Elitist language

Language is a uniquely human trait, and is fundamental in how we communicate and express ourselves. Language develops naturally and varies vastly from culture to culture. Despite this, people will oftentimes tell others that they’re speaking incorrectly, or that their language is inappropriate or impure. Although this can be true if the other’s syntax is completely unintelligible, many times, the complaint in reality stems from prejudice, as a means of ostracizing someone based on their language. Many attempts to purify,  sensor, or label certain language as improper are caused by the wealthy upper ruling classes rejecting the language of the poorer class.

An important distinction of inappropriateness of language is when it’s within a culture, and when it’s developed and then established by cultures to other cultures. There are going to be natural taboos within a culture or language that people generally agree on, and that’s not usually a problem. The problem comes when another culture or group of people take power over another and enforce their own language rules and taboos that don’t necessarily align with the culture they are enforcing it on. This essay will only focus on cases of the ruling class imposing unnecessary rules of language onto the common people, because that is the more immoral and arbitrary of the two.

In order to proceed, the difference between ruling class languages and more common use languages must be defined. First of all, all languages will follow similar rules that can be observed, but will develop and change over time on a spectrum as societies change and develop. When I say on a spectrum, I mean that there wasn’t just no English, and then now there’s English because we decided it. What we call english is just the modern form of what was once a germanic language, as it originated from the german anglo saxon people. Also, even though people across a certain country nowadays will speak the same language as someone on the other side of the country, that doesn’t make it exactly the same. Each person has their own subtle differences in the way that they speak, however, we call it the same language when you can understand the person you’re talking to enough because there are enough similarities. This is all claimed and supported by Noam Chomsky in his interview with Al Page. So now we have established that language will form a gradient over time and space. Another key preliminary fact is that cultures will wage war and conquer other peoples throughout history, who most definitely spoke a different language. Once the ruling class is set into place, they typically do everything they can to keep their power, and ostracize the poor. Now, they will do this in many different ways, including propaganda, strategic law setting, and sometimes just straight up violence. However, language is a more subtle way that it is done, and this is because language comes so naturally that we won’t even think about most of the time. This isn’t just medieval history either, it happens in modern times. In the present day United states, most of the power is concentrated towards wealthy, white males, and their language. Think about how the language of the indigenous people is almost non existent now, because they were wiped out by the conquering class, and how to get by with most things in the united states, you have to speak english, and spanish isn’t given nearly as much importance, despite the fact that 12.5% of the population speak it (lyons, 2019).

It is important to note that sometimes, the exclusion of language is not always 100% tactical government propaganda. People might have a natural tendency to see other languages as stranger than their own negative one, because they are not used to it. So the exclusion of other languages is not just tactical, it can also be fueled by an emotional distaste for things that are different. Any particular group can have this sort of distaste and ignorance to other languages, but it’s the preferences of the upper class that is put into the mainstream.

Given the framework and abstract of how the ruling class will use strategies including language to propagandize the poor, here are some concrete examples that all fit the framework of banning certain phrases or parts of language as a way to other people.

One may try to argue that language cannot be controlled by elites because there is no concrete case of that happening. Well, there are many cases in which it happened, take the catholic church for example. For example; before the protestant reformation, the bible was not translated from Latin to the common European languages, such as German, Italian, etc. This was because only the upper class priests spoke Latin, and thus, only they could read and interpret what the bible said. Therefore, because at this time the church was for the most part in charge of society, the bible determined the rules and morals of society, which could then only be determined by the priests. For example, the bible states that homosexuality is a sin, which seems extremely irrational, especially in modern times. But, how could the people at the time know whether or not that’s what the bible actually said, or if a priest just wrote that in there himself? There would be no way of knowing, and so homosexuals would be prosecuted without any way of defending themselves. The Latin language was considered more proper than the language of the common people, and so the elites were able to discriminate against them.

It’s also simply a fruitless endeavor to try to control a language in the first place. Many will make the argument that some language control of this sort is necessary in order to keep a language “pure”. However, this idea is disputed by MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, who revolutionized the field of linguistics at a young age. He was once asked in an interview what, say, the French theorists mean when they say they want to keep the French language pure, which would then entail a higher status to those who use the “pure” form of the language as opposed to those who don’t. “That doesn’t mean anything” was his response. Language is extremely subject to change and evolution. Chomsky goes on to explain that in fact, because, for most of history, and even in many places today, people speak a different language than the people in the next village over, the concept of a national language is a modern phenomenon. In addition, because language will naturally evolve anyway, there is no point in trying to control it, and there is especially no point in trying to purify it considering some forms of language to be “impure”, whatever that means, based on things like social class. For instance, if language is constantly subject to change from location to location, then which one is “correct?” due to there not being any meaningful measure of how much better, or more pure a language would be, it would be a completely arbitrary decision in that regard.

An example of how the concept of unnecessarily controlling language is specifically targeted towards the common man is through the etymology of words that used to mean average. Oftentimes, words that at one time meant average or common now hold negative connotations. For example, take the word  “vulgar.” People might  know the word vulgar to mean disgusting or vile, and it certainly does hold that connotation, but its original meaning was simply “common.” Because the word originally meant common,  it was then associated with the common people. And because the common people were associated with being vile, the word vulgar then developed that connotation as well. This then means that calling a word vulgar is really just associating it with common people in a negative way, which is complete elitist bullshit.

Another huge example of unnecessary language prohibition is the idea of curse words, which are words that are deemed to be inappropriate in certain circumstances. By inappropriate, I mean that if someone were to say one of these words in any general situation, it would be considered rude or inappropriate. Now, that would not be true in a very informal setting, such as a local bar, or just friends hanging in the privacy of their own home, but it would hold in most circumstances. Some of these words include but are not limited to: “fuck”, “shit”, “piss” and “ass.” One might notice that these words can all be expressed using words that have the same meaning, but for some reason are not considered to be inappropriate. Examples of these words, respectively, are: “intercourse”, “feces”, “urine”, and “gluteus maximus.” It seems redundant to frown upon “shit”, but “feces” is relatively formal. One could argue that it is common to have words with the same denotation but a different connotation, where the connotation of one version of the word is appropriate in some circumstances and not others, which is certainly true for some words, it would be a result of inner cultural language barriers rather than an arbitrary rule being enforced by a ruling class. The origin of some of these words has to do with the merging of languages throughout history, as well as the role that language plays in social classes. An example, and particularly the instance for how the word “shit” was made into a curse word, was the battle of hastings.

This battle took place in 1066 between the Normans (norse/french people) and the Anglo Saxons (the ancestors of the modern day english), and the Normans were the successors. As a result, the Normans were the ruling class, and the anglo saxons were the poor working class. (Vizarra, 2019). Now, due to the merging of these cultures, the languages also merged, changing the English language. An example of such change is the words used for food. The working class referred to animals they worked with using english words (i.e. cow and pig), whereas the elites referred to the animals that were served to them in Norman (beef and pork). 

The english words were considered less refined, and sometimes, so bad, that they developed into curse words; like the word shit for example, of Anglo Saxon origin (Dent, 2018). Now, you could argue that curse words are the result of natural language taboos of a culture enacted upon itself, and while that may be true for some special cases, in the case of the battle of hastings, and many others, it’s once again the result of a conquering class enforcing their language norms onto another culture.  Now an argument for the making of swear words like “shit” is that these words actually are bad and you shouldn’t say them. Well, why not? Who decides they are bad? The reason why they are considered inappropriate varies, but it usually is from prior elite individuals deciding they are bad arbitrarily to ostracize the poor.

Interestingly enough, this is also the reason why we associate the French language with fanciness and attribute it to be upper class. The French normans were the ruling class over the English , and so were given that connotation at the time, which stuck with people over time. The same thing can be said about English accents, which is said to sound more proper and refined to Americans, because they were once the rulers of the American colonies.

It’s not just curse words that this happens too. The word “ain’t” used to be considered proper, believe it or not. But then, “ain’t became associated with lower-class characters” (Thesaurus.com, 2019). And now, ain’t is associated with the lower class, improper grammar, and isn’t really even considered to be a word. However, some might notice that it’s literally just a contraction of “am not”. This just goes to show that time after time, elites will consider certain forms of language (typically that of the poorer class) to be improper for no good reason whatsoever, and that these norms are carried throughout time, usually unquestioned. It seems as though the reason why it’s done is to subtly discriminate against people of the lower classes from the upper class.

Curse words tend to form around taboo subjects. As (Orlando 2023) put it, “profanity can also come from language involving sex and sexual acts, as well as bodily functions.” They also tend to evolve around sacred subjects such as religion (for example, it’s generally inappropriate to exclaim “Jesus Christ! As an interjection). This means that they do form naturally, it’s not all just the doing of elitism, however, elitism clearly exasperates it and creates more ideas of purity in language than necessary.

An important aspect of language is people’s names, and believe it or not, people have also been oppressed on the basis of their names. There are many cases in which people of varying ethnic backgrounds moved to a new country and have had to change their name to something that the people of said country are more accustomed to. This is the case for many asian americans, many have had to change their names to be more “americanized” in order to fit in. However, your name, and especially your family name which could have been around for generations, is an important part of your culture and identity. As Sam Louie MA, LMHC, CSAT  explains his experience, “There were those who kept their ethnic names but it came with risk—the risk of being teased by other kids for being different.”

Another horrific case of name oppression is when slaves were imported to the United States in the 17 and 18 hundreds. The ruling class, or the slave owners, did not wish to accustom themselves to and learn African names, so instead they forced their slaves to change their names to more traditional european-american names, “Africans taken to various parts of the world not only lost families but lost their identity mainly because their names were taken from them” (Johnson, 2018). This was nothing short of a cruel erasing of one’s identity. This has been showcased in tv shows like roots and other films about slavery. 

A more modern case of language oppression is with the unacceptance of gender neutral pronouns, such as they/them. Although this may seem like a modern phenomenon, pronouns have been changing all throughout history. Some people claim that it’s improper grammar to have gender neutral pronouns, but really oftentimes, they only make this argument out of bigotry or transphobia. It’s not improper grammar because plenty of languages have different systems of pronouns that work differently than english. From people claiming that gender neutral pronouns are improper language, we have another example of people who are using language to oppress gender neutral people who simply want to be referred to with a pronoun that makes them feel more comfortable.

Moreover, and combining the ideas of gender neutrality and using names for people that they don’t want to be used for themselves, there is also the concept known as deadnaming, where people refuse to use the new name that someone gender neutral wants to be called. People refusing to refer to someone by their new name is another form of using language to be oppressive, and also goes to show, as well as the previous example, that oppression of language still happens today, it’s not just a thing that happened in the catholic church in the middle ages.

Oftentimes, the ruling class has an agenda to hide, and they use language to hide certain ways of asking questions. For example, when a media outlet asks a political question, it is often framed in a certain way to exclude other viewpoints, a loaded question, if you will.

One of the most, if not the most, important rebuttals to the claim that the upper class prohibits certain parts of language for their own self benefit, is the idea that society as a whole can benefit from having as similar a language as possible. For example, we can strengthen as a community if we all can communicate much more effectively, and so therefore the ruling class is not banning language out of malice and disgust, but rather as a way to formalize communication to its full potential. The problem with this is that it rids language of its nuances that vary from culture to culture, that make for a rich diverse language that allows people to express themselves to their fullest. People naturally develop language in their heads as toddlers, and to force an artificial structure is not only counterproductive, but can’t exactly be done. Chomsky also recalls the time he was in grade school, and was forced to learn certain made up grammar rules, having to say things like “he shall and you will”, and no one could remember them because they were artificial. This helps frame the core property of language, that it develops naturally over time, it’s not decided and written down. So banning the use of certain words won’t actually change the language to be more effective, people will still use the words, but now they’re simply being ostracized for doing so, which is clearly the opposite of a more strengthened community. Not only can you not change a language, but you also can’t really predict what it’s going to be like in the future. As Chomsky also explains “it’s like predicting the weather, there are simply too many variables.” So trying to control the path of a language is a fruitless endeavor. Not only that, but we would have a much richer culture if instead we accepted other people’s language, and more people came to be multilingual.

So in summary, because people in power want to remain in power they tend to try and control or purify language, seemingly out of an unwillingness to accept other cultures, and as a way of othering the lower class, and this has been shown to be the case through many historical examples. Curse words tend to originate from touchy subjects, but many times will be exasperated by the upper class to belittle the lower class. If you ever feel bad about cursing, know that there is no reason to feel bad, because it’s inappropriateness was completely made up. So the next time you feel that your language isn’t proper or refined, just remember that the idea of a proper language is arbitrary and baseless, so that if your language effectively communicates to people, then it’s completely valid.

References

AHEF. (2017, March 17). The Reformation Led to the Translation and Printing of the Bible into the Peoples’ Common Languages. American Heritage Education Foundation, Inc. https://americanheritage.org/translation-printing-bible-common-languages

Chomsky, N. (1989). Noam Chomsky: upon reflection interview with al page The Concept of Language (Noam Chomsky) (youtube.com)

Dent, S. (2020, October 9). Susie Dent: how English swear words went away from the holy and back to the shit again. inews.co.uk. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/susie-dent-english-swear-words-171621#:~:text=The%20word%20comes%20from%20%E2%80%98scitte%E2%80%99%2

Dictionary.com. (2019, August 11). Why Is “Ain’t” Such A Controversial Word? Thesaurus.com. https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/aint-amnt-haint-baint/

Johnson, E. O. (2018, August 10). Intriguing and shameful ways Africans were renamed after their capture by slave traders. Face2Face Africa. https://face2faceafrica.com/article/intriguing-and-shameful-ways-africans-were-renamed-after-their-capture-by-slave-traders

Lyons, D ( 2017, april 19) MSN. (n.d.). Www.msn.com. April 19, 2017, from https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/the-actual-percentage-of-us-population-that-speaks-spanish-it-s-not-what-you-d-expect/ar-AA1cQ6z3#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20about%2041.7%20 million%20 people

‌Orlando, A. (2023, September 5). The history of swear words: Where the &%@! do they come from? Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-history-of-swear-words-where-the-and-do-they-come-from

Sam Louie MA, LMHC, CSAT | Psychology Today. (n.d.). Www.psychologytoday.com. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/contributors/sam-louie-ma-lmhc-csat

shit | Origin and meaning of shit by Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Www.etymonline.com. https://www.etymonline.com/word/shit

The Norman Conquest and the English Language: English Meets French. (n.d.). My English Language. https://www.myenglishlanguage.com/history-of-english/norman-conquest/

Vizarra, I. ( 2019, October 14). Battle of Hastings: The War that Changed the Course of English Language Forever. Medium. https://medium.com/@ianvizarra/battle-of-hastings-the-war-that-changed-the-course-of-english-language-forever-c85f3d1269b7

vulgar | Etymology of vulgar by etymonline. (n.d.). Etymonline. https://www.etymonline.com/word/vulgar C%20%E2%80%98excrement%E2%80%99%20%28and%20not%2C,majority%20of%20swear%20words%20are%20Anglo-Saxon%20in%20origin.