Language Degradation

Perusing my well-worn copy Essays of E.B. White, I came across this quotation that has always necessitated multiple readings:

Unless someone is willing to entertain notions of superiority, the English Language disintegrates, just as a home disintegrates unless someone in the family sets standards of good taste, good conduct, and simple justice. (320)

As a student of Literature, it seems very simple to agree with White's statement blindly. As a writer and a speaker utilizing the English Language, I have a responsibility to preserve and champion its grammatical usage. Is White correct in establishing a power hierarchy? Must people take the lead and strictly regulate the English Language?

This level of conservatism seems unrealistic and arrogant.

English, more so than many other languages is, as Dr. Morton from U.C. Davis describes it, a “creole” or stew of many other languages. Celtic languages, Greek, Latin, French and hundreds of other influences evolved the language. English has a history of adapting and changing. Its flexibility is partly the reason for its longevity.

Thus, is it correct to label one type of English more correct or, as White would describe it, superior than other versions of English?

Aristotle says to “let the virtue of style be defined as 'to be clear' (speech is a kind of sign, so if it does not make clear it will not perform its function)—and neither flat nor above the dignity of the subject, but appropriate” (Rhetoric, 1404b). If clarity is the ultimate goal of “style,” it is ultimately appropriate to manipulate the language based on the situation if the meaning will be more clear.

Consider the two sentences: “That man is as foppish as he is rotund.” and “That yo is a stuck-up fat-ass.” Both are lucid. Both make very similar points. But each sentence belongs in a very different realm. Thus, I can pick the sentence that is more clear for my audience regardless of grammatical syntax or standard diction. I speak in a manner that is most clear and lucid depending on the situation.

I use a different speech pattern around my male friends. I use a different speech pattern around my brother. I use a different speech pattern around the girl I adore. For every person, for every recipient of my language, I use a slightly different version of English. Language is, in fact, so flexible, that if my realms collide—a situation when I am speaking to my male friends and the object of my affection, I can instantly create yet another version of English.

Language is infinitely flexible, and I think it much too conservative to consider one language inferior or superior based on its technical (grammar and punctuation) characteristics. I give my support to Aristotle's clarity over White's standards.

But let me conclude this incredibly dull blog post by saying that my heart understands E.B. White's concern. I choose to alter my language depending on the audience. I choose these different versions because I can purposefully and consciously manipulate my language. I know the rules. I know when to use "who" or "whom," and I know about commas before coordinating conjunctions—I have the choice on whether to use them or not. But without a proper foundation regarding the standards of the language, incorrect usage caters to the ignorance of the masses rather than the discretion of the individual. And in this regard, I give my support to White's standards over Aristotle's clarity.

I believe White's concern of language disintegration is well-founded: without a proper knowledge and understanding of the language, how can one manipulate it without destroying it?

What do you think, dear reader?

Works Cited:
White, Elwyn Brooks. Essays of E.B. White. 1977. New York: Harper-Perennial, 1999.