Is Language Devolving?

Is language devolving?

With most of our lives revolving around the culture of television, drawn into its simplified and slanted view of reality, one must answer the above question with a resounding “yes”. But what would that “yes” mean for the overworked housewife, the professional athlete, the Wall Street Executive, or any member of society that has private interests and experiences? Would they have to give up their “devolving” language, agree to stop corrupting the world, and change their ways? Or would a “yes” be followed by worldwide implementation of government mandated restrictions on a dying language? Most likely, the answer to the last two questions would be neither. Language is a fundamental part of human life; therefore, it has made progress during tens of thousands of years to become as important as it is today. Furthermore, the evolution of technology has had the largest effect on the uses of our language and its effect cannot be diminished until technology ceases to evolve. These observations on the progress and cause of the evolution of language entail that the devolution or evolution of language is not dependent on what we say, but whether we continue to use language in the new and unique circumstances we encounter. When we question the evolution of language based upon what we say, the discussion moves towards a debate on morals, experiences, and backgrounds rather than on the progress of language. Furthermore, a debate about what we say and how we say it assumes a right or wrong way to say things in a situation, which cannot make a multi-value orientated judgment about the progress of language. Since language is defined by its use and progress in communicating with other humans, the most important judgment that must be made is whether the use of language, in its many forms, is becoming less important as a tool in society. Therefore, the evolution or devolution of language does not depend on the content of language, but only the uses of language. Whether language evolves is a question of whether human beings continue to adapt it for new uses within an evolving society. As long as society continues to evolve and create opportunities for novel circumstances to arise, language will continue to evolve to meet the demands of society.

As the technology that facilitates communication changes, so does the volume and content of words that are exchanged between humans. When technology alters the content of our language, the results are not an indication of devolution. As an example, it does not matter to the participants in a conversation how either convey the idea that “Charlie hates cats”, as long as it is understandable to both participants through their common experience. Also, it would be preferable for one to say “C h8 c@” if it would be more efficient to say and understandable within the range of experiences between the participants in a conversation. This apparent disregard for the content of language is not the devolution of language among these people, but instead it is the adaptation and evolution of language to fit the needs and background of the participants of any conversation. Furthermore, the evolution of technology is one of the main reasons for social change and adaptation. For instance, American Indians prior to European colonization had no language to describe a person riding a horse; however, words were created and combined so that American Indians could communicate the circumstance of seeing a rider on a horse. Therefore, the devolution that many perceive in language is simply a pessimistic outlook on the results of social adaptation to technology and novel circumstances, which lead to judgments about the moral merits of expressions in language and not judgments about the progress of language. Furthermore, when these types of moral judgments regarding language are made, it is often not language that is devolving, but rather that the social institution that supports old forms of language is experiencing cultural lag. In modern society, we may use a different method or strategy that is more convenient for our purposes to convey the meanings of our thoughts, but this is evidence that we are shaping and evolving our language and not that language is devolving.