Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Color? or Colour?


Nothing ever stays the same. People change through time. Clothing twenty years ago isn't the same as it is nowadays.  Neither is music nor technology the same as they were before. Accordingly, language changes too; the difference is that people don't want to accept it. People have a perception that language nowadays is rough and blunt. American writers admire Shakespeare even though they don't understamd half of his texts without extensive analysis. Nowadays, we find the debate between people who believe language should be accepted to change and adjust, and stubborn people who don't dare to listen. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about changes in language I realized there are terms for the two kinds of people that argue about change. I have always been a "descriptivist", which says I agree with the fact that language is constantly changing. I am a descriptivist because then words such as texting and chatting wouldn't exist or be printed in dictionaries. Those are rather old words, but I believe that in 10 years new worlds like facebooking or instagraming will make part of dictionaries like chatting and texting do today. "Prescriptivists", on the orher hand, are known as those who are stubborn and deem everything that is not strictly formal, as wrong. They focus more on how the language has to be used. It something isn't a rule it is wrong. Prescriptivist writers have to learn that even if they don't want language to loose its elegance and want it to be rightfully used, they have to learn that what's understood as correct is purely subjetive. A formal essay will be written with a different syntax, vocabulary and form today as compared to a text from the eighteen hundreds. Probably, if someone from that time would look at how I am writing this blog post, they would think its atrociously informal and unpoetic. What is considered correct is based solely on the time period and culture. Consecuently, if it did work lile that, utilizing the oxford comma could be understood as correct writing? 

I believe there should be a constant change in what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe a formal text today, will be better comprehended than one written in 50 years. I agree that there should be "a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking, because if not language will be destroyed in a mattrr or time. My argument is that language should be flexible and open to changes, because unlike german (who hasn't changed at all in 100 years) english must change and adapt, but not get to the point where it loses its elegance and conventions. 

No comments:

Post a Comment