As if the waffle vs thermal debate didn't get enough analysis in the previous entry, I have looked into the root cause of my fixation with that particular issue.
[Editor's disclaimer: I can not promise that this entry will be appealing or even remotely interesting to all readers. The syntax, for the most part, however, is delightful, so if that's enough to keep your interest, read on. All others, beware.]
I think the willingness to settle for imperfect (often inaccurate) expression is a manifestation of "the dumbing of America." (Not a term I coined myself, but it's just so catchy...) As the stewards of humanity's most expansive vocabulary (600,000 words), should we not uphold its lexicon and promote its precise and proper usage? As native speakers of the most widely studied second language--and the modern lingua franca--do we not feel an obligation to act as good-speech ambassadors to foreigners studying our mother tongue, an obligation to be exemplary? It is with much dismay, that I observe that many who have partaken in the joy that is English do not share in my feelings of responsibility.
No doubt these sentiments sound rather hokey--and more than a little arrogant--but lend the thought even the smallest patch of land in your mind in which to germinate, and I think you will watch the seed of truth grow. I, myself, often take English for granted. I treat it not as an art to be studied and cultivated, but as a tool for communication. As an SAT instructor, I often view the ability to handle English as a lucrative opportunity, rather than a God-given gift to give words and shape to my otherwise formless thoughts. Most days I don't think about it at all.
Professor Yao, a Taiwanese native and my Chinese professor at UCLA, and I had many conversations in her office both during and after my tenure as her student. (Although she is fluent in English, Yao always forced me to speak Mandarin with her, even after I finished her class.) One day we were both discussing our love for our respective mother tongues, and she began to lament the degeneracy a certain Group is bringing upon the Chinese language. In an effort to bring universal literacy to the people, she said, the Group has begun eliminating old, recondite characters and words. That gloriously complex, and beautiful language is being stripped of its rich history, and pared down to a minimalist ideal, so that it may serve its Master and disseminate propaganda more efficiently. Although Yao laoshi is lively, fiery woman, as she recounted this story, her eyes gave forth just enough moisture to produce a blury covering over her dark brown irides. Soon, she lamented, there will be little left of her language; it is to be replaced by its thin, pallid, barely recognizable skeleton. "They have 1.3 billion people; we have 23 million. What can I do? They are sending the majority of Chinese professors to teach Chinese around the world; who do you think will have more influence over the Chinese that students learn?"
I told her I feel the same way about English. I told her that its misuse and mishandeling in the popular media--on television and the radio, in movies, commericials, and magazines--is outpacing the correct use of the language. Some words are disappearing from our lexicons entirely. These, however, might be receiving a better fate than some of their brothers, whose meanings are so entirely mangled that one can hardly knows what a speaker means by them any more.
I concede that this type of lowest common denomiator language has its benefits. Its aims are sometimes egalitarian in that it promotes all people--regardless of age, income, education or social standing--to understand and participate in the usage of English. Its effects are often democratic, in as far as it acheives its egalitarian aims.
These advantages notwithstanding, I am dismayed at the usual cause of this slippage (laziness). This "race to the bottom" to appeal to everyone, to bring meaning and understanding to all, is really stripping everyone of what can be--and should be treated as--a wonderful and delightful linguistic experience. Rather than promoting idiodyssey [yes, my own neologism] and force the most adept speakers to stoop, can't the media aim a little higher, and thereby encourage everyone to rise?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You craft your words carefully, and that's a skill few possess or appreciate. I agree with you there. But I disagree with some of your assumptions. Namely, that the English language is static and even capable of 'being returned to'; and more fundamentally, that nuanced, complex thought is limited by one's range of vocabulary and expression.
One of the strengths of the English language is its fluidity. Were it not for a linguistic culture of adaptation and integration, we might still be speaking Chaucer-like. I doubt anyone wants to return to English in its 'pure' form--if anybody could ever determine that. The language used by educated Americans reeks of corrupted borrow-words, arbitrary grammatical exceptions, and illogical pronunciation. I can admire Shakespeare's masterful use of language, but it's entirely inappropriate for me imitate his language in my contemporary relationships. At the risk of sounding like a cultural relativist, I don't believe we can judge linguistic strains like Ebonics to be qualitatively 'lower' than standard written English. (Improving socio-economic status is a different story. For now, the rich and powerful use a particular flavor of language.) The point I'm trying to make is that change in language is unstoppable, appropriate, and necessary as the tides of society ebb and flow.
Even if English could be preserved in its classical state, limited vocabulary/expression merely correlates with--not necessitates--our culture's race down to dumb. Poets use few words to express deep complexity. The Bible is written with a vocabulary of 8,674 Hebrew words and 5,624 Greek words (not sure about Aramaic). The US Constitution has only 4,440 words. A writer can express brilliance and in spite of--and even *through*--few words.
My last observation is about the role popular media plays in language. If Rupert Murdoch, appointed you king, I'm sure English usage would change in America. But the media machinery does not churn for education; it churns for profits. Maybe shareholders even have an insidious incentive to maintain an educational edge over the masses. I do agree with your observation about economically powerful English. I personally tend to view language in a utilitarian way. But even if the language is truly art, it must be appreciated in its historical and cultural context without petrifying it for future generations.
...didn't mean to post anonymously
- jay
Why is it risky to be a cultural relatvisit?
Post a Comment