Evaluating the Strength of Shariatmadari’s Linguistic Arguments (Essay Sample)

Adebeshin Halimat Professors Name Course Number 19th January 2024 Evaluating the Strength of Shariatmadari’s Linguistic Arguments In “Why Language Pedants Are Wrong about Decline,” David Shariatmadari employs various strands of evidence to argue against allegations of English language deterioration. While several lines of reasoning prove persuasive, others would benefit from additional research to substantiate or clarify assertions. Ultimately, Shariatmadari’s synthesized demonstration of constant linguistic evolution across centuries stands out as a compelling refutation of unfounded decay concerns. Shariatmadari’s presentation of centuries of commentary lamenting language change comprises his most forcefully effective evidence (Keller). By spotlighting luminaries from Chaucer to Orwell preemptively mourning English corruption, he vividly reveals consistent yet baseless decay anxiety counter to actual advancement. However, Shariatmadari’s explanations of specific mechanisms enabling adaptation like reanalysis and grammaticalization, while noting dynamic change capacity, lack comprehensive diachronic analysis to fully dispel decline. Tracing English’s morphosyntactic development across verbal structures and semantic shifts would reinforce arguments for enrichment amid adaptation. Additionally, Shariatmadari insightfully contends that generational disparities spur older language users to view continued evolution as deterioration, rather than natural progress. Still, supplementing this line of reasoning with robust audience analysis directly quantifying age-based linguistic estrangement could strengthen perceived connection between language exposure era and pejorative perceptions of change. Studies modeling popular resistance to youth-driven innovation based on expectations derived from outdated norms would powerfully extend anecdotal suppositions. Furthermore,Shariatmadari highlighting of retained expressive capacity despite lexical fluctuation directly counters rushed allegations of confusion or shrinking precision (“Lexical Semantic Change”). However, expanded digital corpus research dynamically tracking English vocabulary complexity over recent centuries alongside cited complaints would provide fuller evidence against asserted language inadequacy. If data affirmed consistent or increased vocabulary sophistication, it would further undermine unsubstantiated complaints. Admittedly, certain claims regarding subconscious generational favoritism confusing writers’ stylistic preferences with objective...