Over history there have been multiple attempts to standardise and refine the English language. Academics like Samuel Johnson and Robert Lowth have tried to direct the English population to a specific dialect and control the use of lexis and grammar through dictionaries and language guides. However, these attempts are seldom successful, language change is not controlled but rather driven by need - we see this through functional theory and the rise of neologisms as technology advances. Furthermore, the development of Creoles and Pidgins show us that language is always evolving and changing so any attempts to direct and control it will inevitably be futile.
Prescriptivists support the notion that language should be regulated and controlled, they generally object to grammatical changes like the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences and the use of double negatives. In more modern day settings, prescriptivists like John Humphrys object to lexical language changes like the abbreviated ‘cus’ for ‘because’. In 1755 Samuel Johnson’s dictionary was one of the first attempts to stabilise the English language. It took over 8 years to create and detailed 40,000 words which he perceived worthy of being included. Johnson held very prescriptivist views towards language which he believed was out of control and was being corrupted by commerce. Johnson’s dictionary did not accurately reflect the lexis being used by the English population. He left out words which he thought weren’t good enough like the adjective ‘shabby’. Johnson conformed to Aitchinsn’s Crumbling Castle view as he saw the language as something that needed to be protected and maintained. Johnson’s dictionary was primarily aimed at academics and its purpose was to direct and control language, however it was unsuccessful. We can examine Johnson’s attempt at standardisation against Haugen’s (1966) process of standardisation. Johnson effectively achieved the first two steps of this process - selection and codification - as he was able to select an existing language variety and reduce variability within it. However he could not achieve the final two stages of elaboration and implementation as he could not prevent people from using the non-standard language forms and neither could he discredit them on a national level, doing so was simply impractical. Ultimately Johnson failed in his attempt to direct and control the English Language as he could not prevent people from using language forms which were not present in his dictionary. This case study of Johnson shows that theoretically language can be standardised, but this will only happen if all of Haugen’s processes are achieved.
However, one could refute the former argument which claims that standardisation is difficult to practically achieve and therefore language change is unlikely to be controlled and directed. In 1476 William Caxton brought the Printing Press to England. Caxton selected the East Midlands Dialect as the spelling system his texts would be published in. His use of Flemish typesetters which were unaccustomed to the peculiarities of English spelling systems caused the disappearance of certain orthographical features like thorn and the replacement of eth’s orthographical symbol with ‘th’. Caxton’s selection of this dialect spread the use of a standard dialect within publications and caused the decline of orthographical features which differed from this standard. Ultimately Caxton was able to effectively control and direct the use of language through the development of the Printing Press. Nevertheless, we can still argue against the notion that language change can be restricted and controlled. Arguably the success of Caxton’s standardisation came from his attempt to control written language rather than spoken language. Written language was able to be controlled because it made publishing easier. Furthermore, Caxton’s standardisation did not largely affect the words used but rather the way they were spelt. Control over orthography differs from control over spoken language. Therefore Caxton’s Printing Press had little influence over spoken language as a whole throughout the country and therefore cannot be used as an adequate justification for the argument that language change can be controlled and directed.
In addition, Functional Theory supports the notion that language change cannot be directed and controlled. This theory argues that language changes to suit user needs. As new needs are acquired coinage occurs as new words come in and archaism happens when words drop out of usage. Functional theory presents the idea that rather than language change being controlled, it is actually driven by need. Most prominent examples of functional theory and coinage are in relation to the development of technology. A key example is the lexis used to describe music. In the 1970s people used ‘cassettes’, in the 80’s we used 'CDs' then the abbreviation ‘MP3’ and now in the 21st century we use 'streaming platforms'. As technology developed, the older lexis we used to describe music underwent archaism as we coined new words. Functional Theory shows that language is ever evolving and changing and that it reflects societal changes. People cannot control and direct language change as it is essential that language changes to suit society’s changes. For example, the majority of the coinage that occurs are nouns, this is because as we develop new things we need to name them. In the first World War we developed terms like ‘tanks’ to suit technological developments. Ultimately, language change is inevitable and cannot be controlled and directed.
Furthermore, through examining global varieties of English we see that it would be impractical to attempt to control and direct language change. Through colonialism English was brought all over the globe and as a result natives developed their own varieties of English to assist communication between foreign settlers. Schneider’s Dynamic Model of Post-Colonial English depicts the stages through which English goes through as it develops and mixes with other languages of the natives. The stages are foundation, exonormative stabilisation, nativisation, endonormative stabilisation, and differentiation. The final stage is where Creoles form. Creoles are a stable natural language developed from the mixing of parent languages. What distinguishes Creoles from Pidgins is that Creoles have been nativised by children and therefore become the first language of these children. It would be impractical to impose upon users of Creole, a standard way of using language. Creoles are evidence of how non-standard language variations develop into entire languages in their own right. Essentially, language change cannot be directed and controlled especially when it happens internationally and away from the place at which the language was primarily used. As seen with Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (1755) it is simply impractical to attempt to standardise the spoken English language on a national scale, let alone on an international one.
Ultimately, through examining case studies like that of Johnson’s dictionary, we can see that it is increasingly difficult to direct and control spoken language nationally. Furthermore, the presence of Creoles show us that language is always evolving and changes in relation to the country where it is used. Functional Theory exhibits that language change is essential and is governed
by the needs of the user and therefore cannot be controlled and directed as it is essential that language reflects social developments.
Comments