Evaluate the idea that language change can be controlled and directed.
Whilst it could be argued that language change can be controlled and directed as
both powerful organisations as well as the general public have the power to bring
about changes in language use, it could also be argued that language cannot be
controlled, since change randomly fluctuates, or can be caught on despite
attempts to control it, like an infectious disease.
The argument that language change can be controlled and directed relies on the
idea that powerful organisations, such as the NHS, the BBC or the government
are able to make ‘changes from above’ and prescribe language use. Often these
organisations will enforce- or attempt to enforce- politically correct terms. These
are terms which aim to widen inclusivity and reduce discrimination. For example,
the government imposes laws stating that criminal charges can be pressed
against those who use racist terms such as the n word. Some organisations may
also prescribe language in order to portray a certain agenda. For example, the
BBC now refers to climate change as a ‘climate crisis’. Whilst it could be argued
that these changes from above don’t have an affect on controlling language
change since people may continue to use archaic terms, it is evident that the
majority of English speakers will use the terms prescribed by these organisations,
possibly due to the influence of technology and the media in the modern day. As
only language accepted by large organisations such as the BBC being allowed to
air on the channel, the public’s exposure to politically correct terms is widened
and exposure to archaic and offensive terms is reduced, possibly having an affect
on language change as it could link to the idea of linguistic determinism, and the
idea that changing the language, can change attitudes. Possibly the aim of this
change from above is to change attitudes to be more accepting of diversity. This
is particularly true with the example of the BBC, since one of this organisation’s
key aims is to widen inclusivity.
It could also be argued that language change can be controlled due to the
national curriculum and compulsory education, which was introduced to the UK
in 1870. With all students being taught the ‘correct’, standard grammatical and
spelling rules, varieties such as dialect features, non-standard grammar and
haphazard spelling was diminished. As part of the national curriculum, students
are taught rules such as those stated in Robert Lowthe’s ‘Guide to English
Grammar’, published as far back as 1780, which states that infinitives should not
be split (for example the ‘correct’ form would be ‘To go boldly’, rather than ‘to
boldly go’, which splits the infinitive by placing the base adjective ‘boldly’ in the
middle’). Another rule stated is that double negatives should not be used (for
example, the declarative sentence ‘I do not want none’ would be labelled
incorrect due to the use of both the negator ‘not’ and ‘none’). With the constant
reinforcement of these rules, it could be argued that language change is
controlled and directed as anything which deviates from these rules would be
labelled as incorrect by a teacher and therefore it’s usage reduced. That being
said, it is clear that some of these rules are no longer followed as Lowthe also
stated that sentences should never end in a preposition. For example, the
‘correct’ form would be ‘to where are you going’ rather than ‘where are you
going to’. However, within this example, beginning the interrogative simple
sentence with a preposition sounds somewhat archaic and the second example is
more common in modern day speech. This possibly suggests that grammar
Whilst it could be argued that language change can be controlled and directed as
both powerful organisations as well as the general public have the power to bring
about changes in language use, it could also be argued that language cannot be
controlled, since change randomly fluctuates, or can be caught on despite
attempts to control it, like an infectious disease.
The argument that language change can be controlled and directed relies on the
idea that powerful organisations, such as the NHS, the BBC or the government
are able to make ‘changes from above’ and prescribe language use. Often these
organisations will enforce- or attempt to enforce- politically correct terms. These
are terms which aim to widen inclusivity and reduce discrimination. For example,
the government imposes laws stating that criminal charges can be pressed
against those who use racist terms such as the n word. Some organisations may
also prescribe language in order to portray a certain agenda. For example, the
BBC now refers to climate change as a ‘climate crisis’. Whilst it could be argued
that these changes from above don’t have an affect on controlling language
change since people may continue to use archaic terms, it is evident that the
majority of English speakers will use the terms prescribed by these organisations,
possibly due to the influence of technology and the media in the modern day. As
only language accepted by large organisations such as the BBC being allowed to
air on the channel, the public’s exposure to politically correct terms is widened
and exposure to archaic and offensive terms is reduced, possibly having an affect
on language change as it could link to the idea of linguistic determinism, and the
idea that changing the language, can change attitudes. Possibly the aim of this
change from above is to change attitudes to be more accepting of diversity. This
is particularly true with the example of the BBC, since one of this organisation’s
key aims is to widen inclusivity.
It could also be argued that language change can be controlled due to the
national curriculum and compulsory education, which was introduced to the UK
in 1870. With all students being taught the ‘correct’, standard grammatical and
spelling rules, varieties such as dialect features, non-standard grammar and
haphazard spelling was diminished. As part of the national curriculum, students
are taught rules such as those stated in Robert Lowthe’s ‘Guide to English
Grammar’, published as far back as 1780, which states that infinitives should not
be split (for example the ‘correct’ form would be ‘To go boldly’, rather than ‘to
boldly go’, which splits the infinitive by placing the base adjective ‘boldly’ in the
middle’). Another rule stated is that double negatives should not be used (for
example, the declarative sentence ‘I do not want none’ would be labelled
incorrect due to the use of both the negator ‘not’ and ‘none’). With the constant
reinforcement of these rules, it could be argued that language change is
controlled and directed as anything which deviates from these rules would be
labelled as incorrect by a teacher and therefore it’s usage reduced. That being
said, it is clear that some of these rules are no longer followed as Lowthe also
stated that sentences should never end in a preposition. For example, the
‘correct’ form would be ‘to where are you going’ rather than ‘where are you
going to’. However, within this example, beginning the interrogative simple
sentence with a preposition sounds somewhat archaic and the second example is
more common in modern day speech. This possibly suggests that grammar
