Language As Barometer Of
Change
Frank Ludditt
Mr. Ludditt, this has the potential to be the best one in your class so far. I look forward to receiving your revisions.
When two or more life forms occupy an area in an adjacent manner, a dialogue amongst the occupants is established. This dialogue can be simple as in the adjacency [adjacent?--clarify this differenc between simple and complex--do you mean it in the sense of the difference between microcosmic interpersonal relationships and macrocosmic intercultural ones?] present, or complex in the varying levels of interaction between said occupants. In genus Homo Sapiens, the interaction between two or more is categorized as communication. This communication is classified [is distinguished, not is classified] as verbal and nonverbal; [use a colon or a dash, not a semicolon] the nonverbal being facial expressions and body posturing, the verbal being that of sounds vocally emitted. The refinement of verbal communication is spoken language. Of the spoken languages of the world, the English language is that [one, not that] which is particularly subject to change [why? what distinguishes it from other world languages, like, say, French?]. English, the language of change, is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition. [interesting thesis]
The origins of the English language can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxons of England during the time of the Roman Empire.
At the time of the Roman Empire–say, from the beginnings of the
Christian Era to around A.D. 400– the speakers of what was to
become English were scattered along the northern coast of Europe.
They spoke a dialect of Low German. More exactly, since they were
several different tribes. The names given to the tribes who got to
England are Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. For convenience, we can
refer to them as Anglo-Saxons. (Roberts/ pg.89) [parenthetically
cite like (Roberts 89) no need for slashes and pg's.]
Although the spoken language of the Empire was Latin, the language spoken by the natives or Celts, remained Celtic with only obligatory use of Latin as needed. [so, we have a mixture of three languages, then, that of the low Germans, that of the Celts, and that of the Romans--clarify this] The Empire was spread thin among the vast area of dominion on the Earth. As a result, troops were repositioned from the administration set up in England, [lose the comma] to trouble spots elsewhere on the globe. With the weakening of the administration in England and considerable discord at the upper echelon of the Empire, the final administrative leader left. "Finally, in A.D. 410, the last Roman ruler in England, bent on becoming emperor, left the islands and took the last of the legions with him." (Roberts/ pg. 90) [ditto on the citation--put the period after the parentheses in short quote form, before the parentheses in long quote form] The Celts were overcome by the attacking Anglo-Saxon tribes who established themselves in England by the mid-500's A.D. The language of the ruling Anglo-Saxons was a dialect of Low German. With the conversion to Christianity and cultural acquisition of the Latin alphabet in the early 600's, the English language had its true beginnings. The evolving of rulership along with the blending of the Low Germanic dialect of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, the Celtic language, Latin of the now defunct Roman Empire [insert a comma] plus the cultural conversion to Christianity and acquisition of the Latin alphabet, formed the origins of the English language. [don't summarize the entire paragraph in one sentence--it's redundant--combine these two concluding sentences in about half the words] All of the changes in language were a direct result of the evolution of ruling factions [of the evolution of the land's politics, you mean--you're trying to make the point that it was the shifting balance of power that most heavily influenced not only the dialect chosen as the standard, but also the way in which that dialect itself would evolve--make the point, then...don't dance around it] of the land.
Over time, the influx of other languages began to change the structure of the English language by way of spelling, pronunciation, and the addition of words from other languages that were anglicized. Deletions of certain tenses, inflections [of what? syllabic markers or sentence intonation? be specific], and masculine/feminine versions of words, [lose the comma] also occurred. The incursion of the Norsemen [don't lump these two groups together--while the Normans were descendents of the Norse, the Norse were actually Norwegians--there were two separate invasions in 1066, one by the Norwegian King Harold, successfully repelled by the English King Harold Godwinsson, the other by William of Normandy, which did not meet with such success--aside from the first invasion's having been repelled, the Norse dialect had been intermingling with the Yorkshire dialect for centuries--so, there's something in there--when the Normans came over, though, they had already lost their Norwegian language and were speaking the Frenchified language of their country--hence, the introduction of French] and the Norman Conquest had significant impacts on the language through genre, context, and the words used by certain social strata.
One might wonder why, after the Norman Conquest, French did
not become the national language, replacing the English entirely.
The reason is that the Conquest was not a national migration, as
the earlier Anglo-Saxon invasion had been. Great numbers of
Normans came to England, but they came as rulers and landlords.
French became the language of the court, the language of the
nobility, the language of polite society, the language of literature.
(Roberts/ pg.94) [ditto with the citation]
Many more words were added to the language as a result of the Conquest and [insert a comma] in turn, added more colorful and richly descriptive elements. The advent of printing in 1475 made texts more accessible to greater numbers of people. This further encouraged the borrowing and anglicisation of words from the classical languages. "Englishmen had grown accustomed to borrowing words from the French as a result of the Norman Conquest; now they borrowed from Latin and Greek." (Roberts/ pg.96) [ditto with the citation] This nearly exponential growth of the English language of the time began to cause concerns that the language was somehow being corrupted. These concerns led to the first dictionary, published in 1603. This contained 2500 definitions. Later, a steadily [lose steadily, especially as you repeat the expression in the quote] revised version of the dictionary began publication. "Samuel Johnson published his English Dictionary in1755. This, steadily revised, dominated the field in England for nearly 100 years." (Roberts/ pg.98) [ditto with the citation] America saw its first published dictionary via Noah Webster in 1828. As society evolves so to will its language [avoid bromidic closures, tell me how publication of standardized forms affected the standardization of the language]. As society develops and flourishes as a result of the changes incurred, the language of the society evolves [redundant with the previous sentence--delete both and close as suggested in the last comment].
With ongoing changes and growth of the English speaking societies and the evolution of its core language, two schools of thought in regards to the English language have emerged. These schools of thought are prescriptivism and descriptivism. Respectively, [these expressions mean] that the English language should not be corrupted with commonly used foreign terms and concepts (borrowing) [insert a comma] and, [lose the comma] that adaptation and assimilation are necessary to remain current in a changing world.
Descriptive grammarians have been presented as people who
do not care about standards, because of the way they see all
forms of usage as equally valid. Prescriptive grammarians have
been presented as blind adherents to a historical tradition. (Crystal/ pg.102)[ditto with the citation]
Herein lies the conflict. While standards maintain the integrity of a mode of speech, strict adherence to any standard imposed upon a mode of speech can be stifling if not counterproductive to the advances of the society who [that, not who] utilizes the language whose [on which, not whose--don't personify inanimate concepts] limits have been curbed. Other countries whose [in which the, not whose] primary language is not English have set up academies founded as early as the late 16th century, [lose the comma, add 'to as late as the']] to the mid-20th century. Ironically, the latest date mentioned pertaining to the founding of academies, is that of The Hebrew Language Academy whose core language pre-dates the English language by several thousand years. [what year was that?]
From time to time, the idea of an English Academy continues
to be voiced, but the response has never been enthusiastic. A
similar proposal in the USA was also rejected. By contrast, since
the 18th century, there has been an increasing flow of individual
grammars, dictionaries, and manuals of style in all parts of the
English speaking world. (Crystal/ pg.104) [ditto with the citation]
The dictionary, thesaurus, and standardized format, [lose the comma] are necessary tools with which to harness the volatility of the English language. Some degree of uniformity must be maintained so we, [lose the comma] who use the English language will be able to communicate with each other in a concise, effective manner. At the same time, we should be mindful of the continual change present in our society, and thankful that ours is a language that can evolve as our society evolves. [why should we be thankful of such a phenomenon? clarify--do you mean that the flexibility of our language ensures a speedy and effective evolution towards cultural improvement? how so?]
As societies expand and populations increase, it is inevitable that "pockets" within society will form. These areas of isolation are not necessarily formed by choice, [replace the comma with a semicolon] rather, that [lose the 'that'] once a culture reaches substantial size and number in populace, it becomes highly unlikely that a purely homogenous state will result. Within pockets of society will be differing modes of speech. From the prescriptivist view, these differing styles of speech are said to be inferior to that of the majority. The descriptivist would maintain that this is a logical pattern that follows the growth and expansion of a modern culture. Differing speech patterns in the English language take the form of the dialect. Forms of dialect can be geographically regional and/or ethnically based. Of issue in today’s educational system in the United States, [lose the comma] is the speech of inner-city blacks. The dialect the children bring into the educational system with them is often viewed as poor in quality and reflects as such on their intelligence and lifestyle.
Teachers sometimes make the situation worse with their attitudes
toward Black English. Typically, they view the children’s speech
as "bad English" characterized by "poor grammar", and "short,
jagged words." One result of this attitude is poor mental health on
the part of the pupils. A child is quick to grasp the feeling that
while school speech is "good," his own speech is "bad," and that
by extension he himself is somehow inadequate and without value.
(Seymour/ pg.123)[ditto with the citation]
This view of social and intellectual inferiority is of the prescriptivist school whose basis is formed by 17th century ideals of an English language free of corruptions. To label one dialect as inferior is to justly label all dialects as inferior. The waters begin to cloud as one searches for what would be the proper dialect that would set the standard. However, learning the functional-contemporary speech style is somewhat necessary--"if you want to get ahead in this country, you must master the language of the ruling class" (Seymour/ pg. 128)[ditto with the citation]-- to do well in today’s industrial [commercial, you mean] climate. A further corruption of the English language is that which is practiced by many of those who would strive for its purity. This is the racial slur. [clarify this transition]
I remember the first time I heard the word nigger.... I didn’t know
what a nigger was, but I knew whatever it meant, it was something
he shouldn’t have called me.... I was later to go home and ask the
inevitable question that every black parent must face–"Mommy,
what does nigger mean?" (Naylor/ pg. 305)[ditto with the
citation]
The roots of the racial slur are embedded in the attitude of racism which is largely based upon fear of the unknown [linguistically? don't stray from language]. That is, that a sector of the populace doesn’t [lose the contraction] understand where another sector of the populace is coming from. This ignorance tends historically to breed fear and contempt. The differing speech structure of the inner city black has traceable origins to the habitual tense of West African languages. As blacks gained their freedom from oppression, the tendency of lifestyle was that of isolationism. While learning the language of the land in which they now live, they incorporated their language structure into their adaptation of speech so that they might more easily assimilate into the culture. "The tendency to retain the structure of the native language is a strong one, too. That’s why a German learning English is likely to put his verb at the end: ‘May I a glass of beer have?’" (Naylor/ pg. 127) [ditto with the citation] Ridicule of differing structures of speech, and racist attitudes, are indicative of the bad side of the human condition. The language and ill-will toward those who haven’t [lose the contraction] mastered the current mode of speech is present. However, these tendencies are beginning to be much less popular than in past years, which is again, reflective of the resiliency of the human spirit. [bring it back to the resiliency of language--why is it politically incorrect to use racial slurs today, whereas it was perfectly normal to use them 50 years ago--go back to your initial point that the language of power is the chosen standard--as our society has evolved, the black and white cultures have also evolved--what has brought them closer together? is it the language that each uses or the shift in the balance of power to the advantage of the black race? if it's a power thing, what makes this evolution any different from the evolution of the Angles and the Celts, or the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans?--develop this point]
Our language, the English language [insert a comma] is that which is to be awed. For nearly 1500 years, it has been – and continues to be– in a perpetual state of change. English, the language of change, is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition. The English language of future times is as unpredictable as what will happen to us next week or next year [is that true? or are there ways to predict developing trends by examining those of the past?]. Fortunately, the language is such that factors in new cultures and new accomplishments of mankind [eh?]. We as primary users of this language should consider ourselves fortunate indeed. [lame closure--tell me why the thesis is important--why is it important that English is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition?]]
Language As Barometer Of Change
Annotated Bibliography
[you're missing Seymour's article]
Thesis Statement: English [insert a comma] the language of change, is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition.
Naylor, Dorothy Z. "Black Children, Black Speech" Language Awareness. Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. New York: St. Martin’s 1994 p. [replace the p. with a colon]127-8 [insert a period]
Ms. Naylor’s essay gives historical and logistical explanations to the style, or dialect of the English language referred to as "ebonics." Her views concur with mine toward the changing shape of English as spoken in modern America.
Roberts, Paul. "A Brief History of History" Language Awareness. Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. New York: St. Martin’s 1994 p. 89, 90, 94, 96, 98 [replace the p. with a colon--tell me all the pages, not just the ones from which you drew your information]
Mr. Roberts’ essay gives the origins of what is now referred to as the English language. In a detailed manner, Mr. Roberts gives examples of word and word-type derivations. The content of this essay is the figurative embodiment of my essay’s title and thesis statement.
Naylor, Gloria. "The Meanings of a Word" Language Awareness. Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. New York: St. Martin’s 1994 p. [replace the p. with a colon]305[insert a period]
Ms. Naylor’s essay successfully and definitively takes a shot back at a corruption of the English language known as the racial slur. She explains how the same word in differing context can have a derogative, or supportive meaning. Applicable to evolving state of our society, the use of racial slurs is, for most, the exception rather than the rule and is generally frowned upon.
REVISION. Grade: A-.
When two or more life forms occupy an area in an adjacent manner, a dialogue amongst the occupants is established. This dialogue can be simple as in the literal sense of adjacency, or complex as in the varying levels of interaction between said occupants. In genus Homo Sapiens, the interaction between two or more is distinguished as communication. This communication is classified as verbal and nonverbal- the nonverbal being facial expressions and body posturing, the verbal being that of sounds vocally emitted. The refinement of verbal communication is spoken language. Of the spoken languages of the world, the English language is one which has been particularly subject to change since its origins. English, the language of change, is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition.
The origins of the English language can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxons of England during the time of the Roman Empire.
At
the time of the Roman Empire–say, from the beginnings of the
Christian
Era to around A.D. 400– the speakers of what was to
become
English were scattered along the northern coast of Europe.
They
spoke a dialect of Low German. More exactly, since they were
several
different tribes. The names given to the tribes who got to
England
are Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. For convenience, we can
refer
to them as Anglo-Saxons. (Roberts 89)
Although the spoken language of the Empire was Latin, the language spoken by the natives or Celts, remained Celtic or a Low German dialect with only obligatory use of Latin as needed. The regional proximity and eventual blending of the Low German dialect, Celtic, and Latin would form the roots of the English language.
The Empire was spread thin among the vast area of dominion over the Earth. As a result, troops were repositioned from the administration set up in England to trouble spots elsewhere on the globe. With the weakening of the administration in England and considerable discord at the upper echelon of the Empire, the final administrative leader left. "Finally, in A.D. 410, the last Roman ruler in England, bent on becoming emperor, left the islands and took the last of the legions with him" (Roberts 90). The Celts were overcome by the attacking Anglo-Saxon tribes who established themselves in England by the mid-500's A.D. and the language of the now ruling Anglo-Saxons, was a dialect of Low German. With the conversion of the Latin Empire to Christianity and the cultural acquisition of the Latin alphabet in the early 600's, the English language had its true beginnings. The changes in rulership of the land brought forth the blending of the Low Germanic dialect of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, and the Celtic language of the native population. Additional changes in rulership blended Latin of the (now defunct) Roman Empire. The cultural conversion of the Empire to Christianity plus the acquisition of the Latin alphabet, formed the origins of the English language. All of the changes in language were a direct result of the changes of ruling factions of the land.
Over time, the influx of other languages began to change the structure of the English language by way of spelling, pronunciation, and the addition of words from other languages that were anglicized. Deletions of certain tenses, syllabic markers, sentence intonations, and masculine/feminine versions of words also occurred. Although the incursion of the Norsemen in 1066 was successfully repelled by the English King Harold Godwinsson, certain Norwegian word styles and spellings were adopted to the language of the land. The Norman Conquest had significant impacts on the language. Although the language spoken by the Normans was actually a "regionally altered" version of their Norwegian, changes occurred through the genre, context, and words used by certain social strata.
One
might wonder why, after the Norman Conquest, French did
not
become the national language, replacing the English entirely.
The
reason is that the Conquest was not a national migration, as
the
earlier Anglo-Saxon invasion had been. Great numbers of
Normans
came to England, but they came as rulers and landlords.
French
became the language of the court, the language of the
nobility,
the language of polite society, the language of literature.(Roberts 94)
Many more words were added to the language as a result of the Conquest and, in turn, added more colorful and richly descriptive elements. The advent of printing in 1475 made texts more accessible to greater numbers of people. This further encouraged the borrowing and anglicisation of words from the classical languages. "Englishmen had grown accustomed to borrowing words from the French as a result of the Norman Conquest; now they borrowed from Latin and Greek" (Roberts 96). This nearly exponential growth of the English language of the time began to cause concerns that the language was somehow being corrupted. These concerns led to the first dictionary, published in 1603. This contained 2500 definitions. Later, a revised version of the dictionary began publication. "Samuel Johnson published his English Dictionary in1755. This, steadily revised, dominated the field in England for nearly 100 years" (Roberts 98). America saw its first published dictionary via Noah Webster in 1828. The advent of the printing press coupled with early attempts of broad based standardization of the English language, was a reflection of the advancements in society of the time. As the society evolves, so also does the language of the society.
With ongoing changes and growth of the English speaking societies and the evolution of its core language, two schools of thought in regards to the English language have emerged. These schools of thought are prescriptivism and descriptivism. Respectively, these expressions mean that the English language should not be corrupted with commonly used foreign terms and concepts (borrowing), and that adaptation and assimilation are necessary to remain current in a changing world.
Descriptive
grammarians have been presented as people who
do
not care about standards, because of the way they see all
forms
of usage as equally valid. Prescriptive grammarians have
been
presented as blind adherents to a historical tradition. (Crystal 102)
Herein lies the conflict. While standards maintain the integrity of a mode of speech, strict adherence to any standard imposed upon a mode of speech can be stifling if not counterproductive to the advances of the society that utilizes the language on which limits have been curbed. Other countries in which the primary language is not English have set up academies founded as early as the late 16th century to the mid-20th century. Ironically, the latest time period mentioned pertaining to the founding of academies, is that of The Hebrew Language Academy. The core language of the academy, Hebrew, pre-dates the English language by several thousand years.
From
time to time, the idea of an English Academy continues
to
be voiced, but the response has never been enthusiastic. A
similar
proposal in the USA was also rejected. By contrast, since
the
18th century, there has been an increasing flow of individual
grammars,
dictionaries, and manuals of style in all parts of the
English
speaking world. (Crystal 104)
The dictionary, thesaurus, and standardized format are necessary tools with which to harness the volatility of the English language. Some degree of uniformity must be maintained so we who use the English language will be able to communicate with each other in a concise, effective manner. We should be mindful of the continual change present in our society. Fortunately, ours is a language that is inherently flexible enough to adjust to these changes.
As societies expand and populations increase, it is inevitable that "pockets" within society will form. These areas of isolation are not necessarily formed by choice; rather, once a culture reaches substantial size and number in populace, it becomes highly unlikely that a purely homogenous state will result. Within pockets of society will be differing modes of speech. >From the prescriptivist view, these differing styles of speech are said to be inferior to that of the majority. The descriptivist would maintain that this is a logical pattern that follows the growth and expansion of a modern culture. Differing speech patterns in the English language take the form of the dialect. Forms of dialect can be geographically regional and/or ethnically based. Of issue in today’s educational system in the United States is the speech of inner-city blacks. The dialect the children bring into the educational system with them, is often viewed as poor in quality and is (incorrectly) said to reflect as such on their intelligence and lifestyle.
Teachers
sometimes make the situation worse with their attitudes
toward
Black English. Typically, they view the children’s speech
as
"bad English" characterized by "poor grammar", and "short,
jagged
words." One result of this attitude is poor mental health on
the
part of the pupils. A child is quick to grasp the feeling that
while
school speech is "good," his own speech is "bad," and that
by
extension he himself is somehow inadequate and without value.(Seymour 123)
This view of social and intellectual inferiority is of the prescriptivist school whose basis is formed by 17th century ideals of an English language free of corruptions. To label one dialect as inferior is to justly label all dialects as inferior. The waters begin to cloud as one searches for what would be the proper dialect that would set the standard. However, learning the functional- contemporary speech style is somewhat necessary-- "if you want to get ahead in this country, you must master the language of the ruling class" (Seymour 128)-- to do well in today’s commercial climate. A further corruption of the English language is that which is practiced by many of those who strive for "purity", and consider themselves superior to certain sectors of the populace. This corruption is known as the racial slur.
I
remember the first time I heard the word nigger.... I didn’t know
what
a nigger was, but I knew whatever it meant, it was something
he
shouldn’t have called me.... I was later to go home and ask the
inevitable
question that every black parent must face–"Mommy,
what
does nigger mean?" (Naylor 305)
The roots of the racial slur are embedded in the attitude of racism, which is largely based upon fear of the unknown. That is, that a sector of the populace doesn’t understand where another sector of the populace is coming from. This ignorance tends historically to breed fear and contempt. Through this fear and contempt, verbal attacks were formed resulting in the form of the racial slur. The differing speech structure of the inner city black has traceable origins to the habitual tense of West African languages. As blacks gained their freedom from oppression, the tendency of lifestyle was that of isolationism. While learning the language of the land in which they now live, they incorporated their language structure into their adaptation of speech so that they might more easily assimilate into the culture. "The tendency to retain the structure of the native language is a strong one, too. That’s why a German learning English is likely to put his verb at the end: ‘May I a glass of beer have?’" (Naylor 127). Ridicule of differing structures of speech, and racist attitudes, are indicative of the bad side of the human condition. The language and ill-will toward those who have not mastered the current mode of speech is present. However, these tendencies are beginning to be much less popular than in past years. The fact that all citizens are morally and legally to be treated as equal is finally sinking-in. This is reflective in the view of the use of racial slurs as something to be frowned upon.
Our language, the English language, is that which is to be awed. For nearly 1500 years, it has been – and continues to be– in a perpetual state of change. English, the language of change, is a directly observable component of the evolving human condition. The English language of future times is as unpredictable as what will happen to us next week or next year. This is demonstrated by the induction of new words and terms such as: Xerox, cyber-space, internet, and a host of other terms assigned to, and describing, the new advancements of our society. Fortunately, the English language has a conditioned adaptibility that enables us as primary users to factor in new cultural elements to our society, and new accomplishments of mankind. It is up to us as primary users of this language, to continue to bridge the gaps in our society here at home, and use the flexibility of our spoken language for all to reach a greater understanding of each other.
Language As Barometer Of Change
Annotated Bibliography
Anthologies:
1.) Seymour, Dorothy Z. "Black Children, Black Speech" Language Awareness.
Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia
Clark. New York: St. Martin’s
1994: 127-8.
Ms. Seymour’s essay gives historical and logistical explanations to the style, or dialect of the English referred to as "ebonics." Her views concur with mine toward the changing shape of English as spoken in modern America.
2.) Crystal, David. "The Prescriptive Tradition" Language Awareness.
Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia
Clark. New York: St. Martin’s
1994: 102-5.
Mr. Crystal’s essay describes the stringency attempted to be imposed upon the English language, and the reality of changing language patterns to fit a changing society.
3.) Naylor, Gloria. "The Meanings of a Word" Language Awareness.
Ed. by Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia
Clark. New York:
St. Martin’s 1994: 305-7.
Ms. Naylor’s essay successfully and definitively takes a shot back at a corruption of the English language known as the racial slur. She explains how the same word in differing context can have a derogative, or supportive meaning. Applicable to the evolving state of our society, the use of racial slurs is, for most, the exception than the rule and is generally frowned upon.
4.) Roberts, Paul. "A Brief History Of English" Language Awareness.
Ed. by Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia
Clark. New York:
St. Martin’s 1994: 89-98
Mr. Roberts’ essay gives the origins of what is now referred to as the English language. In a detailed manner, Mr. Roberts gives examples word and word-type derivations. The content of this essay is the embodiment of my title and thesis statement.