I've been thinking, after listening to a Noam Chomsky lecture on tape, about the specificity of language. I've heard Jon Boy make remarks on the subject occasionally so would like to know his opinion, but anyone else's as well.
In losing some of the more difficult grammar in the English language, are we hampering the clarity and specificity of our ability to communicate? Chomsky said that even though Finnish has 19 cases and Chinese has 0, the language and underlying grammar are unaffected because usage conveys the same meaning regardless of structure.
But what about, say, if we were to lose the subjunctive in English? I could still make statements that portrayed perfectly well what I meant and others would understand — some dialects already do this — but wouldn't we be losing nuances that would then dull our conversational ability? Aren't there situations where using the subjunctive adds extra meaning that cannot be duplicated by manipulation of the indicative?
And not just grammatical structure — what about vocabulary? People who spoke like Jane Austen spoke had decidedly more options in how to express themselves. They weren't mad; they were vexed, irate, indignant and irascible. (
) Someone who doesn't know those words and can just use
mad in all four situations is limited in his ability to converse, is he not?
Or does it make a difference? Maybe there are nuances in smaller vocabularies that cover for the lack of specificity... maybe being mad like a duck is different than being mad like lightning is different than being really really mad. I don't know.
What do you think?
