Defining The Undefinable - The Evolution of Language

This week’s readings from Roberts and Bryson dealt with the history of the English language and how English speakers over the years have tried to define and navigate their language.

One theme that I noted threaded throughout all of the recent readings was how language is a constantly changing, evolving structure that we depend upon to firmly convey ideas. Put another way, so much of communication, and thus, language depends upon semantics and tone. Words that define one thing in one time or place can connote something very different centuries or even just years later. For example, fifty years ago if I were particularly filled one day with joie de vivre, someone might say I was feeling gay. Today, that word has a rather different designation and meaning! Because language is changing and evolving, it is almost darkly humorous that we create rules for it so that it can be defined the same for everyone, and therefore remain objective.

It was interesting for me, then, to read about how grammar rules are rendered almost meaningless by all the little exceptions (especially with Bryson’s snarky voice doing so). I was particularly amused by the passage in which he discussed the difficulty in defining even the most basic concepts in English grammar, like the sentence. I was reminded of a conversation I overheard with a Korean exchange student at my high school. “English makes no sense. It’s a cheater! Every rule just gets broken.”

Something that I learned about those pesky grammar rules while reading these articles was that part of the problem comes from the rules being based on Latin, which only contributed some of the words that helped make the English language.  I think that this problem of lingual differences will continue over time, as other languages appropriate our words and vice versa. One only needs to do an internet search for “Engrish” to get some hilarious results.

A darker side to those grammar rules is the way that groups like the Académie Française tried to make language a nationalist endeavor. Though creating standardized forms for words though dictionaries certainly helped in making communication clearer, there is also a danger in having one group try to say what counts as part of the language, and what doesn’t. For one, an exclusionist policy on your language stifles its development. I can only imagine how stunted English would be today, for example, if Shakespeare were not allowed to add phrases to it like “star-crossed lovers.” Furthermore, letting any one group say what is or isn’t part of the vernacular is dangerously controlling. Words have power, especially when they are manipulated or omitted.

On the other hand though, the Roberts article reminded me of the collaborative process that is language. For language to change and evolve, words, and thus people need to have an exchange. From the beginnings of English with the Anglo-Saxons to English today, by tracing how English evolved you have a window into the diverse cultures that spoke and wrote it. In short, the history of grammar and language is also a history of people.