Literally, the English Language
The tradition of the English language, specifically in the context of the history of the United States, is one fraught with elitism and white supremacy. The environment in which the commonly accepted conventions and rules of English have come to fruition is an environment based in the cultivation of institutionalized racism and systemic oppression. This being the case, it would be remiss, even willingly ignorant, to deny that what is deemed as perfect English by the white men in power is inextricably linked with the perpetuation of the oppression of minority groups in the United States.
Such an assertion is explored in Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Should Writer’s Use They Own English?” Young makes the claim that due to the entangled nature of racism and the elitism surrounding what is often referred to as “proper English,” continuing to teach a standard of English composed by colonization and the erasure of independent non-white cultures is inappropriate. Rather, the fluidity of language and all of its limbs should be taught to students, allowing for a better understanding of what English means in contemporary times.
And this is something worth noting- language and its fluidity. In my experience, I have never seen a correction of a minute grammar mistake as a marker of one’s intelligence. Rather, I am much more impressed by an acknowledgment of the rapidly changing nature of language.
In recent years, a new meaning has become assigned to the word “literally.” Somehow, it has reentered the cultural lexicon as a means of emphasis more than anything else. Where “literally” used to have a more literal meaning, it has now taken on more of a figurative one. “I’m literally dying,” is not a phrase used to illustrate death, but a way to express that something is particularly funny.
Whenever someone corrects a teenage girl for saying “literally,” in that snobbish tone that is intended to flex the corrector’s alleged intellectual superiority, I can’t help but notice notes of misogyny and classism. There is an assumption in that correction that not only does the girl not know the dictionary definition of “literally,” but that she is destroying the English language by partaking in slang that will ultimately lead to the degradation of everything that is pure and worth having.
I would argue on the flipside- that the girl is actually helping in linguistic evolution. It is an observable fact that language is fluid and ever changing. If this were not the case, we would all still be speaking in Middle English. Where has anyone ever gotten sticking to what is old simply because it is older? There is something powerful in embracing the change that comes with new cultural tides.
And in that embrace, we move toward the progressive. In the accepting of additions to the English language that do not rely on the viewpoint of solely white, male academics, there opens up a space to have literary works written by non-white authors regarded as works of literary merit. There opens up a space for those who do not prescribe to a particular dialect to write in what is comfortable and familiar to them. It is most important, however, that these dialectical styles of writing are not accepted solely to make those who have composed the white literary canon feel better about themselves. Rather, these linguistic choices should be viewed with the same validity and prestige as any work of Dickens or Austen.
In this vein, Young makes a good point in his writing surrounding the reformation of teaching English in American schools. Although it is cliche, it is especially true in this particular instance that the teachers actually have quite a bit to learn from their students. Instead of correcting a young woman every time she uses the term “literally” in a manner that has historically not been breached, perhaps teachers should be taking notes, adapting to the evidently moving and changing nature of the English lexicon.
