There was a time not very long
ago when I used to feel very proud of my control over grammar. You know, your
ears prickle when you hear an incorrect sentence, you have the ability to catch
hold of the best way to express a thought and you’re able to correctly apply some of
the more rigid rules (those that are less conducive to being explained through simple
logic) of the Queen’s. I lived in a happy bubble.
Even after turning incredibly lazy and occasionally spewing out a dirtier
combination of easy-to-use phrases, I still turn red whenever I make a blatant error. I wasn't the only person to harbour a feeling of supremacy and quiet
contentment. The number of grammar conscious people constantly increased in my
circle and all was well.
Or so it seemed. Peers play a
crucial role in moulding your tastes. I had no qualms about using SMS slang in
chats and texts. I had no problem not using the proper sentence case while
typing. Not until I experienced deep disapproval from my seniors that I changed my
preferences and started looking down upon the lowly classes. “That guy writes ‘hawt’!”
or “I can’t understand why they spell ‘kool’ when the original’s in four letters
too”. I was part of the elite, the
Right, a protector of the sacrosanct ways of English. I could only generate
sympathy for the other side in a good mood, and scorn otherwise.
Things started changing soon. For
one thing, your friends are a mirror of your own self and I could see how I looked
to the outside world- patronizing, insensitive and deluded. Besides, there was
a limit to my desire of emulating my peers. As the years went by, I thought I
had narrowed my view of the world. The argument that resulted from my mental
meanderings was this: as long as you can convey your thoughts to the intended
recipient does it actually matter if you use proper grammar? And who sets the
rules anyway? If we had not digressed from the standards set by the pre-eminent
linguists of the era we’d still be using old English. Shakespeare would have
been convicted for gross sacrilege and hanged as he invented words on the go to
suit his need and distorted verbs and tenses that go far beyond anything else
done by a writer in the name of poetic license. Language is a living body; it
reflects the pace and needs of our times. We might just end up with
Newspeak.
But the difference is that people aren’t being forced onto a newer language, we’re
adapting it to our lifestyles. On the other hand, a Hagrid sort of a guy
generally wouldn’t get a chance to speak at an international conference of
leaders. His language may be a natural consequence of his environment but it’s
like the FPS system. It’s good enough for the entire course of a person’s life
but wouldn’t fetch him/her an entry into a science seminar where the de facto
standard is the SI.
As it turned out, I didn’t have to
search very far to receive a context to my tribulations. There is a raging
debate going on in the academic world, the battle between the Prescriptivists
and the Descriptivists.
A brief description is warranted.
Precriptivists are the conservatives. They demand the need to define and
regulate the form of language. There are rules and these must be followed to
maintain the beauty of language and to keep out all forms of ambiguity or
dilution of standards. A case in point is the difference between the use of “who”
for the subject and “whom” for the object in a sentence. They say that rules
are important to avoid chaos and to keep everyone in line (at the expense of
losing those who couldn’t be inducted in the right way). Descriptivists are
those who believe that rules are nothing but the current predominant state of
usage. It’s enough for a child who learns a language from his environment and
then uses it to communicate effectively with others. An emphasis on rules
necessitates bias against certain dialects and forms. Language is a living
system of internally consistent logic. Many of the rules, they say, have no
basis in them. They are, to use Steven Pinker’s words, “old wives' tales”.
I mention Pinker’s name to stress
that this is not a debate between the academics and the masses. It’s a battle that’s
raging between the top psychologists and linguists of the world. A recent essay
by
Joan Acocella sparked off a skirmish between the two sections. On first
glance and to an uninitiated mind the review is a lengthy discussion of the
merits and fallacies of a recently published book. A more informed read tells
you that the reviewer has launched a scathing attack on the decriptivists. It would have been all well too, except that Acocella makes
several mistakes in her analysis. Consequently, her review has been lambasted and ridiculed. You can’t launch an attack without knowing your terrain.
To my mind, the greatest
difference between the two sides is the emphasis which they put on the role of
rules in defining a language. It would be easy to state that a middle path is
desired, one that allows language to evolve continuously but with the rules
there in place to avoid confusion. It sounds simple. It isn’t. The hardest
thing for an intelligent mind which has spent years on a problem is for it to
concede or compromise. I don’t think rules are so important. I don’t find
anything wrong with slang. Historically, truth and convention are defined by
the majority. The day enough people regularly write hawt instead of hot will be
the day it’s inducted into the dictionary.
Take it away, Bob:
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
