This article on the death of literacy at wired.com is enough to make you question, “Is literacy dying?” Not just literature or the "finer" points of culture, but literacy itself. The slightly finer points of literacy above and beyond the base ability to read, such as the ability to distinguish between homophones, navigate basic punctuation, and correctly spell the majority of the words you write...is she dead, Jim?
Is this why reality television is so popular, because there is no longer any demand for crafted writing and traditional dramatic structures? (Understand, I am not coming to that from a holier-than-thou attitude. I watch Survivor, so I can't throw too many stones.) Has the pride that we should take in mastering our own mother tongue eroded so much that we now prefer our entertainment given to us in an English of crumbling standards, questionable grammar, and limited vocabulary?
I'd wager most of the people reading this have been chided for using "big words" more times in their lives than most. Are we going the way of the dinosaur? Is English, in this new battered and bruised form, passing us by? Will writing that we consider to be examples of skillful, higher-level language be as difficult to read for upcoming generations as Shakespeare is for some (most?) now?
Moreover, do we care, and if we do, is English salvageable? Or is this the natural progression of language, a simplification and evolution brought on by societal changes? For the record, I hope it isn't. Higher-level thinking requires higher-level language skills, and the death of one is the stagnation of the other. Where will we be in a hundred years' time if complex thought is nearly impossible because the innate language skills of humans no longer grant them the tools to form the concepts in their minds or communicate them to others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wonder about this in the same way I wonder about violence in today's society.
Consider that, for a very long time, the "common folk" didn't know how to read or write. Clearly, there was less literacy in, say 1500 AD than there is today. At some point, we extended that ability to large parts of the population, and now we're concerned that we're losing it, when, in effect, we're still much better off than we were 500 years ago.
Now, extend that to the rising belief that "we're not safe" anymore, whether that extends to terrorist attacks or just the notion of getting mugged as you walk down the street. Again, centuries ago, there were highwaymen, crazy people who would kill at the drop of a hat, and you never knew when the Vikings or Gauls or the Prussians -- the "terrorists" of the day -- would invade next.
Obviously, we're much safer now than we were then, yet there's this pervasive belief that we're less safe every year. Did we hit a "peak" of safety/literacy sometime in the last century or so and are losing it now? Or is it just that people think that's the case?
I bet the same question was rised during Ole WIll's time as well. All languages are constantly changing.
Looking up definition of homophones before responding.
I've been meaning to add to the debate here, but every time I've thought of it, I've been holding the baby and I can't type all this with one hand.
Jason - yes, we're more literate now than we probably ever have been. However, we now live in a time of unprecidented access to education and higher literacy, but yet kiddie netspeak and a lack of scripted drama still rules the day.
kosmo - I believe in letting the language change if it adds something to the fabric of it. However, that is not the same thing as letting it degrade and lose some of its meaning and identity with every dumbing down of a larger concept or four-syllable word.
dave - When I said "homophone", I mainly was referring to the almost universal confusion of "their" with "they're" or "its" with "it's", and the like. I meant to go into that more in the original post but it seemed to be too specific an example for my otherwise broad post.
Post a Comment