“Language IS [sic] understanding, which makes an author's use of language a clear guide to the nature of that author's understanding” (Atkinson, path: Language), yet many of the sources I researched did not seem to have a good grasp on coherently writing while using the English language. Atkinson, using a very broad definition of civilization, puts forth that everything is in a state of decline, from language to morality. He claims that this started with the French Revolution (path: Start of Our Decline); from a Christian viewpoint, I personally feel that any such decline began a lot longer ago, back when original sin occurred. This is a question of worldview: when do you believe that humanity was at its peak?
I did not study Atkinson’s writings in depth; however, his premise seems to be contradictory. He states that a book written in 1935 is less clear than one written in 1776 (path: Language), because the latter is not written in “Plain English.” He does not write using very plain English, and a very common complaint that today’s students have is that books written hundreds of years ago were not written using understandable English, either. This is not just a question of changes of spelling (as cited by Keller as one of the types of evidence for decay in the German language), but of the definitions for words and figures of speech having changed over time. This observation is a fact that does not support or disprove the existence of decay, in my opinion.
Lo, for his part, makes a completely different point about writing in Colonial times:
The 18th century view of language is one of decay and decadence. Their reasoning is that the old Indo-European languages like Sanskrit, Greek and Latin all have complex declension and conjugation schemes, where as the modern Indo-European languages have far fewer cases for declension and conjugation. This "loss" of declension and conjugation cases was a result of speakers of the language getting increasingly careless about their speech (read "lazy"), so the modern speakers are "decadent" as they have allowed the once complex language to decay into such a "simple" language.Here is the issue from a completely different angle, that English itself was a decayed language from its infancy. I have always been taught that English was the language of the commoners and was a mish mash of multiple language sources that were incorporated into one, making this opinion an obvious one. The church fought to keep the Bible from being translated into such a corrupt language, and the language of the educated and governmental functions in Britain was Latin for a long time, even as the court conversed in English. Today the English language continues to adopt new words; it is always adapting and expanding: that in itself is the antithesis of decay.
Lo also cites two other theories about language decay, the first being that “language change is simply a slow shift of the ‘idealized form’ by small deviations” such as simplifications and errors in pronunciation. In a similar vein:
...At the beginning a small part of a population pronounces certain words that have, for example, the same vowel, differently than the rest of the population. This occurs naturally since humans don't all reproduce exactly the same sounds. However, at some later point in time, for some reason this difference in pronunciation starts to become a signal for social and cultural identity. Others of the population who wish to be identified with the group either consciously or (more likely) unknowingly adopt this difference, exaggerate it, and apply it to change the pronunciation of other words.Here is where regional changes in English come in, because children are likely to pronounce words with the same accent and inflection as the people they grow up around. Lo combines these two concepts when he writes: “children of immigrants almost always learn the language of their friends at school regardless of the parents' dialect or original language.” Regional slang can be a good example of this phenomenon, for example with the words “y’all” and “ain’t,” which aren’t grammatically acceptable in formal English, but are part of many Americans’ cultural identity. Which still begs the question, is this decay?
I believe that decay is too strong of a word: evolving or devolving would be closer. The common complaint is that “media and the schools are at fault” (Keller); this statement is both true and false. There are good influences and bad, and education (or the lack thereof) strongly influences society. The English language has always changed and will always change, who is there that can say with absolute certainty that it is decaying? I believe that it grows as it decays, as when the ashes of a forest fire nourish the new growth that takes the fills the void left by the destruction. This is a poetic and extreme example, I do not believe that English is dead or just born, but in a constant state of flux that amuses and inspires some, saddens and disturbs others. Other languages came before English, and other languages will someday take its place, there is not one moment in time where the English language is perfect, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this change, it just is.
Bibliography
Atkinson, Phillip. “A Study of Our Decline.” A Theory of Civilization. 2000. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/impact/index.htm His claim is that civilization is utterly morally bankrupt and that there is nothing that can be done to reverse this process. He says the English language has decayed, and cites examples of books written in Colonial Times to one written in the 20th century, because the newer book is impossible to understand while the former was easier to read. The language he uses is very difficult to understand and is not clear.
--- “Noun Adjectives.” Accessed 7 May 2008. Refers to the writings of Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett). I believe that he’s referring mostly to newspaper headlines, but again, difficult to understand.
Keller, Rudi. “Is the German Language Going to the Dogs?” Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.joern.de/tipsn134.htm This article starts out by quoting someone who is discrediting his own view. It responds to several such quotes. It is difficult to make out what he is saying because his examples are in German.
Lo, Lawrence. “Why Do Languages Change?” Ancient Scripts. 2005. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ancientscripts.com/hl_why.html Using simple words (finally), Lo outlines different theories about why (or even if) language decay is taking place. He writes using clear language and actually makes sense.
Marsh, George P. “Corruptions of Language.” Paradox Application. 1863. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.bibles.n7nz.org/marsh/lectur29.html How can something written on the supposed decay of the English language have any bearing on the current state of things when it was written 155 years ago? Marsh fails to use coherent English, loves misusing big words, and seems to think that English is going to the dogs because men are acting feminine.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell. May 1945. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html What astounds me is how these individuals who are intent on proving that the English language is in a state of decay abuse and misuse it. I have no idea why the word politics is in the title really, the subject is hardly mentioned. Meanwhile, Orwell seems to purposefully be obtuse and uses words in the wrong way himself. Maybe if I could actually understand what he’s failing to say?
Plunkett, Edward. “Claim on the Decay of Language.” Donnellan Lectures. 1943. Accessed 6 May 2008. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/nb021.htm Quote from a lecture...lamenting the fact that nouns are being used as adjectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment