Evolution of Language: If Spellings and Use Can Change, so Can We

As a self-proclaimed grammarian -- actually, I bet the better known term of "Grammar Nazi" is more applicable, I try to follow the standards of proper language use. As an amateur writer and anthropological linguistics (perhaps even linguistic anthropology) nerd, I often feel that the messages we convey are better done through our own stylistic tendencies. Many people on either side often believe that these two feelings are contradictory and lend themselves to the "linguistic abuse" that is dropping simple three-letter words to one letter ("u" for "you," for example).

The point is that they do not, in fact, contradict each other. I have only two goals in writing. The first is to be understood and pass on the musings that are gathering dust within the badly organised mess that I call "my brain." The second is to enjoy myself, hoping that those who subject themselves to my writings are doing exactly the same. Perhaps this isn't to "write with a purpose," but there never seems to be a reason to do that. The ultimate desire is to be heard, whether you're writing a novel or producing lyrics.

This is why, when I hear silly debates over the use of "toward" and "towards," that I cringe in absolute disgust. There are certain things I can agree with, such as putting a short-lived piece of slang like "bling-bling" in any dictionary should have never occurred. In all honesty, that's probably my ethnocentrism loudly speaking its mind. At the same time, the evolution of language continues to allow us to express ideas much more easily than before. For those of us in their twenties and thirties, we've seen one such example throughout our entire lives: computer-based technologies.

Think of your toothbrush, comb, broom, or mop. Would you consider these to be technological advances? Prior to my interest in anthropology, I probably wouldn't have; in fact, many other people would probably think it's crazy because they aren't mechanised. However, our grandparents probably would and often do think of these as technological advances. We always hear the stories about how hard life was back then because they didn't have access to anything us whippersnappers can use now; they're exaggerations of the truth, but they show the evolution of technology.

With that, our language has to manipulate terms for its usage. In the middle of the 17th century, the term computer would have been used in reference to a person who did mathematical calculations; this person was said to have "computed," coming from Latin (like so many other words in most European languages). At the end of the 19th century, so says the Oxford English Dictionary, it was used for mechanics. Then, sometime in the 1940s, it appeared to mean that over-sized and cumbersome machine that most young people don't even know about. The mental picture today is something entirely different. It's a small, personal machine that needs a classifier: desktop or laptop.

Did people fight against this change? I don't remember seeing people getting uppity about the definition altering to fit a generation's use of it. Rather than being a computer, those people changed into "numerical analysts." Computer is, for today, reserved for that box so many of us cling to.

So why is it that people, particularly those who feel that our changing language is somehow making society worse, put more emphasis on "toward" or "towards?" I was compelled to look up the so-called proper usage when I felt as if I had forgotten it, and I was surprised to see a few things.

First, sources said that they are interchangeable; this also applied to other words ending in '"ward (forward, backward, upward). This is difficult to believe, especially when there are times where one sounds more appropriate than the other. I don't think it would sound right to say "I went upwards towards the ceiling" (and ignore the lack of creativity, please). It's one of those words where I remember learning the rule "It's always toward, never towards" and thinking it was absolute rubbish. I don't think any differently of someone who says"I'm driving towards a rubbish dump." In fact, it probably wouldn't even register. It's not something that is obvious.

Second, the most vocal bias against it was that "it sounds lower-class" to say towards rather than toward. Everyone judges people by their use of language. If you're using language that is "too simplistic" or talking slowly, you're regarded as being stupid. If someone is using a lengthy vocabulary, we assume they're pretentious and arrogant. For many, it seems using "towards" (at least, in America) means you're from a lower-class background. Much like text-speak, this is equated with appearing uneducated and lazy.

The problem is, though, many people don't know if there is a difference and many sources indicate that it's purely style. We've seen the spelling of words change (draught to draft), and words that have both archaic and modern definitions (queer). As long as someone is communicating clearly and effectively, why does it matter if someone writes "toward" or "towards?"