Ambiguity of Language

This article is on one of my favorite topics, language. I have always thought of language as something to be followed or broken, but Gary Cutting exposed its ambiguity when he wrote, "language is both our creation and our master." (Cutting, "Arguing...") This had never occurred to me before. I had always thought language was something that we molded, and it never crossed my mind that we had to obey language in order to be understood by others.

In my lifetime I have seen many additions to language, such as new verbal nouns, like "to facebook", "to IM (instant message)" and the best of all, "to google". I was never aware that, "Some people find split infinitives (“to plainly see”), “verbed” nouns (“let me caveat that”) or misspelled words (“supercede”) simply ugly." (Cutting, "Arguing...") I had never thought that "verbed" nouns were something to be ashamed of. I viewed them as language adapting to developments in technology. As I mentioned before, "to google" has become a regular verb in my lexicon, as well as the lexicon of many other people. I actually didn't even realize it was an abnormal addition to the American language, until someone pointed it out.

While I think the article brings up some interesting points of view, the author sometimes loses my attention, because he isn't writing clearly enough. Cutting was talking about how language can change from person to person and how it depends on personal taste, when he wrote, "There is room for lively and enlightening discussion, even though the final conclusion may be 'de gustibus'." (Cutting, "Arguing...") I found that I focused on the phrase "de gustibus", because I was excited that I knew it meant "of taste". Then I thought that some people, who aren't familiar with the Latin language, wouldn't know what this means without looking it up on the Internet. Because I was so occupied thinking of all of this, I had forgotten the beginning of the sentence. 

Even if this article weren't in the opinions section of the New York Times, I would've recognized the bias. The author is a philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame, and his writing suggests that he is biased against the relaxed use of language among the younger generation. When discussing why some people have different views on language, Cutting wrote, "To be careless in how we speak and write can signal that we are ignorant or disdainful of the writers and speakers who helped craft our language." (Cutting, "Arguing...") I find it difficult to agree with this statement. This sentence made it seem as though Cutting thinks breaking some rules of the English language in any situation, such as talking with friends, is a slap in the face of the people who founded our language. I think his statement doesn't take into account the desire of young people just to be understood, and not to have exact grammar.

Overall, this was a very interesting article, which brought to my attention the ambiguity of language. It also helped me see language from a different point of view. I have always thought that language was something that can be changed, and never thought of it as something that needed to be preserved, and something that needed to be followed carefully.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/arguing-about-language/