Shaw

The preface to Pygmalion is so interesting to me, because parts of it still hold true in America today. The purity language is not something that is necessarily held in very high esteem, but this may not be a totally loss to the beauty of language. Language variances add to the cultural identity of the many diverse areas of the nation. Shaw points out that “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it” (1005). I have no doubt that Americans do not teach their children pure English; however, I cannot say I agree with the thought that people have no respect for language. The real difference lies in how a person defines the phrase “their language.” Shaw obviously sees it as meaning the pure native language of the nation, but he and I seem to disagree. By using the word “their” he implies that it is a language that belongs to the people, and the language that belongs to the people does not have to be, and often is not, the pure and native language of a nation. People do indeed own language, which makes it an ever-changing and evolving entity. It is adapted to fit certain situations. Now it is true that for uniformity’s sake, there must be certain rules that are considered “correct” when it comes to grammar, spelling, and so forth, but correct is not always appropriate. Professional is not something people strive for when having every day conversations, but this helps to keep language alive and diverse. Take the word “you” for instance. This concept varies greatly according to the area in which a person hears it. In New York one would be likely to hear “yous guys,” but in the South one would hear the ever popular “ya’ll.” These variations add such color to the identities of the local cultures. It seems to me it would be a travesty to lose these identifying features of these various cultures out of a desire to seek out the “purity” of language.