Young Writers Society

Dedicated to BlueAfrica, whose works sparked the internal debate on linguistic progress. 

Change. Improvement. Progress. The defining factor in any movement. Rights activists of all walks want equality. Revolutionaries in any country seek new leadership. Humanitarian aid organizations attempt to feed, shelter, and heal wherever they go. All of those are aimed at bringing about a change, and improving the lot of those they come in contact with. But not all change is as radical as those.

Linguistics, the study of language, is also about change, albeit a subtler kind. Word etymology and word application are the two main facets of linguistics: where words came from, and where they’re going. Our words today, though maybe similar to those used hundreds of years ago, have changed definition, spelling, and connotation over the decades. Not too long ago (relatively speaking), the “f” was used as the “s” in spelling, and “gentleman” meant “someone who bore a coat of arms.”

Such blatant changes in the language are easily identifiable, and readily available for the adventurous. But even subtler changes have occurred throughout the course of language. Technology has changed what we mean by certain words, not necessarily the words themselves. To have a conversation before the days of telephones meant to be in the same room, speaking face to face in a group of two or more individuals. Today, conversation can be carried out over the phone, through texting, Skype, or email. Writing someone a letter is the equivalent of an email (which begs how one “sends” an email, in the physical sense). Books have been reduced to the mere essence of the amount of words they contain, and are no longer bound to the physical world. Even the very nature of the word “write” has been changed by our technology. We sit down at a computer, open a word doc, and rattle away at the keys, and when we’re finished, we’ve “written” something!

Volumes can be, and have been, written about the different types of changes, and their benevolent or adverse effect on the language. It is not just a matter of preference, but a matter of necessity, for these changes to occur. And so long as there is change, there will be sides to the issue. Some will favor the old, others nurture the new, and the camps will divide. Some will be outright ambivalent, claiming not to know whether the advantages outweigh the losses.

The nature of change is very clear to me. Any change ought to have a purpose, and ought to improve our understanding, our communicative abilities, and our society. It ought to foster growth and further our eloquence without grating against the natural melodies our language has developed. Anything that develops our thought processes, the “why are we doing this?” train of thought, is a benefit to our language.

That is why I have always favored adopting the singular they as the accepted form of the neuter pronoun. It creates the ambiguity of gender while clearly communicating its message, refrains from insulting or demeaning those involved, and churns on the tracks of our language’s necessary improvement. There’s a beauty of both the familiar and the simplicity of such a solution. We’re not attuning our linguistic circuits to a new cacophony of sounds we call a word, but expanding upon an old word, giving it new meaning and new life. Not every change needs something “new” for it to be an ascension in progress.

But efficiency in spelling is a huge cause for concern for me. I’m not talking about netspeak, or chat speak, or however you want to refer to “txting.” There is a time and a place for it. And, in a sense, it has become a “literary dialect.” I dn’t need 2 tell u wut dis means cuz u get it, rght? Brb, jk, and all the lols. We get it. It’s a part of our “eDentity.”

I’m more worried about things like “alright.” Alright has never been all right. The enjambment of two words into one, and dropping the “extra L,” displays a lack of education and submission to the god of efficiency. The semantics of whether “all right” or “alright” more accurately reflect what the speaker is trying to communicate can be considered irrelevant since both sides and variations can be considered the “better” choice. Alright is understood to be synonymous with “okay,” and as it requires less letters in its spelling, it should be the preferred choice because it is more efficient and is simpler to learn, fostering the furtherance in education of struggling learners. Alright makes it less challenging to understand by ridding the “irregularities” of English spelling and reducing the level at which struggling learners throw up their hands in defeat. “All right” carries the weight of the speaker wanting to make sure that the “all” of the person they’re asking is “correct” (right), and as it is not participating in the wanton destruction and reduction of our vocabulary, should be the accepted and propagated choice. All right means that there is more of a communal, unified spirit of benevolence and charity towards fellow human beings.

Both sides are equally defendable. It is the prevalence of the “efficiency argument” for one side that makes me leery of it. Efficiency should never be the “only” or main reason humans do anything. If the driving cause of any technology or linguistic advancement is simply efficiency, then it should be halted immediately. Total pursuit of efficiency is akin to hunting for the Fountain of Youth or the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Machines are designed to be efficient. Machines are efficient because they have no heart, no soul, no life. Efficiency is the enemy of creativity and imagination. The Arts are wholly and diametrically opposed to any pursuit of efficiency. In the eyes of efficiency, the very thought of such wistful daydreaming as the Arts is a waste of time, energy, resources, and humanity. Such sentiments hearken back to harder days, when, if it didn’t help one survive, it was of no value at all. Utilitarianism is the church of efficiency, and its crusade is to eradicate the dross of wastefulness.

That does not mean that we can hold efficiency in wanton disregard. Communication is the ultimate goal of language, and if efficiency did not refine our grammar and words into recognizable patterns, our sound would be a wasteland of meaningless verbiage. No amount of eloquence can promote the transference of knowledge and ideals if there is no pathway to begin with.

So let the change flow. Pave the pathway to progress with pages of prose and poetry that push the horizons of our language. But the purpose of that progress, the why, should never be efficiency. Whenever that dreaded E-word enters the debate for any change, red flags and warning flares ought to flurry in the skies of your minds. Dig in and push back, even if you don’t support the old system, or the new system, or any system. Advancement ought to be cautious and thoughtful. When humans are blinded by efficiency, imagination is in danger. Slow down, take a step back, and consider. But above all, do not be afraid to challenge.