The Peripatetic Philosopher insists on the necessity of a common tongue:

The Necessity of a Common Tongue?

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© December 10, 2018

Reference:

A writer responded to the last “A Tutorial of Ideas” (re: THE KING’S ENGLISH – Corrupted by Insouciant American Usage?) with this thoughtful question:

Your concerns are valid, I think, but I would like your take on another idea regarding the influence of TV that I got from an article some years ago and have always rather agreed with. The author's idea was that network TV by demonstrating a reasonably sized vocabulary of properly used and clearly enunciated words all across the country, provided a great service to the community by damping down the tendency toward regional dialects and personal idioms. He particularly spoke of the national news shows in which whole and oftentimes complex sentences were used. That does not of course mean that what you wrote of is not the issue you suggest it is. If the problem you noted is getting worse, is it because people are less well taught, the role model idea expressed above is not really effective, people have become lazier, or because in this age of being non-judgmental we don't offer the corrections that might otherwise occur?

This actually touches on the last sentence of this previous missive:

The first sign of the deterioration of a civilization is evident when its language becomes so corrupted its citizens are at a loss as to what others mean or to what they are attempting to say.

Incidentally, voice communication registers mainly through the eyes (75%), not the ears (25%). 

Consequently, the art of talking differs with the art of writing as does the source and construction of the words chosen. On television, it is the artful practice of projecting images to stimulate attention. 

A cavalcade of stereotypical pretty or discerning faces makes a pixel impression on the television viewer while what is being said is quickly lost only to be recovered in canned laugh tracks, theme music and a potpourri of engaging and sometimes violent visuals.

Assuming that the common tongue of the United States is English, or America’s version of the King’s English, and not Spanish or some other foreign language, words are meant to resonate with the listener in easy comprehension.

Remember, television is a commercial medium with the exception of Public Television, which also has an assortment of commercials if not a distinct cultural bias programmed into its menu.

That said television espouses rhetoric. Now, rhetoric has gotten a bad name as it is associated with the bombast and pomposity of campaigning politicians, media moguls, corporate kingpins, churchmen and other proselytizers who are selling a product often disguised as something else (e.g., ideas, entertainment, altruism, spirituality or breaking news).

The word “rhetoric” comes from the Greek root meaning “word” or “I say.” Rhetoric, then, is the art of putting words together so that the listener may easily grasp the meaning of what is being said.

Now, as pointed out in the previous missive, meanings are constantly changing as the nuances of words keep shifting in meaning. There has been a radical disruption in the meaning of words in the 20th century as a result of two global wars, WWI and WWII. These wars disrupted essentially stable societies across the planet including that of the United States.

Such disruptions have also been associated with progressive scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural maturations.

If you are a millennial reading this, chances are you take this in pretty much in stride because it is all you know. For the rest of us, it is difficult to relate much less communicate with each other as the sense of motion and pleasure, the sense of what is moral and right, just and unjust remains pretty rigid in the hard wiring of our collective DNA.

Common words no longer have the same ring of authenticity in a speech or sentence as the tone, rhythm, structure or context of these words (such as “progress,” “happiness,” “love,” “truth,” “family,” “security,” “wealth,” “God,” “church,” “school,” “state,” “job,” “joy,” etc.) has lost its legitimacy.

This is doubly disturbing when the movers and shakers cannot speak without a hiccup of “you knows” laced in the conversation masking the fact that “we do not know.”

This corruption of meaning has been rapid and extensive. To put it differently, the danger of American English losing its efficacy is not limited to bad grammar, dialect, vulgar forms, or native crudities, but has been further corrupted by what I call “corporate speak.” 

In NEAR JOURNEY’S END (Can the Planet Earth Survive Self-Indulgent America?), I write:

Corporate speak stepped into the breach with “it was the right thing to do at the time.” Words pour out of the mouths of politicians like soap bubbles from an unhinged bubblehead doll.

When irreplaceable keepsakes are lost in a hurricane or when psychic trust is flummoxed by the fear game, corporate speak steps in, but at the expense of moral clarity and mounting distrust. Only quiet understanding and appropriate and timely action can relieve such suspicion. Words have no cachet as conversation invariably becomes a duplicitous word game.

We listen to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (commenting on the failure of progress in the Vietnam War) who has perfected corporate speak. He declares with that squinty smile of his that there are “known unknowns” and then there are “unknown unknowns,” and because of this some things are actually quite hard to fix and harder to explain.

Still smiling, “You may ask why that is?” Continuing the Q&A on himself, he tells us it is because the systems behind these “unknown unknowns” or “known unknowns” are intricate, complicated and created by humans. Then with a slight chuckle and hunch of his shoulders, with an “oh shucks” lopsided grin, he adds, “Being human as we are, what else can you expect?” Indeed.

The Necessity of a Common Tongue?

We have had an invasion of illegal immigrants into the country over the past several years that now exceeds several million. Republican and Democrats have been equally ineffective in addressing this problem. 

Meanwhile, these undocumented occupants have been exploited by politicians, corporations, small business owners, celebrities and everyday middle class Americans. No one has clean hands. So, why the concern?

People suffer a debilitating handicap when they are unable to speak the common tongue. Across the United States, there are literally millions who are comfortable only in their own native tongue, but who have been in the United States for many years. They rely on their children or grandchildren to be their interpreters.

Many of these children and grandchildren are well educated and have successfully lobbied with politicians, corporations, city officials and advertisers to see that everything is labeled in Spanish as well as English. In fact, they have been successful in sponsoring, promoting, and financing scores of television outlets that program only in Spanish.

Why? Is this a problem? 

Not in the narrow or short term sense, but in the long term it impacts the efficacy of the individual and the integrity of the nation. That brings us to the essence of this missive.

We are stuck with a public and private paradox. On the one hand, being a democratic republic, we enjoy the benefits of multiculturalism. On the other hand, as a result of self-centered separatism and concomitant polarity, we are confounded by a clash of cultures which is the opposite of pluralism.

Ethnic groups in America understandably emphasize their roots, while failing to a significant degree to assimilate the common tongue. Instead, they retreat into colonized subcultures away from the mainstream which makes it difficult for teachers in public schools, doctors and nurses in hospitals, community and company psychologists, to name a few professionals, to deal effectively with them. 

Unlike Europe, the United States is not a multilingual society.

Quasi-tribal existence extends beyond large groups of ethnic populations unable or unwilling to speak English, or who only speak English with great difficulty. There are also scores of Black and Hispanic languages and dialects that construct invisible barriers preventing students from excelling in school, workers from enjoying good paying jobs, receiving prompt medical services in hospitals and clinics, or being able to shop with ease at supermarkets and mega malls.

This goes well beyond the surface issues of the last missive or the much more manageable problem of vocabulary and grammar. Still, not to trivialize the problem:

Language molds our thoughts, gives color and shape to our desires, limits or extends our sympathies and empathies, and gives continuity to our individual self in one sense or another.

These debilitating effects occur whether we are conscious of them or not. Failure to communicate because of language or dialect barriers is tragic, and in a sense a self-inflicted wound that may prove fatal to a nation, but even more directly to the resisting individual who suffers the loss of identity and hope and the promise of a satisfying future.

Failure to face the crisis of being unfamiliar with the common tongue may be a matter of pride, or simply fear of experiencing embarrassment in attempting to learn the new language. 

Romance languages such as Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian differ in construction with Teutonic languages such as English, German, Dutch, and Flemish. Still, the situation begs the question:

Is a standard language necessary for the integrity of a cohesive nation?

This question cannot be answered when emotions run high or the inclination is to be defensive.

First, Standard English in America is a bit of an oxymoron as people of the American North, South, East and West speak American English in many different dialects and accents, as well as regional slang and jargon. New ethnic minorities experience this and struggle to deal with it.

Second, since Standard English in America is something of a misnomer, how do you solve this riddle? 

You don’t. Assimilation of American English, in its many confounding forms, requires patience and time. It is difficult for Americans when they move from Iowa to Vermont to be comfortable in the local colloquialisms, or vice versa, so imagine what this is like for foreigners.

There are many Americas in America as there are many countries in Europe.

That is to say, American society is a smorgasbord of contradictions and clashing cultural realities including the idea that the USA is a “classless” society when social class and economic clout are distinct manifestations of connections and cultural/political status and, of course, there is also HYPE (re: Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Elitism).

Indeed, American enterprise is an arcane insider game of special interests with players concealing the fact in the camouflage of multiple identities and objectives. Listening to politicians or corporate executives on the stump, you’d think they all shared a common log cabin heritage with Abraham Lincoln.

Then, there are engineers with a mindset clearly xenophobic with a vernacular unintelligible to outsiders. Tune into a television program with Silicon Valley geeks holding court espousing ideas that are hardly user friendly. 

In this technological age the mystical cant is reminiscent of medieval priests privy only to God beyond the pale of ordinary souls.  Similarly, these new high priests of technology now construct a universe ironically with no place for humans.

Exclusions and limitations demonstrate a need for a larger all-purpose language for everybody. Although desirable, it is unlikely to penetrate the façade of those armed with insider power any time soon.

This will eventually fade with an American language accessible to everyone vis-à-vis the Internet. The Internet is the new great definer and equalizer.

There are no secrets anymore as transparency has been assured by an army of hackers who are ubiquitous along with a renegade of trollers corrupting conventional wisdom. 

Heaven and Hell has been reduced to an observable sound bite.

Conversely, a common tongue brings together a language whose value is sense on sight. It holds citizens together as they go through the challenges of an upside-down world.

To put this in linguistic terms, dialects have often been a barrier to Standard English as they represent limited geographical expression. Moreover, a “dialect” implies that grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and idiomatic expressions differ widely with Standard English. It is a bit more complicated.

At first sight, a dialect looks as if it could serve all the needs of provincial users with distinction. But it cannot. Dialect falls short in breath of vocabulary and flexibility of construction. In fact, it denies users access to the full range of ideas, meanings and feelings available in the common tongue.

This rigidity becomes a veritable emotional and intellectual straitjacket for a dialect does not have access to a library of ideas for writing the words that appear here much less for approaching diverse subjects outside the normal purview of the reader’s experience.

Without the flexibility of the written word, language would slide into the uncontrolled chaos of directionless and purposeless exchange.

Moreover, slang is an insufficient variance of language, but fortunately has a short shelf life. It masks and corrupts native nuances currently in vogue. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for jargon or dialect as they have a tenacity difficult to dislodge.

To keep the Standard English extant is a practical endeavor requiring the integration of new usage, colloquialisms, vocabulary and emerging constructions. This is a challenge to all citizens as well as those unfamiliar with the country’s dominant language.

The rights to full citizenship include self-development which presupposes self-knowledge and self-expression in the new language. This leads to command and flexible thought.

There is no more vital formula for success in America than through American English. The irony is that this message is equally germane to Americans.

So what about the ubiquitous practice of translating notices into Spanish? Is this fair and equitable play? I don’t think so.

Not because Spanish is not a great language, but because it is unfair to new residences as it denies them the opportunity to fully participate in the American culture with all its attending advantages.

The only practical guide to a full and productive participation in American citizenship is through the common tongue with its baffling idioms, regional slurs, shoptalk slang and arcane jargon which, sad to say, is the common tongue of American English.