Language

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was greatly disturbed by the opinions expressed by Kenneth A. Gerber in his column on language (October 28). The article was typical of many uninformed amateurs who see some kind of social prestige attached to making derogatory comments about the state of our language today. Somehow the advantages of an expensive education seem to give these people the idea that the language they speak is somehow better than that which one hears more commonly among the people of this country.

Every so often these "language purists" warn us all of the impending danger of linguistic laxity and the proliferation of sub-standard forms into everyday speech. Much as Gerber wants to portray his desire for linguistic homogeneity and restrictiveness as consonant with the historic American values of equality and pluralism, it is in reality a poorly disguised call for institutionalized elitism. What the majority of the public is speaking is only "sub-standard" and "slang" because the author has chosen to call it that, and likewise the standardness of the speech of the privileged is purely arbitary.

Gerber seems to imply that there is some danger of losing the power of communication if the "deterioration" of American English is allowed to continue. Obviously, if the majority of the people are speaking in a certain way, they will have no trouble communicating among themselves, and little difficulty understanding those who persist in speaking the "prestige" dialect. After all, who but the most obtuse English-speaking American would not understand "I don't know where he's at."

It is important to realize that inherent in any language is its constant subjectability to change. No language, despite the grandest efforts, can resist change over time. Any perusal of texts from a wide variety of time periods will reveal this. No stage of a language is inherently superior to any other, since language naturally adapts to new environments and conditions. If people find it easier to make themselves understood by saying something in a slightly new fashion, such innovation will survive depending on its effectiveness and usefulness. Thus we see the application of the survival of the fittest theory to language. Changes in language that tend to obfuscate are generally the products of governments and their instruments, precisely the institutions Gerber would have institutionalize his linguistic "improvements."

Finally, Gerber feels that we should modify our speech in order to facilitate international communication. It has never been the responsibility of any people or government to deliberately fool with its language in order to make things easier for foreigners. Would we deliberately restrict our vocabulary to use of idioms to that end, thus minimizing our own potential for expression? Of course not.

In addition, Gerber fails to recognize why English has become the world's international language in the first place: its adaptability, flexibility and diversity--the last two are words Gerber uses to describe this nation--have made it most useful to people in all fields of endeavor. We see the difficulties encountered by nations like France, whose government seeks to shackle the language and protect it from foreign invasion, thus detracting from its value as a tool for international communication.

It is important to have faith in the masses of people who use language every day and to respect the special expertise that they possess as speakers of English. Corey Miller '89