Introduction:
I began writing this due to my frustration with accepting the possible existence of “meaningless” practices in our society. For example, in the 1950s, schools would have “Atomic bomb drills” where they had students practice hiding under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack - but we now know that such a practice was completely ridiculous; hiding under your desk would in no way increase your chances of survival if a nuclear bomb was dropped on you. Yet, if I remember correctly, the practice was carried out for several decades before common sense kicked in.
Basically, after a great deal of contemplation, my mind started coming up with all sorts of other things we practice that might unknowingly be completely purposeless; one such thing is grammar. Writing this was then formulated to be an analysis of the question “Is grammar necessary?”… I ended up typing out a great deal more, going into topics about language itself and the implications of language’s changing state.
Before I am accused of being a Nietzsche-humper, let me say that I honestly didn’t recall the fact that Nietzsche was a philologist until after I had already wrote most of this. Coincidentally, one of Nietzsche’s more famous quotes is “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar…” (I think somebody here actually has it as their signature) which I almost sort of ended up talking about. Anyways, I just wanted to make it clear that this was all my original text, and couldn’t even really be considered “inspired” by Nietzsche. All these ideas arose out of my own contemplations, think of them what you will.
Is Grammar Necessary?
Languages undoubtedly changes over time. However, is the change random, or an indicator of some property underlying those who speak the language? Maybe language changes for the purpose of synchronizing with the minds of its speakers. Perhaps the practice of maintaining “grammatical correctness” is restricting a natural process for language to change.
Question: Should maintaining “grammatical correctness” be practiced?
Proposed Reasons Why It Should Be:
-So that speakers of a language will all be able to understand each other with minimal difficulty.
-If it wasn’t maintained, the varying regions in which the language is spoken would slowly begin to branch off, each forming their own distinct version of the language.
-For the sake of accurate record keeping. If language never had set boundaries or definitions, it would be very difficult to keep accurate and easily translatable records, as different words would mean different things for different people, and there would be no way of categorizing for the sake of translation which branch of language the record was written in.
-Communication would be severed between different groups of people in the world. With no set definition for categorizing one language as different from another, there couldn’t be an effective means of translation - boundaries between languages and groups of people would merge together, and form a wave-like pattern where blending between languages would slowly become apparent the further you traveled.
Proposed Reasons Why It Shouldn’t Be:
-Perhaps it was human error to think that the idea of “grammar” was even necessary to begin with – or that such notions as “correct” or “proper” grammar could even be valid.
-If a grammatical error becomes common enough (if enough people use it in common speech), it might indicate that it simply flows more smoothly with the individual’s brain when processing language - therefore, it is probably just a more coherent way for it to be spoken.
-If language had always had set limits for “grammatical correctness”, there would be only one language (assuming people all originated from one location on the planet and spread out from there). In reality, language changes dramatically over the course of time; what is considered “proper grammar” was originally considered “slang” or improper grammar in the past, but as more people began using it, it became accepted as “correct”. Therefore, it is hard to consider a particular type of grammar to be “proper”, since the definition of “proper” will change to accommodate for what was previously considered “improper”.
-If language had grammatical boundaries that were enforced or strictly taboo to break, then all language would probably seem bland and lack any artistic/creative qualities. William Shakespeare, for example, is famous for inventing a lot of the language he used for dramatic effect; some of these “inventions” have become officially incorporated into the English language itself.
-Perhaps letting the evolution of language go unimpeded by grammatical law would allow for language to shape itself as to best fit the cognition of the individuals speaking it. If this aspect of cognition is hereditary, then eventually language might evolve to become synchronized with the human cognition.
My Answer: Well, we could say that it is necessary, since it has been depended on for so long, it must be necessary for something. Yet, haven’t there been many meaningless practices in past civilizations? Couldn’t grammar be (unknowingly to those who practice it) something that is useless? A good example would be the internet’s effect on language - since language and grammar have all but deteriorated on the internet (if not completely, then at least significantly), we could say that no real grammar is needed or used outside of what is necessary for the successful communication of ideas. Maybe we shouldn’t view this disintegration of language as a bad thing – we are capable of efficiently communicating in a much more simplistic way; we disposed of almost everything excessive about our written language. Words were broken down into a few letters, sometimes whole words can be left out of sentences, acronyms replace common expressions, and grammar is only used for tone, emphasis, and exclamation. We adapted to best suit the medium of our communication, and maintaining grammar would have all but dragged us along the way.
Language Changing as a Response to Deception; The Human Equilibrium?
Perhaps the linguitive concepts of “lying”, “irony/sarcasm”, “superficiality”, “deception” and others are what is responsible for language transformation. It may seem irrelevant, but think of how certain phrases eventually lose their literal meaning due to people commonly using them for lying, superficiality, deception, or irony. For example, the phrase “yeah, I’m sure” is often taken as being sarcastic and quite the opposite of its literal meaning; this exists independent of the tone in which it is said as well, as in some incidences an individual might say the phrase with its intended meaning being literal, but others might mistake it for sarcasm or superficiality despite the tone it was said in. Even with a most sincere and honest tone, an individual still may be hesitant in registering it as having literal meaning, and it might even subconsciously provoke suspicion or disbelief.
Example:
“Hey Joe, you know I love you, right?.”
“Yeah, I’m sure”
“Pfft, screw you then”
“What? I didn’t mean it like that!”
These occasions (where language transitions to adapt to dishonesty, sarcasm, superficiality, and deception) might just be temporary or cultural, or may rely solely on the tone in which they are said, and therefore they pressure no change on the language itself. They may also be the result of “grammatical correctness”, and wouldn’t exist by themselves; since the limitations which grammar impose on language is what might have created “loopholes” within the language that could be exploited for dishonest, deception, etc… This is not to imply that all dishonesty wouldn’t exist if there were no grammar, but it does for some particular incidences.
It might be that the human mind’s integration of language is resilient enough that changes in language do not reflect the human cognition in any significant way - the cognition would function just as efficiently no matter what language it uses. But, there have been certain times in my recollection where it seemed as if other people were unable to formulate words that sufficiently matched their thoughts, and language’s limitations posed as a sort of obstacle.
Hypothetically, think of a world where language has no grammar, but all thoughts and feelings when put into language are literally “sung” to other people to give a much more accurate and refined represenation of what the individual meant it to mean. In such a hypothetical world, there wouldn’t be any need for lying or deception, since all concerns would be voiced with a verbal qualia of emotion itself. Wouldn’t this then imply that most of the negative human feelings that are present today would be absent? Wouldn’t sophistic rhetoric be wholly ineffective and non-existent? An individual wouldn’t need to “lie” or “steal” to meet his/her needs for food or shelter, as the individual could just voice his/her problem sincerely to other people to gain their charity if they could afford it.
Perhaps things such as “lying” and “deception” are necessary, as well as rhetoric - without such things, humanity would lack some aspects of abstract thinking, and things such as trust and love would lose their significance as they would no longer be scarce or difficult to obtain. This would suggest that the human mind is in an equilibrium of sorts where all human emotions are needed equally, as one couldn’t exist without the other. If there were no “hateful” emotions, then emotions of “love” would lose significance and become as passive as blinking or breathing. If humanity is in such an “emotional equilibrium”, then where do all the variations come from that allow for different languages? Perhaps part of the nature of the equilibrium is that language is always fluctuating, because if language were stagnant, then linguistic styles like irony or rhetorical deception couldn’t exist or wouldn’t exist in the same way.
Yet, there is a common perception that different languages stress particular emotions over the other, so this would seem to go against the idea of an equilibrium - French is reputable for being romantic; German is reputed as being robust, adamant, or even obnoxious; English is stereotyped as being pompous, snobby, polite, and superficial - these variations might just be dependent on accents though, and not the language itself.
If we were to think of “grammatical correctness” as being a metaphorical “restrictive net” that is placed over a language, then what does this say about phenomenon within the language such as slang, varying accents, the emergence of varying dialects, etc. etc. It might suggest that such phenomenon are metaphorical “leaks” in the metaphorical “grammar net” - the restrictive nature of grammar can not successfully hold back society’s ever-changing culture, cultural events that cause a particular word to temporarily (or permanently) change meaning, or the human mind’s tendency towards simplicity (slang, and most grammatical errors). Anomalies within a language such as different accents serve as reminders of the fact that language is unavoidably prone to change and individualization.
I am unsure of whether grammar slowly emerged and was distributed over time, or if it came in “chunks” - where grammatical rules would be formed in sessions (the teachings of an educator, or simply a common acceptance of it). Underlying these notions are two opposing concepts - distribution over time implies “wave” dynamics, while arrival in chunks implies “particle” dynamics. Ultimately, all grammar must have arrived in chunks, if we consider grammar to be defined as “unchanging rules” – and the process of these chunks emerging would have to be distributed over time through the collective consciousness of those who spoke the language; once the distribution passed a certain threshold, the arrival of a “grammatical chunk” would be imminent. If this is true, then it implies that incidents of newly introduced grammar are really just spontaneous sessions of backwards progress in the evolution of language. What could this suggest as a whole? That the evolution of “language” is a process that is somehow meant to refine. Refine into what? I do not know for certain. Perhaps it is refining itself to its own perfection. This perfection might be the state of language in the hypothetical world I mentioned a few paragraphs ago. The arrival of each “grammatical chunk” is really just an indicator that “progress has been made, but language is still flawed from perfection”. Is progress ever actually being made? Or is each step towards progress compensated by unknowingly and subtly slipping backwards?
Let us put together a conclusion; we know that:
-
Grammar originates as an attempt to fix an inefficiency in communication.
-
Language is unavoidably changing, despite restrictions imposed by grammar.
-
Grammar will accomodate for changes in language; this occurs when “improper” grammar becomes common enough that it is then considered “proper” grammar.
-
The goal of language’s evolution is to reach a state either where no more improper grammar occurs, or when grammar is no longer necessary.
The progress of this entire process might be:
A) Moving forward - refining language until it reaches perfection.
B) Making no progress because the human mind is at an equilibrium - the progress of language gradually slips backwards for every step it takes forward, not changing on the X axis, but coming to a new position on the irrelevant Y axis.
If the human race is in an equilibrium, then this poses a great deal of philosophical confusion; nihilism emerges due to the lack of any possible objective meaning, and all meaning must be purely subjective. The meaning of life would then be solely for the sake of experience itself. The goals of morality would ultimately be unreachable, as any progress would have to be compensated with the loss of something else – human experience would be equally pleasurable and displeasurable for everyone. “Meaning” would not come with reaching something you were working towards, but it would come from the very process itself of working towards something; if what you are working towards is moral stability, then reaching it is impossible.
Each new moral implication can only be reached with a will-denying consequence. You can not have morals against sex, without denying sex yourself in that same aspect. You can not have morals against violence, without restraining yourself from violent behaviors in that same aspect. Since all of life is nothing but “immoral” behaviors - killing, stealing, lying, indulgence, cheating - then complete moral stability could only be met with the cessation of life and existence itself.
However, even if this “equilibrium of meaning for human existence” and its implications are true, it leaves only two options: Keep living life as if it weren’t true, or; cease the search for meaning altogether. The first option is the only one that doesn’t involve committing oneself to a nihilistic void, so we have to assume (due to the lack of an alternative) that the progress of language’s evolution is “A” mentioned above, moving forward.
Now, the last few paragraphs might seem to have only a vague relevance to language - and admittedly, the last few paragraphs were a huge deviation from the topic that had been discussed until then. But, they were some possible conclusions regarding the philosophical implications of language and its evolution.
Shifts in Language Influenced by the Environment
It is strange to speculate that language forms the same “spiral” pattern as is found throughout most of the universe. It is so keen, that I bet if we were able to find a way to represent language visually with euclidean coordinates, then successfully plot out the languages of the entire globe onto a graph (and rule out geographic obstructions to distribute it evenly), we would find that the language on one hemisphere of the globe is roughly the inverse of the language of the other hemisphere. Of course, in modern times, the advent of fast transportation and the internet would greatly distort such a graph - but if we were to imagine a hypothetical scenario where the globe had no geographic obstructions and people all dispersed across the globe at the same rate, then such a “language graph” would be quite accurate. In reality, our perceived validity of such a graph might just be strictly coincidental, but it might just be roughly accurate (depending on how much geography, climate, transportation, and the internet have an impact on the distribution of language)… For example, it seems somewhat accurate to posit that the languages of Asia seem roughly inverse to the languages of the West such as English.
We could also speculate that it is not the location on the planet that determines the position on this graph, but simply the direction in which people migrated from the point of human origin – those who headed west would have a roughly inverse language to those who headed east. This may have resulted from such subtle influences of natural phenomenon such as the rising and setting of the sun (those who travelled toward the set of the sun might have been fundamentally different on a psychological level to those who travelled towards the rise of the sun), which may very well have had an impact on language. We know that the environment must have atleast some influence on language, due to the very fact that we have different languages - although it might have been more of a result from climate and less from geography (yet, arguably, the former depends on the latter) - civilizations in cold weather might have produced characteristics in language that are opposite from hot weather counterparts.
Then again, the variations in language might have arisen out of matters completely irrelevant to the environment, and could have just depended on the individuals who created them. For a hypothetical example, some guy named “Eek” might have invented a food dish which people also called “Eek”, and over hundreds of years, “Eek” ended up becoming synonymous with that entire style of food or just food in general in that particular language/culture/region. In this example, you’d have a somewhat significant aspect of the language having originated from something so arbitrary and insignificant as a guy’s name.
However, we could also say that maybe a society’s preference and reception to certain new words and their meanings will depend on environmental factors such as climate and geography, meaning that our previous theory could still be valid. Yet, to complicate matters even further, we could say that the influence of geography and climate would only be subtle at most, and the connection might change shortly after its conception. Finally, to all but discourage us from looking for any sort of a connection between language and environment, we could posit that such a connection would involve an incomprehensible amount of variables, and although the connection wouldn’t be wholly random, it would be impossible for us to know much about it (much less find out about how it arrived at its current state, or what previous states were). No solid conclusions could be made, and any “connections” we think we may have found between language and environment is more than likely concidental. To go against what I said above, any inverse relation found between the languages of the Orient and the Occident could only be considered coincidental, since we do not even have the instruments (much less the intelligence) to make such measurements.
In conclusion, although the changing state of human language may give us insight into the nature of human thought, it has no practical application other than treating the curiosity of individuals who are interested. At least, we could say that the constantly changing state of language gives uniqueness to each culture. If the results of language evolving are looked at as aesthetic -language as an art-, it can be fascinating and inspiring by itself.