English: A Deteriorating Language
From its earliest history, the English language has embraced multiple cultures to produce the most multicultural language in all of human history. While it may have started in one place with one people, it can no longer claim one country or one people like the majority of the world’s languages. Today, almost every country and people claim the English language—but to what extent? The majority of English speakers are not native speakers, and the language has no original ties to their cultures. So why do they claim it? Exploration, colonization, and evangelism instigated most countries to claim the English language; however, the people from these countries seek to either keep or revive their original culture and language. Therefore, the English language possesses an internal conflict. Disunity within the English language affects the future of English as a global language.
The desire for unity and equality fostered the development of International English. During colonization, countries experienced unity on a microscale with the institutions of British schools and a Standardized English (Jenkins, 120). That experience, however, reflected the British desire for unity. It took the horrific events of the World Wars for countries to desire unity on their own accord and allow the English language to be the method of unification. As Britain and America were world powers at the time, they contributed the largest amount of money and bodies to the wars. Therefore, many units were “commanded by English-speaking officers” and the “soldiers ‘would be expected to know a limited number of words of command’” according to Paul Cornish, a senior curator at the Imperial War Museum (Lipman, 2014). Women from Britain, America, and even Canada volunteered for the Red Cross. Working together preparing supplies or even tending to the wounded in field hospitals, they needed a common language to communicate, which was often English (Walker & Declercq, 40). Aside from these more personal relationships, simultaneous international relationships formed during the World Wars that instigated organizations such as the League of Nations. As it was founded by President Wilson, and by extension America, the common language chosen to communicate was English. Once the League transformed into the United Nations (UN), the official language of business was, and is to this day, English. A third of the world’s international organizations followed the UN’s example and use English as their only language to conduct business (Crystal, 86-88). Even international communication for travel is conducted in English. When airplanes became the primary method of long-distance transportation instead of land, pilots struggled to communicate with workers on the ground (Crystal, 106). While it is important to be able to identify as a “friend, not a foe” and ask permission to land or refuel, it is even more important to be able to communicate with workers on the ground in case of emergencies. Different airlines attempted to employ enough speakers of a certain language and match them together for specific flights, but this process became tedious and inefficient. Because most personnel knew English, it was eventually instigated as the predominate language of air travel after World War II (Crystal, 107).
Another method of achieving unity that includes the desire to be seen as equal to Britain or America is the use of English in media. Most forms of print publications as well as radio broadcasting and news reports around the world prefer to use English because the producers know they will reach a broader audience (Crystal, 90-98). People from all over the world read The New York Times and read, watch, or listen to BBC News. But even more popular in recent years is social media and music (Crystal, 100-102). Bands like BTS, a K-pop music group from Korea, incorporate a lot of English words in their lyrics, which gains popularity with a wider audience. Here is a perfect example of ways for native-English speakers to learn about and appreciate another culture while still being able to understand the message of the song. SOCIAL MEDIA EX. In the political spheres, many national leaders today institute laws requiring Standard English to be used instead of the people’s native language. How else will they achieve international unity and equality these days? (Crystal, 174). It makes sense that a country would be willing to compromise their own language if they desire world powers (such as America and Britain) to view them as equals, and if they want other nations to then view them as equivalent to the world powers. That perception alone provides a level of protection, adds credibility to the country and its people, as well as stimulates national pride among the citizens. It is important to note, however, that while choosing the English language does accomplish the goal of unity and equality, countries lose some of their culture’s identity, and thus individuality, as a result (Jenkins, 61).
The desire for unity yet individuality brings unity to International English. America is perhaps the greatest example of a nation that desired unity yet individuality (Bailey, 151). One of the first distinguishing traits that British travelers to America recognized was the difference in American English, both vocabulary and dialect (Bailey, 157). The countries surrounding England make a tremendous impact on the British English vocabulary and dialect. In like manner, American interactions with the Native Americans, sea merchants, pirates and African slaves all contributed to shaping the American English. In each nation, however, altering vocabulary and dialect does not affect the basic structure of the language itself (Jenkins, 61). Therefore, Britain and America are still unified by the English language on the international level, but each maintains its individuality on the national level. America’s changes to the English language based on the desire for unity yet individuality does not bring disunity to International English.
In contrast, the desire for unity yet individuality can also bring disunity to International English. Similarly to how “New Englishes” were born during Colonialism and early Postcolonialism, different variations of English now exist within America. America is unique to the discussion of language because of the dichotomy that exists—a people of “national character in a culturally diverse nation” (Bailey, 154). Most people today from a non-British background prefer their original heritage hyphenated with American, like African-American, Mexican-American, Chinese-American, etc. It is even considered politically incorrect to refer to someone’s ethnicity without including their native culture (Strossen, 29-30). In 1985, Burchfield recorded that Black English should be considered separate from American English as it is “deeply impressive” yet “overtly threatening to currently agreed standards” (Bailey, 244). It is true that blacks in America possess distinct language nuances that whites in America do not commonly use. These nuances can be traced back to the pidgin and creole languages during slavery in America. So the question becomes whether or not African-Americans should be forced to renounce those differences. Because it has already been established that language is directly linked to culture and therefore identity (Jenkins, 120), there is no harm in maintaining any cultural heritage in language. The only discrepancy is when that desire to preserve cultural heritage in a language prohibits the ability to communicate globally. If English is still to be the global language, all speakers of English should learn and practice Standard English in some capacity. Research proves that American minorities either resist learning and practicing Standard English or tend to not master Standard English as well as whites in America (Smith, 2005).
The desire for individuality to an extreme creates disunity within International English. History seems to be repeating itself. Only this time, instead of an entire nation that was colonized by a world power, it is people groups within a world power that threaten to deteriorate the English language. Because language is so closely connected to culture, people are justified in still using parts of their cultural heritage’s language to communicate with one another. What makes this desire for individuality such a threat is the extent to which people are willing to refuse learning and practicing Standard English. Educators seem to be the most affected by this particular point. Even with all the institutions of state standards and the national Common Core Standards, teachers still feel pressured to accommodate assignments towards minorities, students’ strengths and cultural backgrounds instead of a standard (Meckler & Rabinowitz, 2019). Papers in the English classroom are being replaced with artistic renderings, video presentations, or student-led teaching projects. Each of these assessments are good in and of themselves. But with fewer people in the world learning and practicing Standard English, the greater the threat to International English. Crystal describes this phenomena as a “conflict of intelligibility versus identity” (128).
This internal conflict, disunity within the English language, slowly deteriorates the language over time. Historically, doctors or lawyers or even preachers did receive more education than most people; but they still reflected their local culture. Many people today, however, associate their identity primarily with their profession. And Standard English is one means to measure professionalism, and by association a level of intelligence. Regardless of geographic or ethnic background, people today expect professionals to speak to them a certain way; otherwise, people naturally question the credibility of the professional and his or her abilities. One research study summarized this dilemma: “When we consider professionalism as a set of behaviors rather than an attitude, we can measure and improve it” (Kanter et. al., 89). Unfortunately, due to the English language’s history, most people will only question intelligence and credibility for certain ethnicities, even if that professional was born and raised in America.
The press and media also contribute to deteriorating the English language. As far back as 1964, Burgess made the courageous statement that “propaganda always lies.” He used this statement as a primary means of illustrating the truth that overusing inflated words and hyperboles deteriorates the “forces” of “all meaning” (Bailey, 243-244). So his statement raises the question, what force does the media really have on affecting the general population’s perception of truth? Well, the media exists primarily to inform people of local and global events (Gilboa, 2005). Almost every event can be viewed one of two ways: positively or negatively, right or wrong, beneficial or detrimental. It is no secret that most news agencies choose their wording and presentation based on their desired outcome. While the news certainly contains facts, the presentation of those facts is often persuasive towards a desired outcome. Words are powerful. The same person can bless or curse (James 3:10). Here it is important to remember that language itself is not moral or immoral but the people who use language that possess morality. In 1883, Errington said that “language always deteriorates when the morals of a people become depraved, when the growth of political corruption hardens the heart and dulls the conscience of a nation; when men, and worse still when women, lose the feeling and the habit of reverence, and when the cynical sneer or the senseless ridicule of the high and low vulgar are fashionable” (Bailey, 242). America today is not the same nation founded by the Pilgrims and Separatists, the Puritans and missionaries to the Native Americans. America endured a Civil War in which racism has forever plagued its people. The World Wars and the Great Depression hardened men’s hearts and emboldened the women’s spirits. America developed nuclear weapons, the atomic bomb, and conducted unspeakable political deals and military excursions. America’s government officials commit crimes equivalent, and in some cases worse, than the citizens. Americans today are more entertained by belittling the rich and famous and sneering at the poor and homeless. As a whole, the level of morality, civility, reverence, respect, and even patriotism in America has deteriorated. It should not be surprising then that the language too is deteriorating.
Utopian and dystopian authors notoriously make some mention to language since they recognize how much politics, the news, and the decline of human morality can deteriorate the English language. Among these authors, George Orwell is perhaps the most famous for explicitly discussing potential changes to the English language, explicitly through the news. In his political satire novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948), the fictional nation of Oceana speaks Newspeak, formulated by Ingsoc or English Socialism. The feature most readily noticed is the combining of two or more words into one shorter word. According to Orwell, Newspeak is “an efficient and ‘rational’ variety of English akin to the ‘cultivated voices’” that he “despised in real life” (Bailey, 225). The main character in the story, Winston Smith, works at the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth. His sole job is altering the wording of old newspapers and magazines, “rewriting history in both ‘factual’ and linguistic aspects to conform to evolving orthodoxy” (Bailey, 226). It appears that Orwell opposes a Standard English since it has the potential to “make all other modes of thought impossible” (Bailey, 225). The novel is responsible for the common phrase “big brother is watching” because the leader of the government in the novel is referred to as “Big Brother,” and citizens of Ingsoc are highly monitored, even in their own homes through secret spies and technology. Winston Smith finds a tiny corner in his apartment where the cameras can’t reach and writes about his experiences in Ingsoc using Oldspeak, which reflects more traditional English and allows the user to better communicate ideas and emotions. “Discourag[ing] [users] from recording new words and urg[ing] [them] to destroy old ones, strip[s] them of historic associations and ideas” (Bailey, 226) which destroys cultural differences and thus destroys a person’s sense of individuality, essentially their identity (Jenkins, 120). In the appendix of the novel called “The Principles of Newspeak,” Orwell offers further explanation and insight to his linguistic invention. He even predicts that if America continues declining morally, which then affects the culture and economy and politics, the English spoken will indeed be Newspeak which will be “completed by about the year 2050” (Jones, 2017).
If words are what we primarily use to communicate meaning, how can we expect to keep up with the ever-growing insistence that a particular word is not good enough? Ensuring a people think a certain way truly affects the way events are presented. Inflating words and using an excess of hyperboles threatens the global understanding of English since it begins to contradict Standard English, which is primarily how people around the world learn English. Apart from the news and media, gender distinctions also contribute to linguistic variety. Because men held the traditional superior role, “male usage of English is considered the norm and female English a deviation from it” (Bailey, 252). Authors attempt to break the stereotype, however, through their literature. Strong female characters like Portia in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice counter gender roles. Her male disguise gives her “linguistic and juridical authority” that she would not have had if she had presented the same information and arguments as a female (Bailey, 251-252). Even older texts like Homer’s The Odyssey present women in strong positions of authority and influence. While Penelope does not seem to possess much power over the suitors infiltrating the palace, Athena demonstrates a tremendous influence over Zeus and Odysseus. But even she disguised herself as Mentor, the older man charged with rearing Telemachus, when she approached Telemachus and gave him advice (O’Neill, 2002). With the increase in the LGBTQ movement, gender roles are more ambiguous than ever (Bailey, 246-249). Males and females are distinctively different (Genesis 1-2) and therefore complement each other. It is ironic, then, that some scholars say English “difference leads to disharmony and to linguistic discord” (Bailey, 252) when the very purpose of harmony in music is for two sounds to be different. Disharmony or discord is only achieved when the harmonies do not complement one another, not simply by being different.
If the United States does not remain unified, another language could very well replace English as the global language. The increasing disunity among ethnicities, that intense desire for individuality without balancing unity, further encourages ethnic distinctives such as language. Again, preserving and embracing cultural heritage is beautiful, but not at the cost of causing disunity in their own country. Some linguists have predicted that if the current events in America continue, the English language will become indistinguishable like German and Latin. It has not happened yet, though, because of the global culture and civilization that New Englishes “imposed by the need for identity” that also “balances a pull imposed by the need for intelligibility” which is only achieved through the continued use of Standard English (Crystal, 177-178). Anything that affects the global culture started somewhere locally. That is not to say that cultural and linguistic internal conflict started in America; internal conflicts have always existed due to human nature. But regarding the global status of the English language, many scholars analyzing the trends within America are ready to consider a “rejection of English of former colonial powers” as a result of America losing its world power status (Crystal, 128). So while it is important enough to consider these internal conflicts—racism, economic decline, judicial integrity, immigration, the role of the police and many more—for the sake of a nation, the potential exists for these issues to contribute to English no longer serving as the global language.
The increasing disunity within America affects the future of the English language. The internal conflicts of ethnicities, cultural distinctives within a supposed unified nation, and political corruption of America is deteriorating the English language. Such conflicts, if continued, could lead to the decline and even abandonment of English as the global language. The only reason English has remained the global language is due to its history and prominent, global influence. Crystal (2003) even asserts that the English language was simply “in the right place at the right time” (120). As a world power, America contributes to the global civilization and therefore culture through education, economics, trade, politics, the news, social media, music and the military. Speakers of the English language in non-native countries should still hold to their cultural heritage in practice and in language. Even within a particular nation, like America, cultural distinctives are not a direct threat to the English language itself. In many ways, Standard English could be what ultimately causes the rejection of English as the global language. Too many people today desire to reclaim their identity through their cultural heritage and be seen as an individual rather than one of many in a united form. The “standard” is merely, or should merely be, a means to eliminate language barriers and allow more people to communicate with one another globally. If any other nation had been in America’s position “at the right time,” the global language would be whatever language that nation spoke. Ultimately, the future of the English language depends on the morality of those who speak it. It always has been and always will be people that change a language, for better or for worse.
Works Cited
Bailey, Richard W. (1991). Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English As a Global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gilboa, Eytan. (2005). “The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International
Relations”. Political Communication, Vol. 22: 27-44. Taylor & Francis Accessed 3 July, 2020:
Jenkins, Jennifer. (2015). Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge.
Jones, Josh. (2017). “George Orwell Explains How ‘Newspeak’ Works, the Official Language of His
Totalitarian Dystopian in 1984”. Literature: Open Culture. Accessed 3 July, 2020:
Kanter, Michael H., Nguyen, Miki., Klau, Marc H., et. al. (2013). “What Does Professionalism Mean to the
Physician?” The Permanente Journal. Vol. 17(3), pp. 87-90. Accessed 29 June, 2020:
Lipman, Jennifer. (2014). “Fighting Talk: How Tommies Found a Common Language in the Trenches”.
Education: The Case for Language Learning. The Guardian. Accessed 28 June, 20:
Meckler, Laura., Rabinowitz, Kate. (2019). “America’s Schools are More Diverse Than Ever. But the
Teachers are Still White”. The Washington Post. Accessed 29 June, 2020:
O’Neill, Regina., Blake-Beard, Stacy. (2002). “Gender Barriers to the Female Mentor – Male Protégé
Relationship”. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 37: 51-63. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Accessed 3
Smith, Camille A. (2005). “School Factors That Contribute to the Underachievement of Students of Color
and What Culturally Competent School Leaders Can Do”. Educational Leadership and
Administration. Vol. 17. Accessed 29 June, 2020: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795072.pdf
Strossen, Nadine. (1993). “Thoughts on the Controversy over Politically Correct Speech”. SMU Law
Review, Vol. 46(1), 8.
Walker, Julian., Declercq, Christophe. (2016). Languages and the First World War: Communicating in a
Transnational War. Springer: New York. Accessed 28 June, 2020: https://books.google.com/books?
Recent Posts
See AllThe assertion that language is “backed by social and political forces, and therefore potentially seeded across the globe” is indeed correct. But why it is correct seems to be up for debate. What was t
