The language

Author Bryan A. Garner, in his article “Making Peace in the Language Wars” (published in Garner’s Modern American Usage 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009), seeks to negotiate a cease-fire between two fighting countries, the prescriptivists and the descriptivists, by dispelling myths about each of their camps. First and foremost, Garner outlines the war is happening between the lines of our favorite novels and poetry, and he describes what each camp stands for. Prescriptivists desire to instruct the world around them on how to use the language by enforcing, or at the very least informing the general public about the rules of grammar. They are sometimes described as conservative and are very concerned

“Authority and American Usage” written by David Foster Wallace, poses an argument about the English language, and the different beliefs of its usage. This essay was written in defense of Bryan A. Garner’s, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. His argument in “Authority and American Usage” is the difference the between prescriptivism perception and the descriptivism perception (Linguistic terms that could easily be made into smaller, more understandable words for people like me). Since the beginning of time, language has evolved. From biblical times, to Shakespearean times, to present day; the English language has been continuously changing since it’s birth and has no intentions on stopping.

Too view language as if it were an object devoid of its social context would not be seeing language for its creation and use, language is used at its full potential when spoken, language is so important to humans, we use language to express, to think and communicate within the world we live. Language has changed over time, it is thought that at one time we had one original language that was spoken, and “as different human groups spread across the world and communicated only with each other, the original language changed in different ways in different places” (Gee, P,. & Hayes, E. (2011). pg 8), because of these changes, and socialisation of different humans, we now have many diverse human languages. Language has changed and will continue to

Secondly, range of similarities and differences are perceived in the sets of rules constraining the language structure of Auslan and English. In comparison to English, sign languages are visual languages, hence it is distinct in modality and word-ordering structure (Damian, 2011). To illustrate, the words of spoken languages are delivered in a fairly linear pattern, both in time and on paper (Bejan, 2001). This linear sentence structure is observed in English, but the same is not demonstrated in Auslan. However, despite this distinction, the order of signs remains of importance to produce meaningful sentences. This is because Auslan conveys many grammatical features found in the English language at phonological, morphological and syntactic levels (Johnston & Schembri, 2007). An individual’s poor English grammar is attributed for sentence fragments. These poorly formed English sentences occur when a sentence lacks a subject, a verb or do not express a complete thought (Schuster, 2006). In the same manner, the wrong ordering of signs will affect the fluency of the language. For instance, the linear English sentence ‘many black cars have disappeared’ will be signed as MANY-BLACK-CAR-DISAPPEAR (Johnston & Schembri, 2007). In this example, it is important that the determiner (MANY) and adjective (BLACK) are situated before the noun (CAR) (Johnston & Schembri, 2007). This is done for the purpose of identifying the noun within the sentence, which subsequently lead to the formation

“Others among you, perhaps fewer in number, will say to yourselves: quite so, there is such a thing as Standard English, or purity of speech, or correctness of expression- something worth safeguarding and fostering; but how the devil is one to accomplish that under the prevailing conditions: in a democratic society full of minorities that have their own dialects or linguistic preferences, and in a world in which television, advertising, and other mass media manage daily to corrupt the language

In George Orwell’s essay, “Politics And The English Language” Orwell discusses how the English language is changing negatively. His purpose is to show how modern writers, especially in politics, has become bogged down with the poor use of language. Orwell does this by using examples, critiques, and inductive reasoning. The author also has a serious tone that shows what he is talking about is very important to him and should be to his audience.

Simon states “some people are pleased to call linguistic evolution was almost always a matter of ignorance prevailing over knowledge” (209). This statement shows the opposing view of the liberal -linguist. On the other hand, the other group of people the opposition of the liberal-linguist mentioned by Simon believe that “there is such thing as Standard English” (208). This makes the works of this article balanced and truthful. As a conservative, Simon wants individuals to preserve the English language and not just go with any fad that may come upon us. Henceforth, Simon wants us to teach ourselves and he stresses training yourself. Though Simon presents favoritism toward what he describes as the minority or the conservatives. “we are here… to arrest unnecessary change” (209). He accurately reveals the two viewpoints regarding good English usage.

Language can be defined as a means of communication through spoken sounds, written symbols, or hand and body gestures. Subject to this simple definition language is neither human nor animal exclusive, meaning that all living creatures use some form of language to communicate. Humans have created the most advanced system of language. Human language has advanced to include listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing and visual representation. These components are known as the six language arts and while they are individual components they are as well interdependent. What you learn about one affects what and how you learn about the others.

Americans` perspective on language has changed by social or political factors. Three articles, “Do you speak American?” by Robert MacNeil, “Lost in America” by Douglas McGray, and “Why good English is good for you” by John Simon demonstrate each of the author`s idea that changes by the factors are inevitable, Americans should manage them well. Their ideas are based on the fact that Americans, especially societal and political issues, have changed how they think about language.

I’m not a genius! I can’t play the piano.” Using this way of syntax gives the reader a better understanding about the arguments and how the sentences were placed

Language is not just a set of rules that tells us how to talk with the correct grammar. “A cognitive phenomenon – a set of ‘rules’ in our minds or brains that tells us how to speak grammatically” (Clark, 1996) and “Cannot be thought of as only a system of formal elements; have to take into account its functions (Brumfit, 1994)

Learning any language takes time, practice and comprehension to communicate effectively. As children, we develop a list of basic words, their definitions, as well as develop the ability to properly conform simple sentences. We acquire this knowledge simply by focusing on our surroundings. As we grow and embrace our personal surroundings of education, we expand the familiarity and information needed for communication. However, to further enhance our knowledge of correct language, it is necessary to have education centers and schools that teach us the proper guidelines to write and speak effectively. Nonetheless, on the other hand, as we obtain a sense of when, how, and why in certain phrases, at that point, we have the potential to bend the rules a little bit and inaccurately expand our horizons of communication. This is when doublespeak originates and has the ability to destroy the proper function of language.

George Orwell states that, “our civilization is decadent and our language…must inevitably share in the general collapse” (Orwell 2000, 1), when he argues for prescriptivism (though toned down from what was taught and accepted in his day). While Garner posits that, “describers, meanwhile, remind us that linguistic change is a fact of life – and conclude that it’s therefore not worth opposing” (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 272). When David Foster Wallace discusses descriptivism, he makes a historical reference to, “Philip Gove’s now classic introduction to Webster’s Third [which] outlines this type of Descriptivism’s five basic edicts: ‘1 – Language changes constantly; 2 – change is normal; 3 – spoken language is the language; 4 – correctness rests upon usage; 5 – All usage is relative.’” (Wallace 2005, 83). Wallace himself argues against most of these edicts, proving himself to uphold his snootitude. Bryan A. Garner creates a list similar to that of Gove’s, while addressing the argument that “learning grammar may seem like an exercise in pedantry,” which is a point argued by many descriptivists:

There is often confusion between what is prescriptively correct under the rules of standard English grammar within different varieties, which results in various options for classroom grammar teaching for second language learners.

Although, there is no agreed definition of language among linguists, but we can say that language is the most sophisticated way of communication between any two human beings and far more complex than any other system of communication. The ability of acquiring and using languages is one of the properties that differs us as human beings from other species.