@ItsShivaniii
Ok, let’s be honest. How many of you
would be able to recognise these: OMG, BTW or TTYL? If you are able to identify
even one of these, let me tell you, you are more “with it” than me.
A language
dies every two weeks, according to the British linguist, David Crystal. But the
real question is, who’s guilty? It has been said that, by the end of the
century, almost 92% of the native languages currently spoken worldwide will end
up as “dead languages”. Our leading examples are Greek and Latin (which, of
course, used to be the top two languages in the world). What we have spun
ourselves into is “linguicide”. A language catastrophe. Is the English language going to be a part of
the same legacy?
It doesn’t
take a Sherlock Holmes to solve this mystery. Over the last couple of
centuries, it is an understatement to say that we have been bombarded with a
colossal pool of new words, ranging from Americanisms to the nation’s
favourite, slang. And yes, the culprit causing this linguistic massacre is the
never ending evolution of technology.
Technology
is responsible for introducing thousands upon thousands of new terms in this
century alone. Terms such as “alpha geeks” soon became the ubiquitous buzz-word.
The Oxford Dictionary defines them as: “denoting a
person with the greatest expertise in a particular area of activity”, so to you
and me, a miserable tech-savvy who becomes a hero every time something goes
wrong in the office. Whenever a
need for new word arises, i.e. a Lexical gap, a part of society, if not the
other, will invent a new word, expression or phrase to satisfy it. Undoubtedly,
technology has been the cause of the largest change to the English Language in
the 21st century.
Initially risen
by technology, we were phased by the biggest threat tothe English language yet, also known
as, Social Networking Sites. Despite only being a few years old, these social
media monsters have revolutionised communication as we knew it. Twitter,
Facebook, MySpace and the restave dominated society. Let’s take twitter for example,
everywhere you go, any company you work with or are a part of, any programme
you watch on the telly, you will never fail to spot the famous #hashtag.
Another
thing Twitter encourages is the initialisation of words. Having only 140
characters to express your thoughts in single tweet has prompt the excessive
use of initialisations such as OMG, BTW, GTG, BRB. It freely allows and
emboldens tweeters to use non-standard forms of English. What makes it even
more ludicrous is the Oxford Dictionary; Instead of scrutinising Twitter, they
seem broadly supportive of the whole thing, with the term “tweet-up” which
wormed its way in to the dictionary in 2010. What is the point in teaching pupils
at school vowels, if we are perfectly capable of comprehending words without
them?
However, on
a more positive note, whenwitter
was first introduced, most of society seemed irked at the concept of conveying
something which is meaningful in a couple of words. Eventually, we got over
this bizarre idea and most of us, including myself, realised that Twitter
pushes us to get the crux of what are trying to say. There’s no theory proven
which shows you need to be a grammar goddess to make a point. As the famous
saying goes, “less is more”.
The real
question is, when does a trend transform itself into an acceptable form of
language that we can practise?
Which brings
be on to the one thing that never fails to please us, yes that’s right, the
good old TV. In my mind there is nothing more comforting than Corrie and a
cuppa. Flicking through the channels one day, I came across a huge number of
Reality TV shows. Reality shows were
never a first pick TV show to watch, especially when it was your turn to watch
TV, however, omehow, for
some reason, because of some people, they have become so overwhelming that one
even bagged a BAFTA last year. Words like “reem” are becoming
common colloquial terms used every day, especially amongst the younger
generation, yet nobody quite knows for sure what it means.
The horizons
for new technology are endless. Unbelievably, the television was only born in
the 1950s.
The BBC with their monopoly position was focussed on providing good
entertainment in what was referred to as “BBC English”. Publishing a copy of
what the BBC expected from their workers, especially regarding their usage of
language, was once given great importance. Little did we know that (forty years
onKY digital TV
would transform TV as we knew it. Alongside this new invention, a multiple
selection of channels were easier to access. The BBC’s dream to maintain
perfect Queen’s English was soon overridden.
We always
knew that the Americans had an influence on us, politically and socially. But
who could have guessed that they would influence the English Language as well.
Americanism have slowly ‘snuck’ their way into the English language; and
American discourse fillers are of particular delight. I’m sure we’ve all heard
people say “Kinda” or “ya’know” or “sorta” or “check it out”. They are heard as
frequently in London as New York City. And of course, there is no escaping from
this façade, as the media proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, who has the Sky in his hands,
is American himself.
Alternative
popular media cultures like the radio have also given English speakers an
opportunity to adopt new words, for instance, via regional dialects. What was
once the most prestigious of accents, RP, has been drowned out by regional
accents used by most TV presenters. Presenters who speak regional dialects are
becoming more and more accepted.
Ant and Dec,
two important people on TV, have been crowned the kings of presenting (well
almost) for 10 years running. Yet, neither of them speaks with this prestigious
RP accent. In fact, they seem happy entertaining us with their Geordie accent.
Our society has welcomed regional dialect speakers with open arms. The
condoning of regional dialects to be witnessed widespread has permitted
individuals to express their own culture and comfort.
The
possibilities of our evolving language are endless. Having this leeway may not
necessarily be endangering English, but the opposite. This new insight blossoms
to give people opportunity to converse in a way that is advantageous to them.
However, is it worth it? Does it develop the English language or deplete it?
Ask yourselves.
