Who should decide the correct meanings of words? Descriptive supporters quickly point out the masses; people who use the language should be allowed to say what passes for correct and what does not. There is a level of logic here, for who would best know what one is trying to say than the person? Surely Humpty Dumpty would agree with that.
Language is based on rules in order to maximize the understanding of the intended thought. The rules have been handed down from various strains and sundry ways. Rules can always be questioned, but the lack of an answer does not truly justify the usurpation of the rules. If you do not understand why Americans drive on the right-hand side of the road, it is not justified that you drive on the left-hand side of the road. And, lest language be considered less lethal than a poorly educated driver, you should consider the course of wars is destined and determined by the words leaders use.
Has not the language already drifted from its original position? The only logically-sound answer to such a question must be yes, it has. English started, essentially, in the fifth century AD, and the language was subject to Roman rule, missionary service, and vocabulary. The denizens who used such rudimentary English later went on to incorporate Danish, Viking, and Norman influences. Later, after a bit of codification and prescription, Middle English appeared in approximately 1100 AD. The language continued to transform throughout the succeeding generations, passing through the whims of various authors, politicians, and laypeople. Early Modern English began around 1500 AD and is the precursor to our modern day English (Graddol, et al, 382-385). To argue against drifts and changes having occurred would be untenable. A more pertinent question is this: Is the language in a better condition now because of the changes, or would it be just as serviceable had a prescriptive penchant maintained, say, Middle English as it was until present day?
If we considered a text from the mid-nineteenth century, for example, it is easy to see that the use of language differed greatly from modern-day texts. Syntactically, semicolons and colons abound, providing a layered and shaded movement in the text that is wholly lost in current works. Lengthy passages, designed, as it were, to more fully express the concept of the writer rather than providing an area in which the author could demonstrate his or her writing abilities, abounded in a way that is unheard of today. A newspaper from the 1850s can show a greater use of the potential of English than most texts of a more modern crafting. The beauty of the language slowly fades into obscurity as information is distilled and diluted into a watery, mass-consumable, scarcely comprehensible slurry in the rapid-fire, brevity-intense parlance of modern vernacular.
Proponents of prescriptive preservation insist that the permissive practices that lead to the degradation and destruction of the language are dangerous in their descriptions in the same way claiming that a classroom ruled by the students would be most conducive to a learning environment. Those who are content to watch words whither into a common conglomeration of muddied, muddled meanings and stolid senses are considered by Robert Hartwell Fiske as actually making English “decline thus: ignorer, ignorant, ignominy” (224).
Isn’t language drift inevitable? Perhaps. But if you have lung cancer, there’s no reason to help it along by smoking—and the same could be said for our language.
Click here for the first part of the argument.
Works Cited:
Fiske, Robert Hartwell. The Dictionary of Disagreeable English. Cincinnati, Ohio: Writer's Digest Books, 2005.
Graddol, David, Dick Leith, and Joan Swann. English: History, Diversity and Change. London and New York: The Open University, 2002.
Steven Dowdle - Name: Steven Jon Dowdle Occupation: Freelance editor; aspiring author; daddy. Marital status: Married to one foxy ...
