Immutability Versus Volatility of the English Lexis

A few weeks ago, I examined an article which deals with the importance of preserving a dying language. Today, I consider the motives for preserving traditional usage in a much more thriving language: English.

The BBC is considering appointing a language chief to oversee its reporters' grammar and usage. It wishes to protect its "reputation as a bastion of the Queen's English," which has come under attack recently due to minor usage errors on the part of several BBC reporters. In general, the usage errors are barely worth noting: minor nuances in the usage of such words as "replica," "might," and "refute." However, many people argue that BBC should make an effort to preserve the historical meanings of the words. Because so many people watch or listen to BBC programming, the programmers can affect the linguistic beliefs of a large number of people. If a BBC reporter misuses a words several times, then many of the people who hear that misusage may begin to use the word that same way. Mass media has a tremendous influence over the usage of language. Yet despite all this, some people argue that no new restrictions should be imposed on BBC reporters. They consider the idea of regulating language so strictly to be "pedantic and yesteryear" and believe that language should be permitted to morph.

If language is too immutable it falls out of date. Unable to keep up with the times, it dies and fades away. But language also loses its significance when it is too volatile--if a word does not mean the same thing today as it meant yesterday or will mean tomorrow, then its meaning is insignificant. Language must be relatively standardized so that certain words denote certain things or else those words have no meaning at all. Between making a language too immutable or too volatile, I believe that it is always best to err on the side of immutability. It is better that words have set (though slightly antiquated) meanings rather than no meanings at all. Legal settings, in particular, require strictly standardized meanings of words.

There are innumerable texts which could be considered as background reading on the subject of preservation and regularization of the English language. Some focus on grammar, others on usage; most cover both. Of these books, my favorite is probably The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. This book, while supporting the traditional regulation of language, does so in such a thorough manner that one can clearly see why some critics would consider such regulation "pedantic and yesteryear." Does it really matter that the vast majority of the populace misuses the word "hopefully"? Or that virtually no one knows the difference between "shall" and "will"? Such rules are entertaining to know but seem to have little significance in modern society. Some rules fade into the past naturally, but the mass media should still make an effort to preserve traditional language usage in its broadcasting so that it does not actively contribute to major shifts in language usage.