The expression “you are what you eat” is common — but what about “you are what you speak?” Americans do not express too much concern over the state of their flagging language — in the scheme of things, after all, what is a little misspelling here or a nonsensical phrase there? Our electronic age encourages this attitude, with the quick, fast-paced nature of electronic communication fueling a breakdown of the basic language. No one is expected to have good grammar in a text message.

Some argue that classic shortcuts — such as substituting numbers for letters — are not transferred into important, formal prose. But in fact, they are.

The problem has gotten so bad that U.S. companies are reportedly spending $3 billion every year merely to train their workers in basic English. And no one who owns a computer can fail to see the evidence come full force in that wellspring of bad grammar, the Internet. Someone somewhere has figured how to demolish nearly every last vestige of English spelling and grammar.

Why does this matter? First, there is a considerable amount of evidence to support the saying “You are what you speak.” In academia, almost every student with Ph.D. aspirations is required to learn a foreign language, precisely because languages do indeed shape the intellects of those who use them.

Consider that in Chinese, there is no word that is the equivalent of “to be,” and thus the language does not supply a range of concepts that go along with that very important idea. It is thought by some that this has helped preserve many ancient Chinese political ideas that might have otherwise died out more quickly in the face of individualistic, Western tendencies. Many similar examples can be found — many Muslims, for example, protest against the translation of the Koran into any other language, for only in Arabic can the true spirit of the Koran be understood.

Then again, not everyone wishes to preserve the intellectual heritage English brings us. And change is an indisputable, irresistible and positive force in language development. After all, many grammar scruples are in fact rather modern — spelling and capitalization were not truly standardized until the 18th and 19th century, and the trend of capitalization was not for a lack of it, as it is today, but an overabundance.

The creation of words has continued apace as well, partly out of obvious necessity. There is no reason language should be held static — it is a constantly changing inner portrait of a society, and must have room for flexibility.

Destruction, however, is very different from creation. The invention of new words or playing with grammar regulations is using a language creatively — reducing words to mere numbers or sound expressions is not. It may be practical, but has any society ever declared itself to be merely interested in utilitarianism?

Those who aspire for an artful society would do well to stand by their language, the vehicle through which all abstract and sentimental thoughts can be verbally expressed. For a language is more than a means of communication for those currently alive; it is a cultural, artistic achievement of hundreds of generations, and it holds within it the history of an entire people, ever expanding its influence.

English in particular has had a grand tale of migration, having roughly 350 million speakers as a first language and 350 million more as a second language. To do away with the history and heritage that such a language holds is to assume the importance of ourselves to the point of arrogance.

A nation that understands this is France. The French, famous for their protection of their language — to the point of even passing laws — do go a little far in preventing creation as well as destruction, as they attempt to keep out foreign words, particularly the ever-present English. Yet Alistair Horne, a British historian of France, feels that English speakers could have something to learn from France’s example.

Consider the common patriotism and pride of the French and Americans — and yet the French far outstrip us in the cultural pride they attach to their language. And it perhaps isn’t surprising that Americans’ poor grammar — and their worse pronunciation — is a common target when going after Americans for being supposedly the least intellectual Western power.

Of course, local dialects are endearing and a cultural product worth preserving in themselves. It is the written word which faces the most pointless destruction, continuously being degraded into a stream of letters and numbers with no points of emphasis, expression or meaning.

So what can we do to save our language? As with most things, the most one can do is merely to contribute — to preserve the old and inspire the new through a stubborn refusal to succumb to convenience or convention. This great service will be done in the name of a constantly changing and inspiring culture, for as Aristophanes wrote, “High thoughts must have high language.”