“Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration”, or such was the belief of Dr. Samuel Johnson (the man widely regarded as having compiled the first dictionary of the English language). With the introduction of ‘LOL’ to the OED at the beginning of the month, many linguists certainly found themselves returning to this 18th century statement. Whilst there are new words added to the reference book all the time, it appeared that the popular initialism was not a favoured entry: Facebook groups against the addition were established, one blogger termed the move “The Death of the Dictionary” and hundreds of linguists declared it an appalling decision that only served to highlight falling literacy levels.
LOL is now defined as an interjection, “originally and chiefly in the language of electronic communications: 'ha ha!'; used to draw attention to a joke or humorous statement, or to express amusement.”
Whether in favour of the new lexicon or against its inclusion, the term has become undeniably widespread and is recognisable even to those who do not use it, or are insulted by its very use. Once an idiom, the initials have come to represent a ‘lol-ternative’ method of expressing one’s amusement and it has filtered from email use into the mainstream of text messaging, media programmes and common vernacular of teen sociolects. In fact, the term has been in use since the 1990s; some argue that there are examples of people lolling before that time. If the dictionary is to remain an accurate and inclusive reflection of English, then surely those responsible for updating the OED are only duty-bound to consider the terminology.
Rewind the clock twenty years. Consider the massive swaths of new lexemes that have entered our language and all the shifts that have taken place. A Mac would have been a mackintosh coat, not a computer. A browser would have been a casual shopper, not a form of internet access. Technology, its terms and the way it has altered our communication methods, has come to overwhelm and inundate our language with new and interesting changes, based on existing words, phrases and conceptions.
Therefore, language change is the very essence of keeping a language alive. To resist alteration would be to render a language obsolete: it would be unable to cope with changing social situations (WAG craze?), new scientific and technological advancement (dongle, anyone?), or unique and novel experiences (staycation/staycating already used by the BBC!). In short, it would lose relevance and function for its populous.
‘LOL’ as a term may be despised by a large group of citizens, but it represents an ever evolving language, which should be celebrated. David Crystal questions “How many people are actually laughing when they say lol?” Herein lies a specific insight to our language use: more frequently, we find that the language we use is the easiest form of expressing ourselves. No longer is there a need to be particular and almost ornate. It is much more preferable and inkeeping with our quick lifestyles if we are to communicate in an informal manner.
Moreover, if we are to consider the original domain of ‘lol’, the internet and mobiles are areas of contention for many language experts. Controversial claims by Crystal insist that use of abbreviations and neologisms are evidence that our youth do indeed know how to use our language correctly. Without functioning knowledge of how to manipulate English, the subsequent forms would not make sense. Besides, you have to know there is a letter to miss, to miss it with a purpose.
Tony Thorne reaffirms such an idea: “Government educationalists get all worked up about words like LOL - they see them as substandard and unorthodox… But the small amount of research on this issue shows that kids who use slang abbreviations are the more articulate ones. It's called code switching.”
Indeed, the concept of code-switching helps illustrate the adaptability of our diverse and developing language. Simply being immersed in certain situations will signal that one register of language is more appropriate than any other mode of communication. We can agree that no person is about to lol at their boss and his ideas: they may suggest an alternative method instead. How constructive. The different prosodies and implications have their own subtleties: being able to use language in so many different ways allows us to convey our sentiments in different manners depending on circumstance, familiarity etc.
For language to evolve, there is bound to be debate. The English language has almost become global and this is because, more than any other language, it has such a plethora of expressions, terms and idioms that allow a person to explore their sense of meaning. It was for this reason that English was favoured over many Asian languages as official languages of state and education, even after decolonisation. Establishing language academies has failed in this country, despite the efforts of Swift among others. In France, the system struggles to maintain any control over the language.
Maybe then tongues do not degenerate. Rather they regenerate and branch out in new directions, building on previous language bases. To be able to grow, the language need incorporate all lexeme, regardless of domain and origin. It is quite impossible to be a descriptive grammarian or participant in language and take umbrage with one example of popular creation. Language works because we use it this way. The OED records our use of language. Idioms and quaint forms of expression have entered and exited our language for generations. The sheer alarm raised by one little instance is, in itself, quite lol-worthy. Or rather, one finds this trivial complaining most bemusing.
No comments:
Post a Comment