11 Language Features That Would Supercharge English

Sharing is caring!

English is a fascinating language, a global lingua franca, and the mother tongue of millions. Yet, when compared to the vast array of languages spoken around the world, it becomes clear that English is lacking some intriguing and useful features.

While it’s a robust and versatile language, exploring these missing linguistic elements can offer insights into how English could evolve to become even richer and more expressive. Let’s dive into some of these features and imagine how they might enhance our daily communication.

1. Reduplication: The Power of Repetition

Reduplication is a linguistic feature where a part of a word, or the entire word, is repeated to change its meaning or create a new word. While English has a few playful examples like “choo-choo” (train) and “boo-boo” (minor injury), many other languages use reduplication extensively for various purposes.

In Indonesian, for instance, “saya” means “me,” but “saya-saya” conveys “oh poor me,” adding emotional depth. Similarly, in the Pangasinan language, “amigo” (friend) becomes “amimigo” (many friends) through partial repetition. This simple mechanism can intensify meaning, create plurals, or indicate repetitive actions.

Reduplication also appears in place names, especially in Australia with names like “Wagga Wagga” and “Woy Woy,” which often carry cultural and historical significance. English could adopt this feature to add layers of meaning and emotional resonance. For example, “happy-happy” could mean very happy, and “book-book” could imply a collection of books.

The benefits of reduplication are both linguistic and cognitive. It aids memory and pattern recognition, making words easier to remember. It also enriches emotional and descriptive capacity, allowing for more expressive communication.

Adopting reduplication in English would require some adjustments. Phonological constraints and the need for consistent rules would need to be addressed. However, with cultural acceptance and creative usage in media and literature, reduplication could become a valuable addition to English, making it more dynamic and expressive.

2. Number Agreement: Clarifying Quantities

Number agreement, also known as distributive numerals, is a linguistic feature that clearly distinguishes between the total number of items and the number of items per individual. This feature, though absent in English, is present in many languages worldwide, such as Georgian and some indigenous languages, and plays a crucial role in enhancing clarity in communication.

In Georgian, for example, the word “sami” means “three” in total, whereas “sam-sami” indicates “three each.” This subtle reduplication distinguishes whether the number refers to the total quantity or the quantity per individual.

If English adopted a similar system, we could use a suffix like “-each” to easily communicate these differences. For instance, saying “We read threech books” would instantly convey that each person read three books.

This feature is also seen in Turkish, where distributive numerals like “ikişer” (meaning “two each”) are used. Applying this to English, “We ate twoeach apples” would mean each person ate two apples. Such clarity would be particularly beneficial in contexts where precise distribution is crucial, such as sharing resources or reporting activities.

Cultural examples of number agreement further illustrate its utility. Georgian’s use of simple reduplication to differentiate quantities helps in everyday communication by enhancing precision and reducing ambiguity. Indigenous languages, such as those spoken by Native American tribes, often use specific markers or suffixes to indicate distributive numbers, reflecting their communal living and deep connection with nature.

Number agreement has significant linguistic and cognitive benefits. It provides precision in communication, reducing the need for additional explanations and making conversations more efficient.

Understanding and using distributive numerals can enhance mathematical thinking and comprehension in educational contexts. Integrating these concepts into early education can help children develop a more nuanced understanding of numbers and arithmetic.

However, integrating number agreement into English would pose some challenges. Structural changes in grammar might be necessary to accommodate these new forms, and both native speakers and learners of English would need time and practice to become comfortable with them.

Cultural acceptance is another hurdle, as widespread adoption would require normalization through education, media, and daily use. Formal recognition by linguistic authorities and inclusion in dictionaries and educational materials would also be essential.

Despite these challenges, introducing number agreement into English could greatly enhance clarity and precision in communication, particularly in fields where quantities and distributions are important.

Learning from languages that already use this feature can provide a more nuanced approach to expressing numbers, improving communication in various contexts from education to business. Number agreement exemplifies how English could evolve by embracing linguistic diversity, enriching its expressive capabilities and cultural relevance.

3. Politeness Levels: Nuanced Social Interactions

Many languages have built-in systems for expressing varying degrees of politeness, something largely absent in English. In languages like Japanese and Korean, the choice of words and verb forms shifts depending on the social status and relationship between speakers. For example, Japanese has different levels of politeness, such as the “desu/masu” form for general politeness and “keigo” for honorific speech.

Indian languages also have complex politeness systems. Malayalam has at least seven forms of “you,” ranging from intimate to highly honorific. Marathi even includes a specific form for addressing strangers when unsure of their status. Such distinctions help navigate social hierarchies and show respect.

Reintroducing “thou” in English, perhaps as a form of intimate address, could add a historical and cultural layer to our interactions. Using politeness levels would make English more nuanced, allowing speakers to express respect and familiarity more precisely. This change could enhance social interactions by making the language more adaptable to different social contexts.

4. Adjectives as Verbs: Simplifying Descriptions

In many languages, adjectives can function as verbs, simplifying sentence structures and making descriptions more dynamic. For example, in the Luo language spoken in Kenya, the word for “tall” can be used as a verb.

If English adopted this feature, we could say “she happies” instead of “she is happy,” making the sentence shorter and more direct. “The sky is blue” could become “The sky blues,” conveying the state instantly.

This change would streamline communication, making conversations more efficient. It would also enrich English by allowing more vivid and immediate descriptions, enhancing storytelling and everyday speech. Adopting adjectives as verbs could make English more versatile and expressive, aligning it with languages that already use this efficient system.

5. Question Particles: Enhancing Clarity

Many languages use question particles to indicate questions, making them more intuitive and straightforward. This feature is often seen at the end or beginning of a sentence, adding a small marker to turn a statement into a question. In Majang, spoken in Ethiopia, an /ŋ/ sound is added at the end of a statement to indicate a question, such as “You went to work today-ŋ?”

If English adopted this system, forming questions would be simpler and more consistent. For example, instead of changing word order or using auxiliary verbs, we could just add a particle: “You went to the store-eh?” or “It’s raining-eh?” This approach would be particularly useful in casual speech, where quick and clear communication is essential.

Using question particles would also help maintain the natural flow of conversation.

In languages like Kichwa, the particle can be placed near the specific words being questioned, as in “wasimanchu rinki” (Are you going to the house?) or “wasiman rinkichu” (Are you going to the HOUSE?). This flexibility allows for more precise questioning and clearer responses.

Integrating question particles into English could make questions easier to form and understand, enhancing overall communication clarity. It would provide a consistent method for indicating questions, reducing confusion and making English more accessible to learners and speakers alike.

6. Wh- Movement: Flexible Question Formation

In many languages, the placement of question words is more flexible than in English. English typically requires question words like “who,” “what,” “where,” and “why” to be placed at the beginning of a sentence, which can sometimes lead to awkward or cumbersome constructions. For example, “Whom did you see?” can feel stiff and unnatural.

In contrast, languages like Swahili allow for a more natural word order. Instead of “Whom did you see?” Swahili speakers might say “You saw who?” (wewe uiona nani). This method keeps the question word in its usual place in the sentence, making the structure simpler and more intuitive.

If English adopted this flexible approach, it could enhance the natural flow of conversations and make questions easier to form and understand. For example, instead of saying “Where are you going?” we could say “You are going where?” This structure mirrors the word order of the answer, creating a parallel that can simplify both asking and answering questions.

This change would also reduce the cognitive load on speakers and listeners, as they wouldn’t need to rearrange sentences to ask questions. It would align English more closely with most of the world’s languages, often using this more straightforward method for forming questions.

Incorporating flexible wh- movement into English could make the language more intuitive and user-friendly, especially for non-native speakers and learners. It would streamline question formation and improve the naturalness of everyday communication, making English an even more versatile and efficient language.

7. Existential Verbs: Precise States of Being

In many languages, different verbs distinguish between being something and being somewhere. This separation adds clarity and precision to statements about existence and location. Mandarin Chinese, for example, uses “shì” for being something (e.g., “I am a teacher”) and “zài” for being somewhere (e.g., “I am at school”).

If English adopted similar existential verbs, it could enhance clarity in communication. For example, instead of saying “I am a student” and “I am at school,” we could use distinct verbs to avoid ambiguity. We might say “I exist as a student” for the former and “I locate at school” for the latter. This would immediately clarify whether we are discussing a state of being or a physical location.

This change could also help with conveying temporary versus permanent states. In languages like Spanish, there are different verbs for temporary states (“estar”) and permanent states (“ser”). Applying this to English, “I am tired” could become “I temp-tired,” emphasizing the temporary nature of the state.

Using distinct existential verbs would not only enhance the precision of English but also align it more closely with languages that already make these distinctions. This approach could be particularly useful in academic and professional settings, where clear and precise communication is crucial.

In conclusion, adopting existential verbs in English could make statements about existence and location more precise, improving overall communication clarity. This change would help speakers convey their meanings more accurately and align English with linguistic practices found in many other languages.

8. Dropping Subjects: Streamlining Expressions

In many languages, especially those with rich inflectional morphology, subjects can be dropped when they are understood from context. This feature, known as pro-drop, allows for more concise and fluid speech. For example, in Spanish, one can say “Llueve” (It rains) without needing a subject pronoun like “it.”

If English adopted this feature, certain expressions could become more streamlined. Instead of saying “It is raining,” we could simply say “Raining.” Similarly, “It is sunny” could be shortened to “Sunny.” This would save a syllable and make casual conversation more direct.

Dropping subjects can also enhance poetic and literary expression by allowing for more flexibility in sentence construction. For example, in descriptive writing, one could say “Running through the park, saw the sunset” instead of “I was running through the park and saw the sunset.” The subject is implied, making the sentence more fluid and potentially more impactful.

Incorporating this feature into English would require some adjustments, particularly in teaching and learning the language. However, the benefits of more concise and efficient communication could outweigh the challenges. It would make English more similar to languages like Italian (“Piove” for “It rains”) and Chinese (“下雨了” for “Raining”), which already use this feature effectively.

Adopting the ability to drop subjects when they are clear from context could make English more efficient and versatile. It would simplify everyday expressions and offer new possibilities for creative writing, enhancing the language’s expressive power.

9. Instrumentals vs. Comitatives: Specifying Associations

Many languages distinguish between different types of associations using separate terms for accompanying someone versus using something. English, however, uses the word “with” for both contexts, which can sometimes lead to ambiguity.

There are distinct words for these associations in the Ainu language of Hokkaidō, Japan. “Tura” means to go with someone, while “ani” means to use something with an object. Similarly, Finnish uses different suffixes to make these distinctions. This linguistic feature provides clarity and precision in communication.

If English adopted separate terms for these contexts, sentences would become clearer. For example, instead of saying “I built the house with friends” and “I built the house with hammers,” we could use distinct terms like “I built the house alongside friends” and “I built the house using hammers.” This would immediately clarify whether the association is with people or tools.

This feature could significantly enhance both spoken and written English. In technical or instructional contexts, such as DIY guides or educational materials, specifying the type of association can prevent misunderstandings. For instance, “Cook the meal with your partner” versus “Cook the meal using a new recipe” could be clearly distinguished.

Adopting this feature would align English with many other languages that already differentiate between instrumentals and comitatives. It would improve the language’s precision and enrich its expressive capabilities, making communication more effective and nuanced.

By integrating these distinctions, English speakers could convey their intended meaning more accurately and reduce ambiguity in various contexts.

10. Clusivity: Inclusive and Exclusive “We”

Clusivity is a linguistic feature differentiating between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns. This means there are distinct words for “we” that include the listener and “we” that exclude the listener. Languages such as Māori and many other Austronesian languages use this feature to avoid ambiguity.

In Māori, “tātou” means “we” including the listener, while “mātou” means “we” excluding the listener. This distinction can prevent confusion in conversations. For example, if someone says “We are going to the park,” it’s immediately clear whether the speaker includes the listener in the group going to the park.

If English adopted clusivity, it could use terms like “we-all” for inclusive “we” and “we-ex” for exclusive “we.” For instance, “We-all are going to the meeting” would mean the speaker and the listener are both attending, whereas “We-ex are going to the meeting” would mean the speaker is going with others, but not the listener.

This feature could enhance clarity in group discussions, teamwork, and social interactions. It would allow speakers to convey their intentions more precisely, reducing misunderstandings. Clusivity could improve collaboration in educational and professional settings, where clear communication is essential, ensuring everyone knows who is included in group activities or decisions.

Integrating clusivity into English would also align it with many other languages that already use this feature, promoting a more inclusive and precise way of speaking. It would help English speakers to express group dynamics more accurately, making communication smoother and more effective in various contexts.

11. Evidentials: Indicating Evidence

Evidentials are linguistic markers that indicate the source of information, specifying whether the speaker witnessed something firsthand, heard about it, inferred it, or received it as hearsay. Many languages worldwide, such as those spoken by Indigenous communities in the Amazon and the Sherpa language, use evidential to add this layer of clarity and reliability to statements.

For example, in the Sherpa language, different markers indicate whether the speaker witnessed an event, heard about it, or inferred it. This system provides listeners with immediate context about the reliability of the information being shared.

If English adopted evidentials, it could greatly enhance the clarity and credibility of communication. Imagine using simple suffixes or words to indicate the source of information: “rain-seen” for “I saw it raining,” “rain-heard” for “I heard it was raining,” and “rain-inferred” for “I think it rained based on other evidence.”

This addition would be particularly useful in academic, journalistic, and professional settings, where the source of information is crucial. For instance, distinguishing between “reported facts” and “eyewitness accounts” would become much easier in a news report. Similarly, in academic writing, evidentials could help differentiate between data observed directly and conclusions drawn from research.

Adopting evidentials would also enhance everyday conversations, making them more informative and transparent. For example, saying “The meeting was canceled-heard” immediately tells the listener that this information came from a third party, not from the speaker’s direct knowledge.

Integrating evidentials into English would require developing a set of markers or phrases that could be easily taught and used. While it would represent a significant shift in how we convey information, the benefits in terms of clarity and credibility would be substantial. This feature would help speakers communicate more precisely and help listeners better understand the context and reliability of shared information.