The decline of the English language has been an age-old and hotly debated topic in Western literature.
More recently, the contention reared its messy head in a Mesa Press editorial “The Death of the English Language,” its author citing “[i]mproper punctuation and incorrect spelling” as “a serious epidemic” of an ignorant, but content, society. He argues that only through the correct usage of grammar could the language evolve without sacrificing its beauty.
Although the piece raises some valid points — the often misused homophones (e.g., “your” and “you’re”; “there,” “their” and “they’re”) and missing punctuation could pose serious problems due to their potential to completely alter the meaning of a sentence — it is quite unfortunate that the author indicts the current education system for their cultural appropriation.
Long before the advent of smartphones and the subsequent adoption of text messaging as a main mode of communication, countless errors in grammar, syntax and diction have no doubt evaded the ever-gauging eyes of linguists and proofreaders before being published. This, in turn, helped to create revised and updated editions of many classic and popular literature. In this sense, the mistakes largely reflect the effects of human error, and not of poor education or technology. If, in fact, “text speak” has left a lasting and irreparable stain on the modern literary world, misplaced punctuation and spelling errors should be listed last of the problems to be addressed. In other words, people tend to make mistakes, no matter how educated, skilled and experienced, and certainly not because they “have clearly not…proofread.”
Still, language is often misunderstood when lacking in context. Like it or not, “text speak” exhibits all the qualities of an emerging and ever-shifting dialect of the modern English language, complete with its own set of grammatical rules, syntax and diction. The author of the piece, however, makes a generalized assumption that “people…using text speak…to communicate through social media sites” are “starting to get out of hand,” without taking into account their intellectual capacities in appropriate contexts. Would it be too far-fetched to assume that some, if not most, of these “text speak” users may be aware of their vernacular and capable of dictating its usage in differing settings? The choice to disregard grammar to communicate in a casual setting hardly implicates one’s incapacity as an eloquent writer or orator in a formal setting.
Although language requires rules, it has a tendency to constantly break the old and create new ones. In that sense, language can only evolve to gradually develop, refine and reflect the culture and society it ultimately represents. Some may argue that, based purely on the literal definition of the word, the English language has gotten simpler with each generation, and thus, has devolved over the years. Yet, such one-dimensional concept of language development fails to consider the core principle that all languages innately share and follow. Indeed, even with all the different set of rules and dialects, the basic function of language is universally understood: a communications tool that facilitates the establishment and maintenance of human interactions. As long as that purpose remains fulfilled, how it is realized should not matter as much.
The emphasis, then, should be placed on improving the efficiency and efficacy of the tool itself, because how one chooses to express oneself is far more complex than a set of rules reduced to correct grammar, syntax and diction. Believe it or not, “text speak” users communicate just fine, and the problem becomes significant only for the observers. There are time and place for rules and formalities; they cannot and should not dictate all instances of communication. Yes, language can be both powerful and beautiful, but its true strength often lies hidden beneath its physical form. If “i luv u” fails to convey the same meaning as “I love you,” look deeper past the broken grammar and try to appreciate its underlying sentiments instead. Because really, to quote Hamlet, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
