I believe that all of the hybrids we have discussed are definitely language varieties, and not merely slang or reduced or "lazy" versions of English. (However, "slang" is not a derogatory term for me. Slang is remarkably creative and not at all lazy. Slang is street poetry.) When I first read about the "five present tenses" of Black English in Rickford's "Suite for Ebony and Phonics", I was a bit skeptical, thinking it was a set of rules imposed by linguists on something that was much more fluid (or "lazy" as some may have it) in actual use, but then I went on to read about the rules for dropping consonants at the end of words being based on voiced or voiceless sounds, and I was convinced that it is in fact systematic and structured. The fact that this system emerges spontaneously without anyone being conscious of any of the rules is a fascinating fact.
As to whether various hybrids like "Spanglish" are full or complete language systems is hard to determine. They are certainly not as vast as modern standard English, but English is old and these languages are young. I think many people are working under a kind of Platonic view of language, that there is some kind of ideal form, a language that either exists now or existed at some point in the past that may become corrupted. Different language systems do have their particular virtues, but I don't believe such a thing has ever or will ever exist. Language, like the culture it expresses, is always in flux.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So if there are no set rules for the other varieties, yet there are rules that no one notices, can it only become a language when there are definate rules that are set out so everyone can follow and understand them? Or is all of this just going to keep being a topic of discussion and it may never actually become one way or the other.
Man, I am totally "geeking out" on your post! It's got fireworks going off in my mind.
First, your identification of slang as street poetry is an interesting one - I think I would agree. I think it lends credence to the notion that humans naturally gravitate towards beauty and the sublime, even in language use. Without speaking to the contrasts in slang based on region or socio-economic status, I think we develop and utilize slang not merely as a means to facilitate communication, but also for purposes similar to why we create music, which is not made for utility or efficiency, but to express beauty and make emotion comprehensible. Slang can affect the same.
As to the notion of Platonic idealism in regards to language, you hit the proverbial nail on the head - this is where my mind is whurring in class, around Derrida's deconstructive critique of such "true forms", especially as they apply to language. When we realize that our standards for language are infinitely regressive, and that linguistic development is perpetually in flux, then we can formulate a useful analysis of what happens as a result of using certain varieties of language, etc.
If American English came to bee through the meeting of different languages (like French and others), then how is Spanglish any different from American English in the 1700's.
Also, the standard American English has changed undoubtedly since the time of European migration across the Atlantic by boat. Which means any rule can be rendered irrelevant over the course of time, yet in its evolution it is still called the American standard of English even though the rules are not the same now as they were then.
That is an excellent point, Brandon.
Post a Comment