Can You?

We've all heard it at one time or another. That simple --sometimes entertaining-- exchange between teacher and student:

"Can I use te restroom?" the student will ask.

To which the teacher is bound to reply, "I don't know. Can you?"

This always seemed correct to me. Frankly, similar incidents made me believe that the only proper method of communication used proper grammar as well.

Until I gained a teacher this past semester, who presented a new take on the scenario, showing a potential follow-up reply from a fictional student:

"Yes. I might add that colloquial irregularities occur frequently in any language. Since you and the rest of our present company understood perfectly my intended meaning, being particular about the distinction between 'can' and 'may' is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious."

Although such a response is not one I would condone, it got me thinking. Why are we so quick to correct the colloquialisms or "slang" of others? After all, many tend to be well understood when employing this sort of language as their primary means of communication. Still, many claim that such terms make writers sound unsophisticated and incomprehensible.

If this is truly the case, however, how can we account for the simplest of phrases, "a lot?"

According to another teacher of mine, the reason we are not to use "a lot" in our writing is that it is, in fact, a lesser known slang term. This, in modern times, may refer to a parking lot of cars, but, assuming its origin to be older, "a lot" may have meant a literal lot of cows or other livestock.

On one hand, I must concede that using this phrase in one's writing does diminish the sophistication. On another, I refuse to concede that those who correct colloquialisms and slang fully understand the effects it has on communication.

For instance, I may briefly refer to an analytical strategy learned in my English class. Looking at an author's choice of language in a speech will help the reader understand what class of audience received the address. If the writer speaks with a large and sophisticated diction, it is clear that they are speaking to individuals of guaranteed equal or higher education. If they speak using simplistic diction, the reader may perceive that the audience needs such word choice to grasp the meaning of the speaker.

This correlates to my previous point because it shows that the scenario dictates communication above all else. While it may not sound acceptable to use colloquialisms or slang in our speech patterns, it actually may be essential --not only to the understanding of the audience-- but also to the understanding of speakers and writers as they learn language.

Here, I return to "a lot." As an elementary school student, I knew that my teacher preferred we attempt to use other phrases. Like my classmates, I couldn't think of other ways to express this without using this phrase, for my vocabulary had yet to advance beyond that level. "A lot" equaled acceptable at that particular period. Otherwise, we ran the chance of confusion over vocabulary, potentially backfiring by stunting our rhetorical growth. Middle school did come, naturally bringing a growth of language with it. Now that we grasped higher level vocabulary, my new teacher banned "a lot" from usage in our writing because he knew we could now sound more sophisticated with effort.

That is primarily why I believe it wrong to correct use of colloquialisms and slang language. I do not agree that either hold an active place in advanced communication or writing, but they are generally so widely understood that discouragement of their practice would essentially create a gap in learning. If one expects to communicate effectively, they must first explore unsophisticated methods in order to later advance to higher level methods. In addition, again in the case of the audience, one is not communicating effectively if one does not grasp simpler colloquialisms and slang that occupy the speech patterns of those they wish to reach.

Therefore, effective communication is only truly understood when one has first understood both ends of the sophistication spectrum of language and learned how to apply them in daily life. Nitpicking over "can" and "may" in everyday speech is just one example of an irrelevant criticism. Correcting a person's usage of commonplace tongue may not only prevent true understanding when communicating, but such criticism quickly turns others against the speaker and renders his or her point immediately less effective.

In conclusion, can one accept colloquialism as a form of effective communication and learning? Excuse me, actually. May one accept colloquialism as a form of effective communication and learning? Only time shall tell...