Since the beginning of this semester, I have been asking myself which side I would take in the argument about language. Many people feel very strongly about the English language (and why it should or should not be allowed to change), but I have had mixed feelings. Having read the articles for this week, however, I believe I have come to a conclusion. It seems to me that the articles we have read and the arguments contained within them present a false dilemma.
It is my perception (maybe incorrectly so) that the options given us are either to be in favor of meticulously and strictly maintaining English in its proper state or to be in favor of letting the language roam free, taking its own path through history. In my opinion, what is needed is a balance. There certainly needs to be a set of rules and linguistic constants in order to maintain consistency in language throughout the decades. On the other hand, new words and/or usages are a perfectly legitimate means of cultivating language and are necessary to keep it current. As with most things in life, the key to linguistic tranquility is moderation. Language should grow and develop naturally, but should also be pruned often.
I guess my conclusion really is that the present manner in which language is maintained and developed is sufficient for insuring its health and longevity. In the same fashion, perhaps the contradicting extremist views we have observed are necessary as a system of checks and balances to make sure language neither veers dramatically off course nor remains stagnant for too long.
1 comment:
I'm with you--balance is the key. And really, the balance between the need to express oneself easily and the need to be understood is what holds language together in the first place.
Post a Comment