The natural wildness of the English language

The Economist's Johnson columnist argues that linguistic change should be embraced as evolution 

Much of the public debate around linguistic change tends to be polarized into two camps. In one are the descriptivists^[각주:1], for whom change is a natural feature of a living language; in the other are the prescriptivists^[각주:2], who view such changes in strictly negative terms as evidence of slipping standards. "Talk on the Wild Side" is aimed at those in the second camp, offering a more optimistic and upbeat projection of the future, although its breadth of coverage, and its intelligent and informed commentary, mean that it has much to offer anyone interested in the study of human languages. Taking a lengthy historical perspective, and ranging across a variety of languages, Lane Greene, author of The Economist's Johnson column, argues that the English language should be treated like a wild animal: instead of attempting to tame it, we should allow it to roam freely and evolve in its own way. 

Where prescriptivists insist on the observance of certain linguistic norms - not splitting infinitives, never ending a sentence with a preposition - Mr Greene shows that these so-called rules are little more than arbitrary stylistic preferences imposed upon English earlier in its history. Where those concerned with standards rule against linguistic variation, it should instead be welcomed, since it lends the language greater expressiveness. 

Drawing upon Geoffrey Pullum's distinction between "Normal" and "Formal", Mr Greene demonstrates how variation typically cast in terms of right and wrong is better understood according to register: a form of language appropriate to a particular use or social setting. "To whom am I speaking?" is formal, while "Who am I speaking to?" is normal. For those fearing that such a relaxed approach would result in communicative breakdown, Mr Greene cites the evidence of the Great Vowel Shift, a major pronunciation change that took place between the 15th and 17th centuries. While this caused modern English to sound very different to that spoken by Chaucer, the gradual nature of the change meant that it had little impact upon communication. 

Situating the correctness debate within a wider historical context enables Mr Greene to consider contemporary changes as elements of larger shifts in linguistic structure. Viewed from this perspective, the loss of the object form of the relative pronoun, whom, is simply the tail-end of a shift from a synthetic structure (one that distinguishes subject and object by adding endings) to an analytical one (in which subject and object are distinguished by word order) that has been in progress for a millennium. Bringing to bear an impressive knowledge of a range of languages, Mr Greene identifies similar structural changes in Mandarin and Old Egyptian. Such evidence prompts a rethinking of the causes of the structural shift in English. Was it triggered by interaction between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, speaking similar Germanic tongues with different patterns of endings? Or is it consequence of the spread of English as a global language? Or is it part of a natural linguistic cycle that may ultimately result in English reverting to a synthetic structure?

As well as arguing for the futility of attempts to control language, Mr Greene explores efforts to create more logical systems, from the 17th-century polymath John Wilkins to the 1950s creation Loglan, devised to test the hypothesis that a more logical language would facilitate more logical thought processes. Such artificial languages have had little impact, however, since they remain the province of small numbers of enthusiasts. Potentially more significant is the development of artificial intelligence and machine translation. Yet the difficulties apparent in teaching a computer to acquire the complex rules of human language serve to highlight the amazing facility with which young children are able to infer such structures simply by listening to other speakers. 

This conclusion prompts Mr Greene to intervene in the politically charged debate concerning the teaching of grammar in English schools. Arguing against the need for traditional drilling of grammatical paradigms, Mr Greene advocates an approach focused on immersion in the written word, supplemented with some rote learning^[각주:3]; surprisingly, given his earlier remarks on the loss of the who/whom distinction, he considers mastery of this necessary for producing "high-quality prose". Perhaps, wearing his other hat as one of the newspaper's editors - "When I see grammar errors, I fix them" - he has replaced who with whom too many times to let it go completely. But what unites Mr Greene's roles as language pundit and editor is a passion for language in all its variety and complexity, making for a lively and fascinating read. 

1. descriptivist ; [명사, 형용사] 기술 언어학자; 기술 언어학의 ;; 참고 descriptivism [본문으로]
2. prescriptivist ; [명사] 규범주의자; ((특히)) 규범 문법학자[지지자] ;; 미국∙영국 [priskríptəvist] [본문으로]
3. rote learning ; 무턱대고 외우기 ;; rote ; [U] [흔히 형용사로 쓰여] (기계적인 반복에 의한) 암기 ;; [NOUN] Rote learning or learning by rote is learning things by repeating them without thinking about them or trying to understand them. [본문으로]