letter sounds - as in gymnasium (Yarrison 2006).
Because of the Creole nature of English, the rules that govern the language are complicated and easily confused. Even native speakers often make fundamental mistakes in their speech. The change, or “degradation” of our language is an attempt to simplify the rules and make the language uniform.
The average person learns to speak through listening and imitating other people. The change in language comes when generation after generation of children learn the same grammatical inconsistencies from their parents and, in turn, pass those inconsistencies on to their own children. This brings about a grass-roots change in the way English is both spoken and written. Language should not be a force to be feared, yet educated people across America seem afraid to break a grammatical rule, lest the language police snatch them up like the child who said good instead of well.
The truth is, however, that grammar is not a set entity. It is not carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. Most linguist experts cannot agree on most of the commonly disputed rules. The good vs. well rule, for example, is almost always used wrong by the very people who feel impressed upon to enforce it. Linguists often argue whether the words do not mean the same thing in the context of describing one’s self. Formally, all of those people who insist that saying I’m good or I feel good is wrong, may be incorrect, depending on what is being described. If someone says, I feel well, that could mean that he or she knows how to feel things skillfully. Rather, one would say I feel good, because good describes I, not feel.
Grammar was not even an issue until the invention of the printing press in the late 1450’s by Johannes Gutenberg. Before the press, written English varied across England as people spoke the language they were taught by their parents. Only after the press made printed language less expensive and time consuming, did the first rules of grammar begin to be enforced as printers attempted to make the language universal. At first, even common words were spelled differently according to the printer who printed them. After the discrepancies between spelling and word order became a problem, rules began to be formed, allowing printers and readers alike to come to a common agreement on the spelling and arrangement of words. The point of the rules was not to create a perfect, unified, pure language, but to prevent each printer from phonetically spelling words and arranging sentences according to his own ideas about the language. Without these rules, the spelling of many of the words we use today might be much different.
Centuries after the rules of English were agreed upon, and after English became the primary language of the new America, John Adams proposed a “national academy to be established…to standardize American English, but this view was roundly rejected as not in keeping with the goals of liberty and justice for all” (“National American?” 2005). John Adams was not the first person with ideas about purifying and standardizing a language. According to An Introduction to Lantuage, a popular textbook on Linguistics, the ancient Greek grammarians in Alexandria (200-100 B.C) tried and failed to purify their version of Greek, insisting that it was different, and therefore, less pure than the Greek spoken by Homer. Throughout time, linguists have tried in vain to purify one language or another to its original form, and all have failed. (456).
Regardless of the attempt made by linguists and scholars to enforce and maintain the rules and vocabulary of the English language, if enough people continue to misuse the rules, the rules will change. Language change is not an executive decision. It is a grass-roots change, meaning it changes from the common people and moves its way to the experts. No one person decides one day to add a word to the dictionary and then sends a memo to every English speaking person on the planet to explain the addition. The word must be used commonly enough that it almost adds itself to the lexicon.
The point is, the rules and constant debates over the rules have become so complicated, that the rules are beginning to change and simplify. People who speak English seem to assume that English came pre-packaged like a new laptop with a power cord, wireless card, and mouse, and everything needed, but that is not true, especially, without the constant change of our language, there would be no such words as cord, wireless, card, or laptop, and even mouse has developed a new meaning. No one person opened the box labeled English, read the manual, and found the power chord to plug the language in and use it; the English language evolved over thousands of years, and it is still evolving, simplifying itself as generation after generation of people subconsciously use “bad grammar” that is less complicated and makes more sense.
My StumbleUpon Page
No comments:
Post a Comment