If there is one thing that can be declared about the English language, it's that it always varies. In the same way that language can be spoken differently by different people, it can also be viewed differently by different people. Through the years, there have been many intellectuals and writers who have stated their view of English with each being different from the others. The Adventure of English displays several of these views in its sixth episode, and I, being the language student that I am, will show how these views vary from my own perception of the English language.
As I stated before, change and variance are a large part of the English language. This is something I have accepted and embraced. However, to some people this characteristic is unacceptable. On of these people is John Locke, who thought that it was vital for English to be standardized in order to make it understandable for everyone. Personally, I don't think that Locke should complain so much. At least English doesn't have a word that means straw in one country, cigarette in another, and male genitalia in another. I'm looking at you Spanish. Anyways, I think that this thought is to be expected from a man who studies science, a study where a slight misunderstanding could lead do disaster; however, language goes beyond just science. When it comes to other studies such as philosophy and language itself where topics can be unclear, the language can't be expected to be completely understandable. We can't enjoy a world of multiple representations and clever puns if we cant mess around with the understanding of words. The same goes to Samuel Johnson, writer of A Dictionary of the English Language, who only included his own version of the English language in his dictionary. Language can't really be defined. We often cannot describe our thoughts, and what is language? The communication of said thoughts. Much like the mind, language can't be concrete.
What is concrete is writing. Well, something already written. You can write in any way you want (unless you're in school or taking an exam), but you can't change something that is already written. You can't just change a writer's already existing work. You can alter it in order to make it more understandable, but that text is now shared by you and the original author. However, I would not recommend that. You don't see people approaching Michelangelo's David with a chisel in hand. This leads to my next point. As writing became more prominent, people started regarding written English as the correct English. I respond to that with a simile: text is like a bust. Confused? Think of it this way. A person exists and can be viewed by many people, but these views are only temporal. How can you allow the people of the future to view this person? Well, by making a bust. However, there is a difference between seeing a bust and seeing the actual person. When looking at the person, you can think whatever you want. When looking at a bust, your thoughts are limited by those of the artist implemented on the bust. The same case is seen in language. An idea can be described in many different ways through speech and can be limited through text. Text is important in making language last, but it also greatly limits language. Writer's block is a proof of this. You can have many ideas expressed in language in your head, but you struggle in fitting them into text. Don't get me wrong. Writing is a crucial part of English. I just think that it can't be considered as a norm when it is simply the tip of the iceberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment