Social Attitudes To Spoken Language Essay

Texting has long been bemoaned as the downfall of the written word, “penmanship for illiterates,” as one critic called it. To which the proper response is LOL. Texting properly isn’t writing at all — it’s actually more akin to spoken language. And it’s a “spoken” language that is getting richer and more complex by the year.

First, some historical perspective. Writing was only invented 5,500 years ago, whereas language probably traces back at least 80,000 years. Thus talking came first; writing is just an artifice that came along later. As such, the first writing was based on the way people talk, with short sentences — think of the Old Testament. However, while talk is largely subconscious and rapid, writing is deliberate and slow. Over time, writers took advantage of this and started crafting tapeworm sentences such as this one, from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “The whole engagement lasted above 12 hours, till the gradual retreat of the Persians was changed into a disorderly flight, of which the shameful example was given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself.”

(MORE:Why Americans Need Spelling Bees and Vocabulary Tests)

No one talks like that casually — or should. But it is natural to desire to do so for special occasions, and that’s what oratory is, like the grand-old kinds of speeches that William Jennings Bryan delivered. In the old days, we didn’t much write like talking because there was no mechanism to reproduce the speed of conversation. But texting and instant messaging do — and a revolution has begun. It involves the brute mechanics of writing, but in its economy, spontaneity and even vulgarity, texting is actually a new kind of talking. There is a virtual cult of concision and little interest in capitalization or punctuation. The argument that texting is “poor writing” is analogous, then, to one that the Rolling Stones is “bad music” because it doesn’t use violas. Texting is developing its own kind of grammar and conventions.

(MORE:Banning the Term Illegal Immigrant Won’t Change the Stigma)

Texting is developing its own kind of grammar. Take LOL. It doesn’t actually mean “laughing out loud” in a literal sense anymore. LOL has evolved into something much subtler and sophisticated and is used even when nothing is remotely amusing. Jocelyn texts “Where have you been?” and Annabelle texts back “LOL at the library studying for two hours.” LOL signals basic empathy between texters, easing tension and creating a sense of equality. Instead of having a literal meaning, it does something — conveying an attitude — just like the -ed ending conveys past tense rather than “meaning” anything. LOL, of all things, is grammar.

Of course no one thinks about that consciously. But then most of communication operates below the radar. Over time, the meaning of a word or an expression drifts — meat used to mean any kind of food, silly used to mean, believe it or not, blessed.

Civilization, then, is fine — people banging away on their smartphones are fluently using a code separate from the one they use in actual writing, and there is no evidence that texting is ruining composition skills. Worldwide people speak differently from the way they write, and texting — quick, casual and only intended to be read once — is actually a way of talking with your fingers.

All indications are that America’s youth are doing it quite well. Texting, far from being a scourge, is a work in progress.

This essay is adapted from McWhorter’s talk at TED 2013.

MORE:Why Do We Love to Invent Languages?

3.2 Anecdotal, Autobiographical, Fictional, or other sources

Often autobiographical accounts of growing up bi- or multilingual reveal attitudes, perhaps even deep personal trauma, involving some variety of language. Consider this (fictional) account by Jamaica Kincaid, from her short-story Xuela (New Yorker, 1994), told from the point of view of a young girl who has just come to live with her father and stepmother, somewhere in the Caribbean:

I sat down on the bed ...

See also Janet Malcolm's experience.

4 Importance of Attitude Study for Language Policy

  1. Overt vs. Covert: Attitudes that may not be overt may still be covert; they may affect the implementation of policy and cause it to fail. Or results may be obtained that were not anticipated or predicted THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, resources may be wasted, no changes result, with perhaps even backlash against the policy.
  2. My conception of language attitudes is that they are a part of linguistic culture (Schiffman 1996) and since language policy is often rooted in linguistic culture, attitudes cannot be ignored. See also what Hamers & Blanc (1989) say about this.
  3. In the Labovian sociolinguistic paradigm, there is the notion of covert prestige of certain (usually non-standard) linguistic forms, which explains why certain (usually non-standard) forms persist despite attempts to eradicate, stigmatize, or extirpate them. With regard to certain forms, e.g. Philadelphia (sh) forms (e.g. `shtreet' for `street') all subjects negatively evaluate this pronunciation, even those who use it themselves, and if asked what kind of a job such speakers might have, reply that they ``shouldn't have any job!"
  4. Male speech often thus seems to have covert prestige, being associated with `machismo'. Attempts to eradicate non-standard forms will then be seen as an attact on the masculinity of their users, and will fail.

4.1 Other Things to Consider

  • Mertz's study of `folk-Whorfian' attitudes towards languages other than English in the American context;
  • Studies of diglossic situations of all sorts; typically the diglossic language lacks `prestige'; why then does it persist? Are there other issues that ought to be studied, such as the emotional content of non-standard speech, seen as
  • Need to look at religion and attitudes toward language, especially languages with `sacred' texts, `holy' forms, long textual traditions (`religions of the book'):
    As set down in the Koran, the sacred book of Islam is dogmatically held to be the uncreated attribute of God, coexistent with him. (Umberto Sceratto, Monuments of Civilization: Islam)
    In the beginning there was the word; and the word was with God, and the word was God.

    (New Testament, Gospel of John)

  • Other cultures (cf. Schiffman 1996, Ch. 2).

4.2 Bibliography

  • The chapter on 'Psycho-sociological Analysis' (of Language Policy) in Ricento's recent volume ( Language Policy: Theory and Method) by Colin Baker, pgs. 210-28, lists some recent bibliography worth consulting.
  • See in particular Garrett, P., Coupland, N. and Williams, A. (2003) Investigating Language Attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity, and performance. Cardiff: U. of Wales Press.
  • Some recent bibliographies compiled by various people, can be found on my Website at this location .

Harold Schiffman
Thu Nov 13 11:49:41 EST 1997

One thought on “Social Attitudes To Spoken Language Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *