Linguistic Snobbery: Do We Finally Have Right and Wrong?

Iranian society, after nearly 40 years of revolution and the disruption of various social hierarchies and scientific authorities, has reached a point where few listen to each other, and everyone wants to express their own views. From the transformations that have occurred in the last 10 to 15 years, largely documented first by blogs and then by social media, it can be concluded that Iranian society has shown a clear tendency to reject authorities, making consensus and agreement very difficult. On one hand, this is positive as society sees the need to reassess all previous authorities and judgments, but on the other hand, it has led to a chaotic period where anything can be considered correct, and any judgment can be deemed incorrect. One of the significant everyday issues from this perspective is the discussion of language. This debate occasionally heats up and then fades into the background, but the issues it raises remain unresolved. Therefore, when a video was published last week (April 20) by Mona Chalabi, a Guardian journalist, attacking language snobs, many issues were raised and reiterated without finding clear answers. For the sake of intellectual and social health amidst chaos, it is necessary to reach new agreements and identify our commonalities; otherwise, we will be overwhelmed by the chaos of disarray and fail to solve any issues. The most basic question that arises is whether one can be autonomous in language. Can anyone write however they like? Naturally, anyone can write as they wish, provided they respect the principle of linguistic understanding. Language is a shared matter, and if we write and speak in a way that no one understands or that disrupts comprehension, there is a problem in language usage. The boundary of language, like the boundary of autonomy and independence, is bidirectional. Pure and complete independence is impossible, and complete adherence contradicts independence. So where is the line of independence? This is a problem individuals regularly face, as do those in politics. Linguistic independence, like political independence, is not an immediate and permanent matter but a daily concern that must be considered with every decision. A line can be drawn between preserving commonalities and maintaining individual creativity and uniqueness. Another question is, if we want to respect commonalities, where do we draw the line? Adhering to commonalities, like customary and religious norms, has both maximum and minimum paths. Determining whether we want to achieve maximum understanding with our guests or adhere to the minimum essentials of hospitality is a matter that returns to individual decision-making. If we set aside the maximum aspect, we can positively answer the question: Should minimum linguistic standards be observed? But how can we observe the minimums? What distinguishes good prose from bad? Is there even a difference? Do we have the right to distinguish between good and bad? This last question particularly resonates with the younger generation of our time! Do we have the right to distinguish between good and bad? Of course! We can always distinguish between good and bad. However, the extent of influence and scope is what matters. A cleric in Qom may consider Qajar prose to be good and view the prose of a certain religious authority as bad and unnecessarily difficult. But what matters is how many people in his circle agree with him. One of the ways authority is established and brings about good and bad is through public agreements. If the number of those who consider Sohrab Sepehri a creative poet is so large that denying his poetry and creativity becomes difficult, we are faced with the formation of a linguistic, literary, and social authority. Therefore, distinguishing between good and bad is a daily matter that we all engage in. However, to create the greatest consensus, we must suffice with those minimums. No maximum inclination has the power to create broad consensus. Let’s reserve the minimums for right and wrong. But here too, there is a problem. The Guardian video, by attacking certain rights and wrongs, refers to insistence on them as snobbery. So, is anyone who states what is right or wrong in Persian a snob? Was Abolhasan Najafi, the author of the reference book 'Do Not Write Wrong,' a snob? Is anyone who pays attention to grammar and the integrity of language a snob? Are all editors snobs? Can those active in media, journalists, or even bloggers and citizen journalists avoid linguistic integrity by relying on these claims? The revolution against language? This problem is significant for those who deal with media because the language is the capital of media professionals. The combination of their linguistic abilities with their subject knowledge is what makes them good journalists. Can we be indifferent to language? What happens if journalists, translators, publishers, poets, and writers become indifferent to language? Even if we want to launch a revolution against language, we must consider what will happen afterward. We have revolted once; for future revolutions, we must be somewhat cautious and more careful! The main problem is the confrontation of older authorities with newer tendencies. Solving the issue this way will lead to better results. In the Guardian video, we see that some older authorities insist that a sentence should not start with 'but' or 'and.' Nowadays, many do so. Therefore, we can see a contradiction between the judgments of previous authorities and the current linguistic practices. In this regard, one meaning of snob is someone who clings to an older authority and is unwilling to let go of them in the face of current realities and submit to reality. However, there are also problems here. How old is 'old'? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred years? Many who enter the debate of right and wrong with snobs say that language changes. This is entirely correct. Language changes, but not at the speed you think. Its speed is so slow that you may not even notice it! This is the beauty of language because it is a tool for understanding. If we hypothetically had a new language every year, imagine what would happen. We must be able to talk to our parents. The age difference is usually no less than 20-25 years. We must also be able to communicate with our grandparents. Our teachers may be 30, 40, or 50 years older than us. Therefore, our linguistic awareness must encompass at least a 50-year period. This is for conversation and dialogue and listening to each other. However, our needs extend beyond that. We must also be able to refer to books and magazines published more than 50 years ago and understand them. So, as the old saying goes, we must have a connected linguistic knowledge of at least a hundred years! If we are students of history, literature, philosophy, and social sciences, we will also need to read and understand texts from the Constitutional Revolution and before. This means that the linguistic literacy of students should be a bit more than 100 years and 200 years. Now, if these texts have changed significantly over time, our task will be much more difficult, and the less they have changed, the easier it will be for us to understand them. Of course, no text older than our generation will be easy to understand because many linguistic subtleties and intertextual and social references exist in them that must be recognized to understand the text correctly. Therefore, not only does language not change as quickly as we think, but it is also not good for it to change rapidly! For example, 'Talaye' comes from the Arabic 'Talaye.' It is not accurate to say it has come; we should say it is the same. This means 'Talaye' is equal to 'Talaye.' However, since the 'ain' has dropped from the end of this Arabic word, it does not mean that you can drop the 'ain' from the end of all Arabic words and say language changes! If you refer to Persian texts, you will realize that this change, from 'Talaye' to 'Talaye,' occurred at least a thousand years ago. All major languages were once local and then expanded from one locality to others. Their locality is similar to today’s dialects. However, this does not mean that today anyone can write in their dialect and expect others to understand them! In practice, people also approach each other's language in their correspondence and social environments to understand each other and not drift apart. Therefore, if someone adopts a language that deliberately distances them from others, they are acting against the social nature of language. Errors and the Internet The internet has freed language from many of its previous constraints. This is true. A specific example in Persian is the language that should be called 'Goudari.' That is, the language used by users of Goudar (or Goudar-zi). However, the main shift here is the recording of the style and manner of spoken language. Before the internet, spoken language had not been recorded and written with this level of diversity. This has its consequences and has created a significant transformation in the language of media. The bright side of this is that the language has become more popular and democratic. However, its dark side is that it has also fueled the spread of various errors! Embracing the bright side of the issue should not lead us to ignore its dark side. Language can be made more democratic without promoting incorrect writing. Grammar and Superior Language It is a historical fact that scholars of English grammar have long attempted to impose Latin rules on English. It is also a historical fact that scholars of Persian grammar have long tried to impose Arabic rules on Persian. In Tajikistan, I once spoke with a scholar from the academy there who insisted that Tajik and Russian share the same grammar! These are realities that show we conceive of language rules based on 'superior language.' This superior language can be Latin, English, Arabic, Persian, Russian, or Tajik. However, it is that part of the language (English, Arabic, Tajik) that the greats and scholars of that language have approved. This in itself is not a flaw! However, it may lead to snobbery. Of course, such a tendency is not limited to language. It can occur in law, medicine, physics, and astronomy as well. Medical trends are also connected to sources of authority. Violating authorities is not easy. It is not easy in language either. These authorities change, but their change is gradual and based on the internal rules of that knowledge. Not everyone can deny these authorities. As the saying goes, to refute philosophy, one must be a philosopher! It is a mistake to think that because we are proficient in a language—Persian, Kurdish, Arabic, English, Tajik, etc.—whatever we say is correct and whatever we write is error-free. Languages and knowledge are all social matters and interact with others. These others cannot be eliminated, and they carry many traditions and accept numerous linguistic and scientific authorities, which govern their work. Changing them through error is impossible. Who are the Snobs? But who are the snobs? Assuming everything said so far is correct, we can still ask, what kind of person is this linguistic snob? In my opinion, a linguistic snob, or someone who clings to somewhat outdated and obsolete authorities, in the current conditions of the Persian language is someone who: A. Linguistic Beliefs: 1. Believes that a standard Persian language exists and everyone must adhere to it, considering other linguistic versions as deviations. 2. Believes that linguistic inaccuracies are eternal and tends to find correctness in reverting words to their origin and root. 3. Generally has a tendency to see Arabic as superior to Persian. 4. Has a mediocre understanding of linguistics. Therefore, their knowledge of language is based on the writings of the greats and ancient texts and the grammatical rules of Arabic (regarding the multitude of Arabic words in Persian). 5. Grammar for such a person is prescriptive, not descriptive. They think grammar is the art of writing and speaking correctly, not the science of analyzing and describing language rules. B. Cognitive Understanding: 1. The linguistic snob believes in the obedience of others. They believe in discipline for education. 2. They are indifferent to linguistic changes. They may even oppose expansion and contraction! They think everything has been as it seems to them from the beginning of humanity until today. 3. They do not understand the concept of time in language; therefore, they consider changes as corruption and deviation. 4. Their view of language is mechanistic. This view is also seen in jurisprudence and Sharia, meaning those who focus on the apparent meanings of verses and are confused by the multitude of interpretations. C. Social Behavior: 1. The linguistic snob has a condescending view. In fact, they want to demonstrate their superiority rather than enlighten you about right and wrong. 2. Their behavior is patriarchal and guardianship-like. They focus on prescription rather than description. They are linguistically authoritative! 3. For the linguistic snob, language is a tool for class and professional boasting. 4. The recommendations of the linguistic snob are tools for demonstrating power and humiliating others, not for education. 5. In their view, if you commit a linguistic error, it is because your generation has become corrupt! Therefore, due to your linguistic error, you are not a useful person and should be sidelined. 6. The linguistic snob is devoid of the empathetic spirit of a teacher. 7. A great snob is a seller! They use their knowledge and literacy as a means of boasting and humiliating others. Therefore, you see that the problem with snobs is not 'the subject of discussion.' The problem is them! That is, for instance, if someone criticizes another's language, it does not make them a snob. How they criticize may lead to snobbery! What matters is not what, but how! As the English say, helping and lifting a burden is good (help), but causing harm and burdening others is not good (hurt). Your language must be hygienic. Everywhere. It does not matter whether the subject of your critique is grammar and editing or the source of news and reports or the political stance of the analyst, and so on. Therefore, correcting linguistic inaccuracies is important and valuable. What matters is that you do not pin your critique to yourself!