According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word
“devolve” means “to gradually go from an advanced state to a less advanced
state”. For the purpose of discussing whether the English language is evolving
or devolving, I think the key phrase in that definition is “advanced state to a
less advanced state.” In a world dominated by social media and instant
communication, it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that our language has become
less formal and complex as a result of this. From shortened words in texting
and omission of punctuation to using slang terms as substitutes for actual
words, on the surface, it appears as if defining the change in the English
language as an example of devolution is a no-brainer. However, I disagree. In fact, our language has been evolving since the time it originated, and it is still doing
so today.
In his book discussing the television as a mode of public
discourse, Amusing Ourselves to Death,
Neil Postman makes the point that the members of the early colonies of America
were highly literate for their time, when books and the written word were the
main mode of communication. He explains that this is because reading forced
people to process and analyze the information. He then goes on to say that,
with the invention of the telegraph, and later the television, society became
subject to more and more messages in the same amount of time, and eventually
became less concerned with the substance of the message, therefore resulting in
a lack of analysis. But while I agree with Postman’s “news of the day” theory,
I disagree with his belief that the mode of communication has reversed the
progress of the complexity of our language. Newscasters use formal English to
deliver news stories, don’t they? There’s no “BRBs” or “OMGs” spoken aloud on
Fox News; they use full pronunciation, complete sentences, and communicate in a way that
would be considered formal, proper, and professional. The mode of media changes
the way we analyze and process the message, sure; but it doesn’t change the
complexity of the language that is used to do so.
It’s no secret that the majority of elderly people strongly
believe that teenagers in modern times have a complete disregard for “proper”
English and intelligent conversation, as a result of today’s advanced modes of
communication—specifically, texting and social media in general. Ask any
grandparent, and they would more than likely say that the English language has,
without a doubt, devolved. But just because communication is easier and more
accessible in today’s age doesn’t necessarily mean the language with which we
are doing so has become any less complex. Using shortened words and omitting
punctuation in a short text message I send to my best friend isn’t a reflection
of my understanding, or lack thereof, of proper English language and grammar. It’s merely a reflection of me wanting to get my point across quickly, a
reflection of me growing up in a world of instant communication. The biggest
misconception, in my opinion, is that “texting language” has become a
replacement for proper English—but it hasn’t. I don’t know one person who uses lingo
usually found in texting in a spoken conversation, so why should using texting
language in the mode that it was created for be viewed as devolution of the
language? I may be typing “FYI”, but I understand perfectly that what I am
actually doing is conveying a message to someone that I think would be
beneficial to them—I’m using an abbreviation to save time, not compromise
complexity.
So why is the instantaneity of communication in the modern
age seen as such a negative aspect of our society? It shouldn’t be, but because
evolution is generally perceived as “becoming smarter”, it is. However, evolution
is really just about adapting to your surroundings, and learning how to thrive
in an environment that may have changed quickly. Our language is, indeed,
evolving. The world of rapid communication has provided us with a new
environment, and we have adapted quickly by modifying our language so that it's equally as
rapid to use. But that only changes how the words of the language appear to the eye—not the
meaning behind them.
