What do you think? Language question...?

Question

A quote..."The downfall of American society can be, in part, attributed to the misuse of the English language"..as in gang slang, dual (Spanish/English) on store labels and computers, lack of proper spelling even in periodicals....
Years ago, times were simpler with less strife, and everyone spoke and wrote proper English. If the basic lines of communication break down, would that not explain some of the misunderstandings we face today?

Answer 1

The answer to this question has been proven historically. And the answer is YES. Languages change with time, but when they are changed with intent and conviction, and when other languages enter a society, languages that are not partof the mainstream, anarchy is the end result. This was a major part of the downfall of the Roman Empire and numerous other civillizations throughout history. This isn't simple opinion, but historical fact. Those who refuse to believe this are bound to be part of the growing problem.
We have to acknowledge the fact that misuse of verbage can change the meaning of what is said. A very common error is the use of the words "affect" and "effect". They are not pronounced the same, and mean two different things, yet are constantly mixed up. The easiest way to remember this is 'an affect has effects', or 'special effects affect how good the movie is', obviously not the same thing. As this demonstrates improper use of language does break communications down, and can lead to the point where communications do not really exist.
The worst part of this is the people wo disagree with the quote you have supplied, are essentally the same people who have belittled President Bush for his pronunciation and enunciation. This also brings us to another breakdown in our language, the use of the term President. When referring to the president of the country, ONLY ONE LIVING PERSON is to be titled with the term President, and that is the person who is currently in office. Any other person who held the office is properly titled Former President, as there ovbiously can only be one president at a time. Deceased Presidents are referred to as President as an honorarium only, as it is obvious that they can no longer hold any office of power.

So you see, if a language is not used properly, what is said or put in type, does not mean what was intended and therefore can in fact end up meaningat the worst the exact opposite of what is meant

Answer 2

Wow... I'm not sure if you want to hear the answer to this question, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I'll try to keep it brief.

1. It's a myth that people used to speak proper English and things have just gotten worse lately. People often claim that their parents or grandparents spoke right and language is in a state of decay nowadays. The truth is that you will find examples of very famous and old English authors (e.g. Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Chaucer) breaking the same rules that people break today. In almost all cases, the grammar phenomenon that a rule is trying to prevent predates the rule by some hundreds of years.

2. All languages change all the time, but language change does not necessarily make a language worse. If we didn't have language change, we could never come up with new words for new inventions, for example. Personally I can't imagine my life without words like "refrigerator" and "automobile", let alone "computer" and "google".

3. It's also a myth that communication breaks down when people don't follow the rules in grammar books. People who are using slang are communicating very well; it's just that people who aren't part of the group who created the slang don't know what it means. It's very similar to what professionals do when they create jargon to describe things in their fields. The people who create a special language within their group are doing so to identify themselves as part of that group. If a person doesn't know how to use or understand that language, it's simply a sign that the person is not part of that group.

4. Many rules about how language should be used are actually based on the use of a high-status societal group. That is, when a rule tells you a certain language form is bad, it's often because that form is used by a group of people that the creator of the rule doesn't like, not because the language itself is somehow deficient. We wouldn't dare discriminate against people on the basis of color, religion, or height these days, but discriminating by how people use language is still considered acceptable by many people.

I think I'll stop there but I have much more to say on this topic. I recommend the book "Language Myths", edited by Bauer and Trudgill, if you would like to learn more about ideas like these. Feel free to write me an e-mail if you have any questions.

Answer 3

Trully there is no way to "misuse" a language. Languages change over time and those changes are usaully made to improve communication, not hinder it.

There is probably less strife today then there was in the past. I am 25 years old and I see these modern problems, but compare that to my parents generation when the Cold War had the whole world living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. And my grandparents lived through WWII so I dont see how things were any better in the past.

Today we just have a media that likes to sensationalize everything.

Answer 4

The problem that you expressed is not alone of language; but of culture or policy, in United States. Besides we need integration, a real integration, so we can learn and speak on same way. Now I do not see the real conditions for to do that.
Have a Good Day