Linguistic Liberation, Part One

FYI: this is an older piece of writing I am reposting here, to be followed up with a few of my more recent musing on the role of language in contemporary culture.
----
So I was in Forever 21 with Adriana today, only the second time I have ever been in such a store. I enjoy trying on the clothes, just to make sure I shouldn't shift my whole fashion-paradigm because I look really damn good in what's in right now (I don't). This was at the Union Square store, by the Whole Foods. It's a two story deal, and the entire western wall on the first and part of the second floors are painted orange with white lettering.

The subject of said lettering is the "right" and "wrong" way to pronounce, spell or otherwise maim some commonly misused/spelled etc., words and phrases in modern English. Examples include, "jewlery - jewelry," "carpool tunnel syndrome - carpal tunnel syndrome," "idn't - isn't" and "irregardless - regardless." This whole montage is titled, in larger letters, "Don't Say - Say"

Being a enthusiastic Linguistics person, I am all for saying things in a comprehensible way that predictably follows the grammar of a given language. However, I am also aware of the unavoidable and largely positive amounts of language change constantly occurring with any spoken vernacular language. I have noticed lately that there seems to be a backlash against this kind of language evolution, first from the older generation that cannot understand our pwnage or our l0lzors, but increasingly from the hipster-ironic pop culture scene, attacking idioms and phrases that are technically not a part of formal English, but have been in common use for several generations, making them a linguistically valid part of a vernacular grammar of English.

I could easily blame the self-destructive nature of the hipster, who becomes increasingly less hip as he/she embraces his/her hipsterdom, I could blame the fuddy-duddies at the top of the corporate ladders who are attempting to simplify our language enough that the president might seem poetic by the time he leaves office, or I could blame the MAN, always trying to oppress the beauty and expression of the masses by telling us we don't know shit about speaking good.

Wherever the blame lies, I find the whole idea terribly hegemonic (but maybe I've been in college too long). I am by no means saying that we all just ought to make up thousands of new words every day because we can, and because our personal expression is so limited by the languages we already speak, but I am saying that as long as persons allow themselves to believe that the way they speak is improper, inappropriate and incapable of being considered a 'real' language, then any attempts at larger human rights issues will prove fruitless, because the people who lack rights the most, also lack the right (ability) to speak about it in a public forum.

It's true that, realistically, some group will always look down on some other group because of the way they speak. However, it truly becomes a human rights problem when the subordinated group allows this discrimination to happen, and begins to believe that, in fact, they do speak a lesser language/dialect, and act according to this (false) assumption.

That's what upset me so much about the wall in Forever 21-- a hub of popular youth culture (admittedly controlled by some outside force) is promoting a hegemonic view of language use, and presenting it in such a way that young people, who are in fact the diminished party, are encouraged to become participants in their own linguistic stagnation.

I may be taking it a little too far, but in the realm of human rights, the overwhelming power of language often gets glossed over or ignored