Language policing
Name
Institution
Language and its use
Language is described by Yule (2020) as a method of communication that consists of words that are either spoken or written and are conventionally accepted for use by a particular group of people. Language is a constantly growing tool as most known languages are transcending borders of their birth. Language is the source of pride for a group of people, and its spread shows its dominance as a culture. The debate on how language is used has been raging with a section of the society which I shall refer to as conservatives feeling that language should be policed. Street language with bad connotations should not be allowed in use as it erodes the parent language and spoils the moral fabric. Likewise, a group of liberals and progressives believe that people should be left alone to speak in words they like. That interference with spoken language amounts to subversion of rights.
Should there be language policing?
One of the biggest arguments against the policing of language is the question of experience. Language is a growing body of expressive connotations that carry meaning. Each word represents a specific experience that can hardly be compared to another word representing a similar meaning. Each language that grew to maturity did so on the back of shared experience and a body of new words that described a new phenomenon. Accepting these words into daily usage provided the chance for that particular generation of speakers to add to their language and develop it. In my opinion, interfering with the freedom to speak a language amounts to an inconsiderate approach that dismisses the individual experiences. As long as no one is forced to use certain words in a language, those who feel okay with it should be allowed to have their time.
If you move across the English-speaking American society today, you will be surprised to find pockets of speakers who pride themselves in speaking English in a certain way and using particular words. These pockets include young people in the thick of the hip-hop culture, conservative older people, people belonging to religious groups and sects, and dwellers in the different environment i.e., city dwellers and country dwellers. All these groups use their own words that are specific to them in a unique way since the language makes them identify with their people. They form an ingroup whose status quo they want to preserve and consider the language as the primary tool for doing this. Any attempt at criminalizing language would cause a social quagmire that locks people out of their social groupings from which they draw joy, satisfaction, and inspiration.
Beyond social values
However, the use of language should be in such a way that it preserves the generally accepted moral standards. These include the written ethical guidelines as well as the silent soft rules. This is because language is a powerful tool that drives emotions and can incite unwanted actions from people. This is the reason why a war of words could easily culminate into fistfights and utter violence. In 1942, Chaplinsky, a Jehovah witness, had insulted an officer who attempted to bar him from preaching, calling him a damned racketeer and fascist (Herbeck, 2003). These connotative words tried to paint the official as a criminal and led to the arrest and charging of Chaplinsky, a move that the court upheld. For this reason, words that incite hatred should be criminalized, and the users are given punitive action to deter others.
One of the things that should be avoided at all costs is the use of language with racists connotations. The purpose of the word nigger became widely unpopular in American society because of the racist connotation it held. Young people growing up would start using the word without knowing its true meaning. By the time they came to their senses, they would be rooted in it and continue propagating racism. Another term such as spikey that refers to gypsies has discriminatory undertones and does not reflect the drive for equality. Words like gypo that were initially used as shortened references to gypsies nowadays are used as insults and derogatory phrases. Looking at this from the viewpoint of a gypsy paints a bad picture that warrants intervention. Continued use of such words could lead to a series of social issues among the gypsies that could result in stress, depression, and even suicide. This alone makes it criminal and worthy of punishment. Moral institutions should be keen on the use of language that propagates segregation and discrimination. Continued use of derogatory words negates the American dream of equality for all people.
The use of the word faggot often shortened to fag posed a lot of moral challenge to critics and analysts. It is a term used to refer to anyone that is a male homosexual. The problem came out in support of the liberal rights of gay people to practice their sexuality freely. Conservatives, however, disputed these opinions and were the chief propagators of the word fag. It had started to become a derogatory word up until the male homosexual community decided to adopt it as a term for referring to themselves in a jovial way. This approach dissolved the previous connotation and made it a common word. However, its continued use is still a worry to gay rights champions as it is one of the benchmarks of sexual abuse.
Language continues to grow and transcend its borders each day. Conservatives frown upon the introduction of new words that are often used casually to denote taboo topics and other abnormal issues. Even though policing, watchdogs, and pressure groups should not be enthusiastic about the approach of policing language. This is because such steps could amount to harassment of innocent people and subversion of the freedom of speech. Legislation on language use should only be that which addresses the language use that might endanger core ideals. In my opinion, language should be allowed to grow with the age of culture and mature out. However, people should be careful about using words that negate the fundamentals of humanity, such as equality.
References.
Herbeck, D. (2003). Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, 85-99.
Yule, G. (2020). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.