[bianca]

Allow me to clarify one thing:

As far as I remember, there are four levels of diction in the English language: the uneducated, the standard, educated and the most formal one. I guees the academic one. All of them are going to look differently, more or less, hundreds of years from now. But my focus is on the academic language mainly.

Now let me comment on your previous input (you may correct me if I'm wrong):

Existing linguistic theories are nothing wrong to look at as long as they give us the picture of how language has changed throughout the centuries, how meaning has been established in a changing language and how grammar and vocabulary have been affected by these changes. I'm not saying that they must be analysed so as to define the future of the English language, or any other language for that matter, but I made my own predictions based on them and my own assumptions. Besides, sometimes you may get an inkling about the future based on the nature of the past changes, in all fields and even though times are "a-changing".

You said that you believe in the dictatorship of the majority, not in the regulating institutions. But the institutions themselves are not against the peopole, neither do they serve some selfish interests. On the contrary, they are as democratic as they can be. Their job is to safeguard the clarity of a language, which in turn goes to serve people's needs. And secondly, as long as there are ranks among people, there will be degrees of formalities, whether we like it or not.

Yes, I have also said that changes will occur, but I think cultural issues will interfere with them to a certain point. My guess is that, since English comes from England, a very conservative country in all respects, and the rules for correct English are set by the British institutions, well, then these institutions must change, too. Their regulations of right and wrong in an effective communication are further taken over by schools and so on. There are so many redundancies coming into English as a global language, like "keep the cat off of the couch" and so on. Will they,too, become part of the language just because everyone uses them? Am I to teach my students that this is correct language?

These institutions have changed their ways and will change, as well, to keep pace wih people's needs, but no natural process in the life of a language will allow for these changes to stay, as long as they cripple its own clarity. That would be linguistic suicide! Especially in a world where effectiveness in communication is so important (and as you said, mistakes in communication are costly)...


As you said, inter-disciplinary cooperation for a better prediction of the changes in the language is of course needed. People have needs, and I already touched upon the fact that effective communication is not the only human need, literature and symbolisms (to mention two) are vital as well. Thereof, the aesthetic aspect of the language I think is so important for our well-being, and the more aggressive our world, the more they'll make their presence felt. They are not superfluous, as someone said, and they don't hamper effectiveness in communication just because their meaning is not literal, who says they do? Metaphors, symbolisms, all stylistic devises are already shortcuts in communication, and very smart ones at that ("time is money" is a metaphor, right?)

Finally, social hierarchies will always exist as long as there is a competitive capital economy in the world, and consequently, the English language will be following those hierarchies, with all the implications for (especially) the formalities in it.
/Bianca