Evaluate the idea that language change should be encouraged in the English
Language. (30)
One reason it could be argued that we should encourage language change is
to make day-to-day life and communication easier. For example, MAK
Halliday’s functional theory supports this view. Halliday stated language
change is a social process that is a system of choices we as a society make.
Language changes over time and is changed by the way we use it, for
example, we need new words for new things. The increase in technology means
we need new words such as ‘bluetooth’, ‘airdrop’, and social media terms such
as ‘tweet’ and ‘snapchat’. If we did not have these words to accompany the
changes going on external to language change in society, individuals' needs
would not be met and communication would be a lot harder. This theory
suggests that language always changes and adapts to the needs of its users.
Thus suggesting language change should be encouraged as we need it to
match the fast pace changes in society and enable ease of communication.
However, this theory does not account for all change, only lexical change and
so it can be argued the extent to which all language change should be
encouraged. It could be argued the increase in dialects such as Multicultural
London English is damaging for young people.
Multicultural English is a dialect originating in London amongst young,
working class, ethnic minority people. However, it has now spread outside of
London and is spoken by a wide range of diverse and cultural backgrounds.
One explanation for this change is Mufwenes feature pool where many input
varieties produce a feature pool in which the speaker selects different
combinations to produce an output. However, MLE came under great attack
from wider society with its pragmatic markers such as “innit” and th-fronting
becoming labelled as ungrammatical and disjointed. Bailey's wave model
stated geographical distance as having an effect on language change. For
example, a group of people close to the epicentre of language change will
pick it up, whereas the further away the less likely you are to adopt it. For
example, a word such as ‘roadman’ adopted by multicultural youths in London
is unlikely to affect white middle class speakers in Edinburgh. Whereas, now
due to technology this view is outdated and people far from the epicentre can
feel tremors of new words due to social media. For example, now new slang in
multi ethnic working class areas of South London would spread fast to similar
young people in East London and Essex, and then beyond via social media to
places such as Manchester. MLE has been slammed for example being called
‘Jafaican’ and people criticising it for stating the whites have become black.
This view would suggest language change has become too rapid and out of
control due to technology which has a negative impact on young people and
so language change should not be encouraged. However, much evidence has
shown young people are good at code switching and new dialects do not have
detrimental effects on children within education. Also, we should encourage
this type of language change as it gives young people a sense of identity, as
Ben Rampton shows other ethnicities use it because it is ‘cool’ and relates to
their social practices or friendships.
Other theorists suggest language change is actually beneficial for everyone
and improves our literacy and conceptual understanding of language. In the
past, writing was regarded as formal and unlike spoken mode. Writing was
only for the elites and well educated people and characterised by very long,
multi-clausal sentences with lots of subordinate clauses. Now, as Mcculloch
states in her book, the language change of technology and texting has seen
an explosion of writing by normal people. Writing has become a vital,
conversational part of our ordinary lives for example through texts, chat
Language. (30)
One reason it could be argued that we should encourage language change is
to make day-to-day life and communication easier. For example, MAK
Halliday’s functional theory supports this view. Halliday stated language
change is a social process that is a system of choices we as a society make.
Language changes over time and is changed by the way we use it, for
example, we need new words for new things. The increase in technology means
we need new words such as ‘bluetooth’, ‘airdrop’, and social media terms such
as ‘tweet’ and ‘snapchat’. If we did not have these words to accompany the
changes going on external to language change in society, individuals' needs
would not be met and communication would be a lot harder. This theory
suggests that language always changes and adapts to the needs of its users.
Thus suggesting language change should be encouraged as we need it to
match the fast pace changes in society and enable ease of communication.
However, this theory does not account for all change, only lexical change and
so it can be argued the extent to which all language change should be
encouraged. It could be argued the increase in dialects such as Multicultural
London English is damaging for young people.
Multicultural English is a dialect originating in London amongst young,
working class, ethnic minority people. However, it has now spread outside of
London and is spoken by a wide range of diverse and cultural backgrounds.
One explanation for this change is Mufwenes feature pool where many input
varieties produce a feature pool in which the speaker selects different
combinations to produce an output. However, MLE came under great attack
from wider society with its pragmatic markers such as “innit” and th-fronting
becoming labelled as ungrammatical and disjointed. Bailey's wave model
stated geographical distance as having an effect on language change. For
example, a group of people close to the epicentre of language change will
pick it up, whereas the further away the less likely you are to adopt it. For
example, a word such as ‘roadman’ adopted by multicultural youths in London
is unlikely to affect white middle class speakers in Edinburgh. Whereas, now
due to technology this view is outdated and people far from the epicentre can
feel tremors of new words due to social media. For example, now new slang in
multi ethnic working class areas of South London would spread fast to similar
young people in East London and Essex, and then beyond via social media to
places such as Manchester. MLE has been slammed for example being called
‘Jafaican’ and people criticising it for stating the whites have become black.
This view would suggest language change has become too rapid and out of
control due to technology which has a negative impact on young people and
so language change should not be encouraged. However, much evidence has
shown young people are good at code switching and new dialects do not have
detrimental effects on children within education. Also, we should encourage
this type of language change as it gives young people a sense of identity, as
Ben Rampton shows other ethnicities use it because it is ‘cool’ and relates to
their social practices or friendships.
Other theorists suggest language change is actually beneficial for everyone
and improves our literacy and conceptual understanding of language. In the
past, writing was regarded as formal and unlike spoken mode. Writing was
only for the elites and well educated people and characterised by very long,
multi-clausal sentences with lots of subordinate clauses. Now, as Mcculloch
states in her book, the language change of technology and texting has seen
an explosion of writing by normal people. Writing has become a vital,
conversational part of our ordinary lives for example through texts, chat
