February 19, 2017 - 16:32
We learn the English language through a series of rules, a carefully constructed set of grammatical instructions that are explained as the boundaries and restrictions of a language. Then, as people delve deeper into an understanding of words, to utilize them in poetic measures, we are taught to break these rules.
A late-night conversation: Discussing linguistics is always a favored past time, and tonight it was a frequent topic. A friend brought up her introduction to linguistics class, and how her final unit is all about the socioeconomic and cultural implication of the English language. Her professor frequently reminds them that, in his interpretation, grammar is an oppressive system, and that the concept of speaking correctly is just a method of subjugation.
The literary cannon appears to be a determining factor for the way we understand the idea of “Standard English”. Worshipping the words of Milton, Spenser, Chaucer, and the writers who emulated them, and the writers who emulated that generation, and so on, people begin to feel some silent pressure to write in a certain style. If the literary cannon was not centered around the writing of dead white British men, would the pressure be the same? Why is the use of slang in writing seen as informal? And what is formal and informal writing? A reference to how we dress up and alter our words to better suit a specific environment? If I had not been so heavily exposed to the literary cannon, and taught to understand that as the standard for good writing, how would this commentary be different? Would informal writing, whatever that is, be the composition of this post?