Friday, January 17, 1997
CLARITY:
Knowledge of various dialects can improve communicationBy Mike
Severa
While it excites me to see a public discourse about language, I
feel I have to address some of the points Scott Sahlman made in his
Jan. 10 article, "Standard English essential for conversational
clarity."
Scott, your general claim is that you agree for the most part
with John Lemke’s earlier article except for your belief that our
efforts should be focused on retaining clarity in language above
all else.
If you were to give me the choice of eliminating elitism,
racism, intolerance, illogic and inanity while having to dispose of
clarity at the same time, I would have to choose to throw the
choice out the window any day, and I feel that most people would
agree.
Perhaps a further clarification is also needed of your term
"clarity." Communication is the primary goal of spoken language,
and thus clarity seems to be inherent therein, even (and probably
especially) in language change.
I fear that you assume that someone who cannot be clear in your
language (or dialect) is incapable of being clear at all. I too
often hear people who can’t speak English very well, or who speak a
different dialect, referred to as being stupid. I have met many
people here at UCLA who don’t speak what you would call standard
English and who would nonetheless be classified as perhaps the
farthest thing from stupid. I am sure you have had the same
experience.
Furthermore, I happen to be (luckily) a speaker of more than one
language, and it is amazing that when conversing with someone who
speaks the same languages, I can often be clearer by switching
between languages; I don’t see how a wider variety of dialects
might impede clarity.
Although you bring up the point that tolerating language
difference can lead to problems, you fail to mention how we might
control the growth of new languages. And gladly, you seem to imply
that you’re aware of the futility of such a task.
Language change is inevitable and uncontrollable, and any
attempt to legislate control over language can only be seen as
intolerance of that dialect (obviously). In your search for
clarity, you yourself bring up an interesting point. Even with our
current standard English and its clarity-laden subset "legalese,"
we, ironically, still need lawyers and courts to decide what this
"clearest" portion of our language really means.
Your last point about the imminent division of Canada,
ostensibly due to language difference, begs its own sense of
clarity. Language is not dividing Canada  if anything, it is
language intolerance that is the culprit. I would argue that the
language differences are merely a reflection of differing cultural
and political identities which are more likely causes of any
discord (any bets on how long before Switzerland breaks
apart?).
All over the world there are people who speak two, three or even
more languages or dialects in order to communicate. I have to say
that if someday you’ll have to learn "five or 10 other forms" of
English, as you fear, you will surely be the better for it.
Learning a foreign tongue not only helps foster an understanding of
other cultures but opens your eyes to the intricacies of your own
language as well.
Contrary to the wishes of many, there cannot be an absolute
language  it’s not in our nature. For me, one of the many
beauties of language is that it so clearly embodies human
creativity; its diversity attests to the imagination of its users
and creators. We should not be limiting ourselves by refusing to
accept the inevitable. On the contrary, we should be celebrating
language change.