Nine Ideas about Language Harvey A. Daniels In the following chapter adapted from his book Famous Last Words: The ‘American Language Crisis Reconsidered, Harvey A. Daniels, a director of the Illinois Writing Project and a professor at the National College of Education, presents nine fundamental ideas about language that are widely accepted by contemporary linguists. In doing so, he dispels a ‘number of myths about language that are all too prevalent among Ameri- cans. The ideas introduced here provide a foundation for readings in later parts of this book, where they are discussed in more detail. Assuming we agree that the English language has in fact survived all of the predictions of doom which have been prevalent since at least the early eighteenth century, we also have reason to believe that current reports of the death of our language are similarly exaggerated. The man- agers of the present crisis of course disagree, and their efforts may even result in the reinstatement of the linguistic loyalty oath of the 1920s or of some updated equivalent ("I promise to use good American unsplit infinitives" in our schools. But it won't make much difference. The En- slish language, if history is any guide at all, will remain useful and vibrant as long as it is spoken, whether we eagerly try to tend and nurture and prune its growth or if we just leave it alone. Contemporary language critics recognize that language is changing, that people use a lot of jargon, that few people consistently speak the standard dialect, that much writing done in our society is ineffective, and so forth—but they have no other way of viewing these phenomena except with alarm, But most of the uses of and apparent changes in language which worry the critics can be explained and understood in unalarming ways. Such explanations have been provided by linguists during the past seventy-five years, Thave said that in order to understand the errors and misrepresenta- tions of the language critics, we need to examine not only history but also “the facts.”” Of course, facts about language are a somewhat elusive commodity, and we may never be able to answer all of our questions about this wonderfully complex activity. But linguists have made a good start during this century toward describing some of the basic features, 718 LaNGuAGE AND Its Stupy structures, and operations of human speech. This section presents a series of nine fundamental ideas about language that form, if not exactly a list of facts, at least a fair summary of the consensus of most linguistic scholars. 1. Children learn their native language swiftly, efficiently, and largely without instruction. Language is a species-specific trait of human beings. All children, unless they are severely retarded or completely de- prived of exposure to speech, will acquire their oral language as naturally as they learn to walk. Many linguists even assert that the human brain is, prewired for language, and some have also postulated that the underlying linguistic features which are common to all languages are present in the brain at birth. This latter theory comes from the discovery that all lan- ‘guages have certain procedures in common: ways of making statements, questions, and commands; ways of referring to past time; the ability to negate, and so on." In spite of the underlying similarities of all languages, though, it is important to remember that children will acquire the lan- guage which they hear around them—whether that is Ukrainian, Swa- hili, Cantonese, or Appalachian American English In spite of the commonsense notions of parents, they do not “teach” their children to talk. Children learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends, and others as sources and examples—and by using other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language. When we acknowledge the complexity of adult speech, with its ability to generate an unlimited number of new, meaningful utterances, it is clear that this skill cannot be the end result of simple instruction. Parents do not explain to their children, for example, that adjectives gen- erally precede the noun in English, nor do they lecture them on the rules governing formation of the past participle. While parents do correct some Kinds of mistakes on a piecemeal basis, discovering the underlying rules which make up the language is the child’ job, From what we know, children appear to learn language partly by imitation but even more by hypothesis-testing. Consider a child who is just beginning to form past tenses. In the earliest efforts, the child is likely to produce such incorrect and unheard forms as I goed to the store or I seed a dog, along with other conventional uses of the past tense: J walked to Grandma’s. This process reveals that the child has learned the basic, general rule about the formation of the past tense—you add -ed to the verb—but has not yet mastered the other rules, the exceptions and irregularities. The production of forms that the child has never heard ‘suggests that imitation is not central in language learning and that the child's main strategy is hypothesizing — deducing from the language she hhears an idea about the underlying rule, and then trying it out. * Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, An Introduction to Language (New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978), pp. 329-842.Daniels { Nine Ideas about Language 19 ‘My own son, who is now two-and-a-half, has just been working on the -ed problem. Until recently, he used present tense verb forms for all situations: Daddy go work? (for: Did Daddy go to work!) and We take a bath today? for: Will we take a bath today}, Once he discovered that wonderful past tag, he attached it with gusto to any verb he could think up and produced, predictably enough, goed, eated, flied, and many other ‘overgencralizationo of hio initial hypothetical rule for the formation of past tenses, He was so excited about his new discovery, in fact, that he ‘would often give extra emphasis to the marker: Dad, I swallow-ed the cookie. Nicky will soon leam to deemphasize the sound of -ed (as well as to master all those irregular past forms} by listening to more language and by revising and expanding his own internal set of language rules. Linguists and educators sometimes debate about what percentage of adult forms is learned by a given age. A common estimate is that 90 percent of adult structures are acquired by the time a child is seven. Obviously, it is quite difficult to attach proportions to such a complex process, but the central point is clear: schoolchildren of primary age have already learned the great majority of the rales governing their native lan ‘guage, and can produce virtually all the kinds of sentences that it permits. With the passing years, all children will add some additional capabilities, but the main growth from this point forward will not so much be in acquiring new rules as in using new combinations of them to express increasingly sophisticated ideas, and in learning how to use language ef- fectively in a widening variety of social settings. It is important to reiterate that we are talking here about the child's acquisition of her native language. It may be that the child has been born into a community of standard English or French or Urdu speakers, or into a community of nonstandard English, French, or Urdu speakers. But the language of the child’s home and community fs the native language, and. it would be impossible for her to somehow grow up speaking a language to which she was never, or rarely, exposed. 2. Language operates by rules. As the -ed saga suggests, when a child begins learning his native language, what he is doing is acquiring a vast system of mostly subconscious rules which allow him to make meaning- ful and increasingly complex utterances. These rules concer sounds, ‘words, the arrangement of strings of words, and aspects of the social act, of speaking, Obviously, children who grow up speaking different lan- ‘guages will acquire generally different sets of rules. This fact reminds us that human language is, in an important sense, arbitrary. Except for a few onomatopoctic words (bang, hiss, grunt), the assign- ment of meanings to certain combinations of sounds is arbitrary. We English speakers might just as well call a chair a glotz or a blurg, as long, as we all agreed that these combinations of sounds meant chair. In fact, not just the words but the individual sounds used in English have been arbitrarily selected from a much larger inventory of sounds which the human vocal organs are capable of producing, The existence of African20 LaNGuac AND Its Stuy languages employing musical tones or clicks reminds us that the forty phonemes used in English represent an arbitrary selection from hundreds of available sounds. Grammar, too, is arbitrary. We have a rule in English which requires most adjectives to appear before the noun which they modify (the blue chair). In French, the syntax is reversed (la chaise bleue), and in some languages, like Latin, either order is allowed. Given diat aity language seyuises a oumplea sot uf aabiuary cuuives regarding sounds, words, and syntax, itis clear that the foundation of a language lies not in any “natural” meaning or appropriateness of its fea- ‘tures, but in its system of rules— the implicit agreement among speakers that they will use certain sounds consistently, that certain combinations of sounds will mean the same thing over and over, and that they will ‘observe certain grammatical patterns in order to convey messages. It takes thousands of such rules to make up a language. Many linguists believe that when each of us learned these countless rules, as very young children, we accomplished the most complex cognitive task of out lives. ‘Ouragreement about the rules of language, of course, is only a general fone, Every speaker of a language is unique; no one sounds exactly like anyone else. The language differs from region to region, between social, occupational and ethnic groups, and even from one specch situation to the next. These variations are not mistakes or deviations from some basic tongue, but are simply the rule-governed alternatives which make up any language. Still, in America our assorted variations of English are mostly mutually intelligible, reflecting the fact that most of our language rules do overlap, whatever group we belong to, or whatever situation we are in, 3. Alll languages have three major components: a sound system, a vocabulary, and a system of grammar. This statement underscores what has already been suggested: that any human speaker makes rneaning by manipulating sounds, words, and their order according to an internalized system of rules which other speakers of that language largely share. The sound system of a language —its phonology —is the inventory of vocal noises, and combinations of noises, that it employs. Children eam the selected sounds of their own language in the same way they learn the other elements: by listening, hypothesizing, testing, and listen: ing again. They do not, though it may seem logical, learn the sounds first {after all, English has only forty) and then go on to.words and then to ‘grammar. My son, for example, can say nearly anything he needs to say, in sentences of eight or ten of fourteen words, but he couldn't utter the sound of th to save his life. ‘The vocabulary, or lexicon, of a language is the individual's store house of words. Obviously, one of the young child’s most conspicuous ‘efforts is aimed at expanding his lexical inventory. Two- and three-year- ‘olds are notorious for asking “What's that?” a good deal more often than even the most doting parents can tolerate. And not only do children con- stantly and spontaneously try to enlarge their vocabularies, but they areDaniels | Nine Ideas about Language a always working to build categories, to establish classes of words, to add connotative meanings, to hone and refine their sense of the semantic properties—the meanings—of the words they are learning. My aware- ness of these latter processes was heightened a few months ago as we were driving home from a trip in the country during which Nicky had delighted in learning the names of various features of the rural landscape. ‘Aa we drove past the Chicago akylinc, Micky looked up at the tall build. ings and announced “Look at those silos, Dad!" I asked him what he thought they kept in the Sears Tower, and he replied confidently, “Animal food.” His parents’ laughter presumably helped him to begin reevaluating, his lexical hypothesis that any tall narrow structure was a silo. Linguists, who look at language descriptively rather than prescrip: tively, use two different definitions of grammar. The first, which L am using, says that grammar is the system of rules we use to arrange words into meaningful English sentences. For example, my lexicon and my pho- nology may provide me with the appropriate strings of sounds to say the words: eat four yesterday cat crocodile the. It is my knowledge of gram: nat which allows ie w artange these elements into a sentence: Yester day the crocodile ate four cats. Not only does my grammar arrange these elements in a meaningful order, it also provides me with the necessary markers of plurality, tense, and agreement. Explaining the series of rules by which I subconsciously constructed this sentence describes some of my “grammar” in this sense. ‘The second definition of grammar often used by linguists refers to the whole system of rules which makes up a language —not just the rules for the arrangement and appropriate marking of elements in a sentence, but all of the lexical, phonological, and syntactic patterns which a lan- guage uses. In this sense, everything I know about my language, all the Couscivus aud uincouscivus operations 1 ean perforin when speaking OF listening, constitutes my grammar. Itis this second definition of grammar to which linguists sometimes refer when they speak of describing a lan- ‘guage in terms of its grammar. 4, Everyone speaks a dialect. Among linguists the term dialect sim- ply designates a variety of a particular language which has a certain set of lexical, phonological, and grammatical rules that distinguish it from other dialects. The most familiar definition of dialects in America is geo- graphical: we recognize, for example, that some features of New England language—the dropping r’s (pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd) and the use of bubbler for drinking fountain—distinguish the speech of this region. ‘The native speaker of Bostonian English iy not making mistakes, of course; he or she simply observes systematic rules which happen to differ from those observed in other regions. ‘Where do these different varieties of a language come from and how are they maintained? The underlying factors are isolation and language change. Imagine a group of people which lives, works, and talks together constantly. Among them, there is a good deal of natural pressure to keep2 LANGUAGE AND Its Stupy the language relatively uniform. But if one part of the group moves away toa remote location, and has no further contact with the other, the lan- ‘guage of the two groups will gradually diverge. This will happen not just because of the differing needs of the two different environments, but also because of the inexorable and sometimes arbitrary process of language change itself. In other words, there is no likelihood that the language of hese wu givup, divugh idcutival at dhe Legiuing, will wow cage iu the same ways. Ultimately, if the isolation is lengthy and complete, the two hypothetical groups will probably develop separate, mutually unin- telligible languages. Ifthe isolation is only partial, if interchange occurs between the two groups, and if they have some need to continue commu- nicating (as with the American and British peoples} less divergence will occur. This same principle of isolation also applies, in a less dramatic way, to contemporary American dialects. New England speakers are partially isolated from southern speakers, and so some of the differences between these two dialects are maintained. Other factors, such as travel and the ‘mass media, bring them into contact with each other and tend to prevent drastic divergences. But the isolation that produces or maintains language differences may not be only geographical. In many American cities we find people living within miles, or even blocks of each other who speak markedly different and quite enduring dialects. Black English and mid- ‘western English are examples of such pairs. Here, the isolation is partially spatial, but more importantly itis social, economic, occupational, educa- tional, and political. And as long as this effective separation of speech communities persists, so will the differences in their dialects. Many of the world’s languages have a “standard” dialect. In some countries, the term standard refers more to a lingua franca than to an indigenous dialect. In Nigeria, for example, where there are more than 150 mostly mutually unintelligible languages and dialects, English was selected as the official standard. In America, we enjoy this kind of national standardization because the vast majority of us speak some mutually intelligible dialect of English. But we also have ideas about a standard English which is not just a lingua franca but a prestige or preferred dialect. Similarly, the British have Received Pronunciation, the Germans have High German, and the French, backed by the authority of the Académie Frangaise, have “Le Vrai Francais.” These languages are typically defined as the speech of the upper, or at least educated, classes of the society, are the predominant dialect of written communication, and are commonly taught to schoolchildren. In the past, these prestige dialects have some- times been markers which conveniently set the ruling classes apart from the rabble—as once was the case with Mandarin Chinese or in medieval times when the English aristocracy adopted Norman French. But in most modern societies the standard dialect is a mutually intelligible version of the country's common tongue which is accorded a special status. A standard dialect is not inherently superior to any other dialect ofDaniels | Nine Ideas about Language 23 the same language. It may, however, confer considerable social, political, and economic power on its users, because of prevailing attitudes about the dialect’s worthiness Recently, American linguists have been working to describe some of the nonstandard dialects of English, and we now seem to have a better description of some of these dialects than of our shadowy standard. Black Euglisi is & vase is point, The must iauposcanst filing vf all dais reveael, has been that Black English is just as “logical” and “ordered” as any other English dialect, in spite of the fact that it is commonly viewed by white speakers as being somehow inferior, deformed, or limited. 5. Speakers of all languages employ a range of styles and a set of subdialects or jargons. Just as soon as we accept the notion that we all speak a dialect, it is necessary to complicate things further. We may real- ize that we do belong to a speech community, although we may not like tocall itadialect, but we often forget that our speech patterns vary greatly during the course of our everyday routine. In the morning, at home, com- munication with our spouses may consist of grumbled fragments of @ private code: Ubhh. Yeah, More? Um-hmm, You gonna... Yeah, if. Kay. Yet halt an hour later, we may be standing in a meeting and talking. quite differently: “The cost-effectiveness curve of the Peoria facility has declined to the point at which management is compelled to consider terminating production.” These two samples of speech suggest that we constantly range between formal and informal styles of speech—and this is an adjustment which speakers ofall languages constantly make. Learn- ing the sociolinguistic rules which tell us what sort of speech is appropri- ate in differing social situations is as much a part of language acquisition as learning how to produce the sound of /b/ or /t/. We talk differently to our acquaintances than to strangers, differently to our bosses than to our subordinates, differently to children than to adults. We speak in one way on the racquetball court and in another way in the courtroom, we perhaps talk differently to stewardesses than to stewards. ‘The ability to adjust our language forms to the social context is some- thing which we acquire as children, along with sounds, words, and syntax. We lear, in other words, not just to say things, but also how and when and to whom. Children discover, for example, that while the purpose of ‘most language is to communicate meaning if it weren't they could never24 LANGUAGE AND Irs Stuy eam it in the first place) we sometimes use words as mere acknowledg- ments. (Hi, How are you doing? Fine. Bye.) Youngsters also learn that to ‘get what you want, you have to address people as your social relation with them dictates (Miss Jones, may I please feed the hamster today?) And, of course, children lear that in some situations one doesn’t use certain words at all—though such learning may sometimes seem cruelly delayed to parents whose offspring loudly announce in restaurants: “1 hafta go toilet!” Interestingly, these sociolinguistic rules are learned quite late in the ‘game, While a child of seven or eight does command a remarkably sophis- ticated array of sentence types, for example, he has a great deal left to lear about the social regulations governing language use. This seems logical, given that children do learn language mostly by listening and experimenting. Only as a child grows old enough to encounter a widening range of social relationships and roles will he have the experience neces- sary to help him discover the sociolinguistic dimensions of them. While there are many ways of describing the different styles, or regis- ters, of language which all speakers learn, xt 1s helpful to consider them in terms of levels of formality. One well-known example of such a scheme ‘was developed by Martin Joos, who posited five basic styles, which he called intimate, casual, consultative, formal, and frozen. While Joos's ‘model is only one of many attempts to find a scale for the range of human speech styles, and is certainly not the final word on the subject, it does illuminate some of the ways in which day-to-day language varies. At the bottom of Joos’s model is the intimate style, a kind of language which ““fuses two separate personalities” and can only occur between individu- als with a close personal relationship. A husband and wife, for example, ‘may sometimes speak to each other in what sounds like a very fragmen- tary and clipped code that they alone understand, Such utterances are characterized by their “extraction” —the use of extracts of potentially complete sentences, made possible by an intricate, personal, shared sys- ‘em of private symbols. The intimate style, in sum, is personal, fragmen- tary, and implicit. ‘The casual style also depends on social groupings. When people share understandings and meanings which are not complete enough to be called intimate, they tend to employ the casual style. The earmarks of this pattern are ellipsis and slang. Ellipsis is the shorthand of shared meaning, slang often expresses these meanings in a way that defines the group and excludes others. The casual style is reserved for friends and insiders, or those whom we choose to make friends and insiders. The consultative style “produces cooperation without the integration, profiting from the lack of it.’* In this style, the speaker provides more explicit background 2 Martin Joos, The Five Clocks (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962}. * Ibid, p. 40.Daniels | Nine Ideas about Language 25 information because the listener may not understand without it. This is, the style used by strangers or near-strangers in routine transactions: co- ‘workers dealing with a problem, a buyer making a purchase from a clerk, and so forth. An important feature of this style is the participation of the listener, who uses frequent interjections such as Yeah, Uh-huh or I see to signal understanding, This clement of lincics pasticipacion disappears in dhe formal style Speech in this mode is defined by the listener's lack of participation, as well as by the speaker’s opportunity to plan his utterances ahead of time and in detail. The formal style is most often found in speeches, lectures, Sermons, television newscasts, and the like. The frozen style is reserved for print, and particularly for literature. This style can be densely packed and repacked with meanings by its “Speaker,” and it can be read and reread by its “listener.” The immediacy of interaction between the partic {pants is sacrificed in the interests of permanence, elegance, and precision. Whether or not we accept Joos’s scheme to classify the different grada- tions of formality, we can probably sense the truth of the basic proposi- tion: we do make such adjustments in our speech constantly, mostly unconsciously, and in response to the social situation in which we are speaking. What we sometimes forget is that no one style can accurately be called better or worse than another, apart from the context in which it is used. Though we have much reverence for the formal and frozen styles, they can be utterly dysfunctional in certain circumstances. If I said to my wife: “Let us consider the possibility of driving our automobile into the central business district of Chicago in order to contemplate the possible purchase of denim trousers,” she would certainly find my way of speaking strange, if not positively disturbing. All of us need to shift between the intimate, casual, and consultative styles in everyday life, not because one or another of these is a better way of talking, but because each is required in certain contexts. Many of us also need to master the formal style for the talking and writing demanded by our jobs. But a3 Joos has pointed out, few of us actually need to control the frozen style, which is reserved primarily for literature.* ‘Besides having a range of speech styles, each speaker also uses a num- ber of jargons based upon his or her affiliation with certain groups. The ‘most familiar of these jargons are occupational: doctors, lawyers, accoun- tants, farmers, electricians, plumbers, truckers, and social workers each have a job-related jargon into which they can shift when the situation demands it. Sometimes these special languages are a source of amusement or consternation to outsiders, but usually the outsiders also speak jargons of their own, though they may not recognize them. Jargons may also be based on other kinds of affiliations. Teenagers, it is often remarked by bemused parents, have a language of their own. So they do, and so do “id., pp. 39-67.26 LaNauace: aN Irs Srupy other age groups. Some of the games and chants of youngsters reflect a kind of childhood dialect, and much older persons may have a jargon of their own as well, reflecting concerns with aging, illness, and finances. Sports fans obviously use and understand various abstruse athletic terms, while people interested in needlecrafts use words that are equally impene- trable to the uninitiated. For every human enterprise we can think of, there will probably be a jaigon attached ty it But simply noting that all speakers control a range of styles and a set of jargons docs not tell the whole story. For every time we speak, we do so not just in a social context, but for certain purposes of our own. When talking with a dialectologist, for example, I may use linguistic jargon simply to facilitate our sharing of information, or instead to con- vince him that I know enough technical linguistics to be taken seri ously —or both. In other words, my purposes — the functions of my lan- guage —affect the way I talk. The British linguist M. A. K. Halliday has studied children in an attempt to determine how people's varying pur- poses affect their speech.’ Halliday had to consider children, in fact, be- cause the purposes of auy given adult utterance are usually so complex and overlapping that it is extremely difficult to isolate the individual purposes. By examining the relatively simpler language of children, he was able to discover seven main uses, functions, or purposes for talking: instrumental, regulatory, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative, and representational. The instrumental function, Halliday explains, is for getting things done; it is the J want function. Close to it is the regulatory function, which seeks to control the actions of others around the speaker. The interactional function is used to define groups and relationships, to get along with others. The personal function allows people to express what they are and how they feel; !alliday calls this the here come fuuctivn. The heuristic function is in operation when the speaker is using language to leam, by asking questions and testing hypotheses. In the imaginative function, a speaker may use language to create @ world just as he or she ‘wants it, or may simply use it as a toy, making amusing combinations of sounds and words, In the representational function, the speaker uses language to express propositions, give information, or communicate sub- ject matter. Absent from Halliday’s list of functions, interestingly, is one of the ‘most common and enduring purposes of human language: lying. Perhaps lying could be included in the representational or interactional functions, in the sense that a person may deceive in order to be a more congenial companion. Or perhaps each of Halliday’s seven functions could be as signed a reverse, false version. In any case, common sense, human history, and our own experience all tell us that lying —or misleading or covering 5M. A. K. Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (London: Edward Amold, 1973).Daniels { Nine Ideas about Language 27 up or shading the truth—is one of the main ends to which language is put ‘As we look back over these three forms of language variation —styles, jargons, and functions— we may well marvel at the astounding. ‘complexity of language. For not only do all speakers master the intricate sound, lexical, and grammatical patterns of their native tongue, but they ‘loo leara countlese, systematic alternative ways of applying their linguis tic knowledge to varying situations and needs. We are reminded, in short, that language is as beautifully varied and fascinating as the creatures who use it, 6. Language change is normal. This fact, while often acknowledged by critics of contemporary English, has rarely been fully understood or accepted by them. It is easy enough to welcome into the language such innocent neologisms as astronaut, transistor, or jet ag. These terms serve obvious needs, responding to certain changes in society which virtually require them, But language also changes in many ways that don't seem so logical or necessary. The dreaded dangling hopefully, which now attaches itself w the beginning of sentences with the meaning I Lope, appears w be driving out the connotation full of hope. As Jean Stafford has angrily pointed out, the word relevant has broadened to denote almost any kind of “with-it-ness.” But these kinds of lexical changes are not new, and simply demonstrate an age-old process at work in the present. The word dog (actually, dogge), for example, used to refer to one specific breed, but now serves as a general term for a quite varied family of animals. Perhaps similarly, dialogue has now broadened to include exchanges of views between (or among) any number of speakers. But word meanings can also narrow over time, as the word deer shrank from indicating any game animal to just one specific type. The souuds of language alsy chauge, though usually in slower and less noticeable ways than vocabulary, Perhaps fifty years ago, the majority of American speakers produced distinctly different consonant sounds in the middle of latter and Jadder. Today, most younger people and many adults pronounce the two words is if they were the same. Another sound change in progress is the weakening distinction between the vowel sounds in dawn and Don, ot hawk and hock. Taking the longer view, of course, we realize that modem pronunciation is the product of centuries of gradual sound changes. ‘Shifts in grammar are more comparable to the slow process of sound change than the sometimes sudden one of lexical change. Today we find that the shull/will distinction, which is still maintained auony soie upper-class Britishers, has effectively disappeared from spoken American English. A similar fate seems to await the who/whom contrast, which is upheld by fewer and fewer speakers. Our pronouns, as a matter of fact, seem to be a quite volatile comer of our grammar. In spite of the efforts of teachers, textbooks, style manuals, and the SAT tests, most American speakers now find nothing wrong with Everyone should bring their books to class or even John and me went to the Cubs game. And even the hoary28 LANGUAGE AND Is Stuy old double negative [which is an obligatory feature of degraded tongues, like French) seems to be making steady, if slow progress. We may be only a generation or two from the day when we will again say, with Shakespeare, “I will not budge for no man’s pleasure.” While we may recognize that language does inexorably change, we cannot always explain the causes or the sequences of each individual luauge. Suuicuuues ciauges suuve wuwanl sinuplifivacion, #9 with die shedding of vowel distinctions. Other changes tend to regularize the lan- guage, as when we de-Latinize words like medium/media (The newspa- pers are one media of communication], or when we abandon dreamt and burt in favor of the regular forms dreamed and burned. And some coin- ages will always reflect the need to represent new inventions, ideas, or events: quark, simulcast, pulsar, stagflation. Yet there is plenty of lan- guage change which seems to happen spontaneously, sporadically, and ‘without apparent purpose. Why should irregardless substitute for regard- less, meaning the same thing? Why should handy distinctions like that between imply and infer be lost? But even if we can never explain the reasons for such mysterious changes — or pethaps because we can’t—we ‘must accept the fact that language does change. Today, we would cer- tainly be thought odd to call cattle kine, to pronounce saw as saux, oF to ask about “thy health,”” however ordinary such language might have been centuries ago. Of course, the more recent changes, and especially the changes in progress, make us most uncomfortable. But then our sense of the pace of language change is often exaggerated, ‘When we cringe (as do so many of the language crities) at the sudden reassignment of the word gay to a new referent, we tend to forget that ‘we can still read Shakespeare. In other words, even if many conspicuous {and almost invariably lexical] changes are in progress, this doesn't neces- sarily mean that the language as a whole is uuderguing « rapid ur whiole- sale transformation. However, once we start looking for language change, it seems to be everywhere, and we are sorely tempted to overestimate its importance. Sometimes we even discover changes which aren’t changes at all. Various language critics have propounded the notion that we are being inundated by a host of very new and particularly insidious coinages. Here are some of the most notorious ones, along with the date of their earliest citation in the Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning presently viewed as modem and dangerous: you know (1350); anxious for eager (1742; be- tween you and I (1640); super for good (1850); decimate for diminish by other than one-tenth (1663], inoperative for nonmechanical phenomena (1631); near-perfect for nearly perfect |1635); host as in to host a gathering (1485); gifted, as in He gifted his associates (1660); aggravate for annoy (isis With many thanks to Jim Quinn and his American Tongue and Cheek [New ‘York: Pantheon, 1981)Daniels | Nine Ideas about Language 29 If we find ourselves being aggravated (or annoyed) by any of these crotchety old neologisms, we can always look to the Mobil Oil Corpora- tion for a comforting discussion of the problem. In one of its self-serving public service magazine ads, Mobil intoned: “Change upsets people. Al ways has. Disrupts routine and habit patterns. Demands constant adapta tion, But change is inevitable. And essential. Inability to change can be fatal"? Aud Mubil inadvertently gives us une laot caatnple uf « language change currently in progress: the increasing use of sentence fragments in formal written English. 7. Languages are intimately related to the societies and individuals who use them. Every human language has been shaped by, and changes to meet, the needs of its speakers. In this limited sense, all human lan- guages can be said to be both equal and perfect. Some Eskimo languages, for example, have many words for different types of snow: wet snow, powdery snow, blowing snow, and so forth. This extensive vocabulary obviously results from the importance of snow in the Eskimo environ- ‘ment and the need to be able to talk about it in detailed ways. In Chicago, Where snow is just an occasional annoyance, we get along quite nicely with a few basic terms—snow, slush, and sleet—and a number of adjec~ tival modifiers. Richard Mitchell has described a hypothetical primitive society where the main preoccupation is banging on tree-bark to harvest edible insects, and this particular people has developed a large, specialized vocabulary for talking about the different kinds of rocks and trees in- volved in this process. In each of these cases, the language in question is well adapted to the needs of its speakers. Each language allows its speakers to easily talk about whatever it is important to discuss in that society, This does not mean, however, that any given language will work “perfectly” or be “equal” to any other in a cross-cultural setting. If take my Chicago dialect to the tundra, I may have trouble conversing with people who distinguish, in Eskimo, ten more kinds of snow than I do. Or if one of Mitchell's tree-bangers came to Chicago, his elaborate rock- and-bark vocabulary would be of little use. Still, neither of these languages is inherently inferior or superior; inside its normal sphere of use, each is, just what it needs to be. There is a related question concerning the differences between lan: guages. Many linguists have tried to determine the extent to which our native language conditions our thought processes. For all the talk of simi- larities between languages, there are also some quite remarkable differ- ences from one language to another. The famous studies of American Indian languages by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir have sug gested, for example, that Hopi speakers do not conceptualize time in the ? eusiness Is Bound to Change,” Mobi Oil advertisement, Chicago Tribune, Jan ary 5, 1977,30 Lancuace anp Its Srupr same way as speakers of English.* To the Hopi, time is a continuing process, an unfolding that cannot be segmented into chunks to be used or “wasted.” The words and constructions of the Hopi language reflect this perception, Similarly, some languages do not describe the same color spectrum which we speakers of English normally regard as a given physi- cal phenomenon. Some of these name only two, others three, and so on. ‘Ate we, dieu, livpelessly cauplit i dhe guasp uf die language wliiuls we happen to grow up speaking? Are all our ideas about the world controlled by our language, so that our reality is what we say rather than what objectively, verifiably exists? ‘The best judgment of linguists on this subject comes down to this: wwe are conditioned to some degree by the language we speak, and our Tanguage does teach us habitual ways of looking at the world. But on the other hand, human adaptability enables us to transcend the limitations of a language—to learn to see the world in new ways and voice new concepts —when we must. While itis probably true that some ideas are easier to communicate in one language than another, both languages and speakers can change to meet new needs. The grip which language has on usis firm, but it does not strangle; we make language more than language makes us. It is also important to realize that a language is not just an asset of a culture or group, but of individual human beings. Our native language is the speech of our parents, siblings, friends, and community. It is the code we use to communicate in the most powerful and intimate experi ences of our lives. It is a central part of our personality, an expression and a mirror of what we are and wish to be. Our language is as personal and as integral to each of us as our bodies and our brains, and in our own ‘unique ways, we all treasure it. And all of us, when we are honest, have to admit that criticism of the way we talk is hard not to take personally. ‘This reaction is nothing to be ashamed of: itis simply a reflection of the natural and profound importance of language to every individual human being. To summarize: all human languages and the concept systems which they embody are efficient in their native speech communities. The lan- guages of the world also vary in some important ways, so that people sometimes falsely assume that certain tongues are inherently superior to others. Yet it is marvelous that these differences exist. It is good that the Eskimo language facilitates talk about snow, that the Hopi language supports that culture's view of time, and, I suppose, that Chicago speech thas ample resources for discussing drizzle, wind, and inept baseball teams. 8. Value judgments about different languages or dialects are matters, * See Edward Sapir, Culture, Language, and Personality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949}.Daniels | Nine Ideas about Language 31 of taste. One of the things we seem to acquire right along with our native tongue is a set of attitudes about the value of other people's language. If we think fora moment about any of the world’s major languages, we will find that we usually have some idea—usually a prejudice or stereo- type—about it. French is the sweet music of love, German is harsh, martial, overbearing, The language of Spain is exotic, romantic. The Span- ish of Latin Americano is alien, uneducated. Scandinavian tongucs have akind of silly rhythm, as the Muppet Show’s Swedish chef demonstrates weekly. British English is refined and intelligent. New York dialect (espe- cially on Toity-Toid Street} is crude and loud. Almost all southern Ameri- can speakers (especially rural sheriffs] are either cruelly crafty or just plain dumb. Oriental languages have a funny, high-pitched, singsong sound. And Black English, well, it just goes to show. None of these notions about different languages and dialects says anything about the way these ‘tongues function in their native speech communities. By definition —by the biological and social order of things — they function efficiently. Each is a fully formed, logical, rule-governed variant of human speech. Ie is easy enough to assert that all languages are equal and efficient in their own sphere of use. But most of us do not really believe in this, idea, and certainly do not act as if we did, We constantly make judgments about other people and other nations on the basis of the language they use. Especially when we consider the question of mutually intelligible American dialects, we are able to see that most ideas about language differences are purely matters of taste. It isn’t that we cannot understand. each other—Southerers, Northerners, Californians, New Yorkers, blacks, whites, Appalachian folk —with only the slightest effort we can communicate just fine. But because of our history of experiences with each other, or perhaps just out of perversity, we have developed prejudices toward other people's language which sometimes affect our behavior. Such prejudices, however irrational, generate much pressure for speakers of disfavored dialects to abandon their native speech for some approved pattern. But as the linguist Einar Haugen has warned: ‘And yet, who are we to eal for linguistic genoeide in the name of eff ciency? Let us recall that although a language is a tool and an instrument of communication, that is not al itis. A language is also a patt of one’s personality, a form of behavior that has its roots in our earliest experi- ence. Whether itis @ so-called rural or ghetto dialect, or a peasant lan- ‘guage, or a “primitive” idiom, i fulfills exactly the same needs and per- forms the same services inthe daily lives ofits speakers as does the most advanced language of culture. Every language, dialect, patois, or lingo is structurally complete framework into which can be poured any subtlety of emotion or thought that its users are capable of experiencing, What: ever it lacks at any given time or place in the way of vocabulary and syntax can be supplied in very short order by borrowing and imitation from other languages. Any scorn for the language of others is scorn for32 LANGUAGE AND Irs Stuy those who use it, and as such isa form of social discrimination. |Empha- sis mine? It is not Haugen’s purpose—nor is it mine—to deny that social acceptability and economic success in America may be linked in certain ways to the mastery of approved pattems of speech. Yet all of us must realize that the need for such mastery arises only out of the prejudices of the dominant speech community and not from any intrinsic shortcom- ings of nonstandard American dialects. 9. Writing is derivative of speech. Writing systems are always based upon systems of oral language which of necessity develop first. People have been talking for at least a half million years, but the earliest known ‘writing system appeared fewer than 5,000 years ago. Of all the world’s languages, only about 5 percent have developed indigenous writing sys- tems. In other words, wherever there are human beings, we will always find language, but not necessarily writing, If language is indeed a biologi- cally programmed trait of the species, writing does not seem to be part of the standard equipment. Although the English writing system is essentially phonemic—an attempt to represent the sounds of language in graphic form—it is noto- riously irregular and confusing. Some other languages, like Czech, Fin- nish, and Spanish, come close to having perfect sound-symbol correspon- dence: each letter in the writing system stands for one, and only one, sound. English, unfortunately, uses some 2,000 letters and combinations of letters to represent its forty or so separate sounds. This causes prob- lems. For example, in the sentence: Did he believe that Caesar could see the people seize the seas? there are seven different spellings for the vowel sound /é/. The sentence: The silly amoeba stole the key to the machine vyields four more spellings of the same vowel sound. George Bernard Shaw ‘once noted that a reasonable spelling of the word fish might be ghoti: gh asin enough, oas in women, and ti asin nation. In spite of al its irregulari- ties, however, the English spelling system is nevertheless phonemic at heart, as our ability to easily read and pronounce nonsense words like _mimsy or proat demonstrates Writing like speech, may be put toa whole range of often overlapping ‘uses. And shifts in the level of formality occur in writing just as they do in talk, An author, like a speaker, must adjust the style of her message to the audience and the occasion. A woman composing scholarly article, for example, makes some systematically different linguistic choices than those she makes when leaving a note for her husband on the refrigerator. Both writers and speakers (even good ones} employ various jargons or specialized vocabularies that seem comfortable and convenient to the people they are addressing, Rules change with time in both writing and ° Binar Haugen, “The Curse of Babel,” in Einar Haugen and Morton Bloomfield, Language as a Human Problem |New York: W. W. Norton, 1974], p. 4Daniels { Nine Ideas about Language 33 speech. Most obviously, changes in speech habits are reflected in writing, today we readily pen words which weren’t even invented ten or a hundred ‘years ago. And even some of the rules which are enforced in writing after they have been abandoned in speech do eventually break down. Today, for example, split infinitives and sentence fragments are increasingly ac~ cepted in writing. Our personal tastes and social prejudices, which often ulde our reactions w other peuple’ sper, caus also dictate bus Lespunse to other people's writing ‘Our beliefs about writing are also bound up with our literary tradi- tion. We have come to revere certain works of literature and exposition ‘which have “stood the test of time,” which speak across the centuries to successive generations of readers, These masterpieces, like most enduring published writing, tend to employ what Joos would call formal and frozen styles of language. They were written in such language, of course, because their authors had to accommodate the subject, audience, and purpose at hand—and the making of sonnets and declarations of independence generally calls for considerable linguistic formality. Given our affection for these classics, we quite naturally admire not only their content but their form. We find ourselves feeling that only in the nineteenth or six: teenth century could writers “really use the language” correctly and beau- tifully, Frequently, we teach this notion in our schools, encouraging stu- dents to sce the language of written literature as the only true and correct, style of English. We require students not only to mimic the formal literary style in their writing, but even to transplant certain of its features into their speech—in both cases without reference to the students’ subject, audience, or purpose. All of this is not meant to demean literature or the cultivation of its appreciation among teenagers. It simply reminds us of how the mere existence of a system of writing and a literature can be a conservative influence on the language. the study, occasionally the off cial worship, of language forms that are both old and formal may retard linguistic changes currently in progress, as well as reinforce our mistaken belief that one style of language is always and truly the best. The preceding nine ideas about language are not entirely new. Many of them have been proclaimed by loud, if lonely, voices in centuries long, past. It has only been in the last seventy or eighty years, however, that these ideas have begun to form a coherent picture of how language works, thanks to the work of the descriptive and historical linguists. It is their research which has been, I hope, accurately if broadly summarized here. ‘A look at the history of past crises offered a general kind of reassur- ance about the present language panic. It suggested that such spasms of insecurity and intolerance are a regular, cyclical feature of the human chronicle, and result more from social and political tensions than from actual changes in the language. The review of rescarch presented in this section broadens that perspective and deflates the urgency of the 1983- model literary crisis in some other ways. It shows us that our language34 Laavact an Ins Srupy cannot “die” as long as people speak it; that language change is a healthy and inevitable process, that all human languages are rule governed, or- dered, and logical; that variations between different groups of speakers, are normal and predictable; that all speakers employ a variety of speech forms and styles in response to changing social settings; and that most of our attitudes about language are based upon social rather than linguistic. judges, “And so, if we are to believe the evidence of historical and linguistic research, our current language crisis seems rather curious. This is a crisis, which is not critical, which does not actually pose the dangers widely attributed to it. If anything, the crisis is merely a description of linguistic business as usual, drawn by the critics in rather bizarre and hysterical strokes. It seems fair to ask at this point: What's the problem? FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW 1. In presenting his “nine ideas about language,” Daniels attempts to dispel some commonly held but inaccurate beliefs about language. List as many of these myths as you can, How successful is Daniels in dispelling them? 2. As Daniels notes, children learn relatively late the “rules” about the kinds of speech that are appropriate in various circumstances. From your own experience, give some examples of children’s use of lan- guage that, given the social context, was inappropriate. 3. You probably would describe a particular event—for example, a party, a camping trip, an evening with a friend — differently to differ- ent people, Jot down the way you would tell a good friend about some event. Then write down the way you would describe the same ‘occurrence to your parents. When you compare the two accounts, what differences do you find? Are they the differences that Daniels leads you to expect? 4, Daniels believes that most people have ‘some idea—usually a preju- dice or stereotype” —about different languages and dialects. Define the terms prejudice and stereotype. Then test Daniels’s theory by asking five people what they think of {a] the languages and dialects, or (b) the speakers of the languages and dialects, that Daniels men- tions under point 8 on pp. 30-32. Study the responses and describe any prejudices or stercotypes that you find.