The Theory of Evolution

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.