David Crystal's outlook on change in language reiterated and summed up most of the readings we did for this course on the topic. What Crystal manages to affirm, and which no one else pointed out, is that change in language occurs slowly, and in a manner that seldom impedes communication. However, the amount of ballyhoo generated concerning the deterioration of the standards of English is enough to convince one otherwise. As Crystal writes: "There are indeed cases where linguistic change can lead to problems of unintelligibility, ambiguity, and social division. If change is too rapid, there can be major communication problems. But as a rule, the parts of language which are changing at any given time are tiny, by comparison with the vast, unchanging areas of language. Indeed, it is because change is so infrequent that it is so distinctive and noticeable" (458). This makes sense. So why is the uproar by the mechanics, quacks and thieves so loud? I don't know. Is this just a self-righteous impulse to safeguard the notionally sacred purity of language?

Time and again, consideration of this question leads me to one single point of inquiry--if communication is impeded, it must be impeded for someone. Why is there no effort to locate this someone? Because I am sure communication is impeded at different levels for each one of us. So why is Crystal not concerned with this fact? His historicized account of using "potato's" was very entertaining. But what if the usage really does confuse a non-native learner of the language, who will then proceeds boldly to the grocery store and addresses the person behind the counter, evidently the proprietor of the establishment, as Mr/Ms. Potato?

I quite like Crystal's argument about the interconnectedness of social and linguistic change. It is folly to attempt to control either without in some way trying to control the other. And any attempt to control both together is madness. So what do we do? The answer seems to be awareness. We remain aware of the changes going on, in society and in languages we speak. When I go out each morning, I am quite aware that I am in the United States, and quite expect to see advertisements for 'hair color' in print media, and not of 'hair colour'. I know what is being advertised, and meaning is not impeded.

But what about 'mistakes' that do not impede comprehension, but yet, are there? Do we correct someone saying "Drive safe", or (as I read in a recent magazine article, choking on my apple cider) "Promiscuity can be anyone"? Do we avoid them when we write, and go on using them orally? And if yes, to what extent is such oral usage applicable?