Language

Posted on 2002/04/22 14:27:18 (April 2002) by john.

I mean, it's so totally, like, whatever.

I could go on for hours on this one. I was prompted to scribble something down following my train journey this morning. There was a gentleman sitting a few seats away from me complaining (in an admittedly quite light hearted way) about a number of common misuses of the English language. For example, when on the phone, people saying "It's me", when they really should be saying "It is I", although this has always seemed to me a singularly pointless statement either way. He also then commented on a sign on one of the trolley parks at the station, bearing the legend "Please do not remove", which is of course more of a logical error than a grammatical one, so I in fact digress.

Well, it got me thinking. I think I really have something of a split personality when it comes to this kind of argument. On the one hand, I find many misuses of English really quite annoying. Although I'm not sure why I find this annoying. Particularly errors I find myself making, I must add. For example, the unwieldy overuse of the word "like", plus similar phrases - "I mean", "you know", and so on - to convey absolutely no information. I mean, it's like, you know, that's just, like, that's the way it is. Plus add to that the habit more and more people seem to be adopting of raising their voices towards the end of a sentence which blatantly isn't a question. (read the previous sentence in that manner to see what I mean). These habits seem to indicate people have utterly no confidence whatsoever in what they're actually saying. On the other hand, although I do find these kinds of things frustrating for some reason, I'm increasingly thinking I shouldn't.

My grandfather comes to mind. On several occasions he would be troubled by this same dilemna, and, although the particular phrase I have in mind refers to written language as opposed to spoken language, I think the metaphor is the same. He was a miner most of his life, and miners, from my experience, tend to be very straightforward in the way they approach things. Which is really refreshing sometimes. So his point is a simple yet elegant one, and I'm sure others have said the same sort of thing. He used to say that calligraphy was all well and good, but the point of writing (and indeed speaking) is communication. Does the presentation really matter so long as the intended audience can understand what the writer (or speaker) is saying? This is really a hard point to argue, I think, and when I look at the issue through such a stark perspective I certainly can't help but thinking people can be amazingly pedantic for no good reason about spelling, pronunication and grammar. If I say "bath" with a short northern "a" rather than a long southern baaaaaath, everyone in the country knows exactly what I'm talking about, and yet many still believe the northern pronunciation is somehow improper. If I say "to boldly go" rather than "to go boldly" I'd wager far more people would have a better grasp of the rest of the sentence, despite, as my mother so often enjoyed pointing out, the howling great split infinitive. In fact, there's no amibguity in saying it either way round, so why does it matter? If I spell Loughborough as Luffburrer, the chances are people will still know what I'm talking about, in fact, to people whose first language isn't English they'll probably have a much better chance of knowing what I'm talking about. Many are the sleepless nights I've had worrying about tourists lost in the wilderness, asking directions to "loogaborooga". This really is one of the worst cases of pedanticity and downright awkwardness in the English language. The same sequence of letters "ough" appears twice in the same word, but each time with a different pronunciation. Somebody is having a larf.

If the masses speak "common" (for want of a better word) English, then who are the elocutionary elite to tell them they aren't speaking "proper" English...? Who decides what "proper" English is anyway? The Queen? I'm sure she makes plenty of grammatical errors when no-one is listening. The fact is English is an evolving language, and always has been. Few would argue that the language of Britain today bears little resemblance to the language we were speaking in the middle ages. I would imagine many of these changes came about simply from the way the average person on the street found it convenient to speak. Perhaps at some time scholars found "don't" an unacceptable and downright sloppy abbreviation for "do not", in the same way learned people of a few years ago might have poured scourn on "ain't" or indeed more recently "innit". Why can we not simply accept the way certain people speak as valid and acceptable dialects of English, rather than just plain improper.

I can't help but think people that criticise other's language are often doing so, at least in part, as it seems to be one of the few forms of devisive behaviour and discrimination that still goes largely unnoticed, and is even by some deemed acceptable. I'm really going to stick with my Grandfather on this one. So long as the communicator is fully understood by the communicatee (is this a word?), what does anything else matter? That is to say, If I'm writing, and you're reading, and you're also understanding what you're reading, that is all that is required. Aren't there rather more important issues to resolve in the world? Just think of how much useful education we could give our children in place of bogging them down with what are fundamentally archaic, pointless and downright pedantic rules on how they should communicate...

Actually, I utterly disagree. I think the standard of english is poor and every attempt should be made to increase the vocabulary and reading age of everyone. Is this wavering off the subject? I think not.

English gets its richness from its complexity. 'Pedantics' of spelling (such as Loughborough) are often a misnoma as the word itself conveys a particular meaning (the Borough of Lough). This is not pedantic at all. If one was to spell the word how it sounded, you loose a lot of the meaning. This simple place name is already giving more information about the nature of the noun than would be included with a 'sounds like' spelling. A rich word in itself. This is good language.

Often, people who are verbally unsure of what they are saying put phrases like 'I mean', 'You know', 'Like' and 'Yeah' into their sentances to try and bring the person they are communicating to into some sort of recognition that they are still listening. Also, these are used so to buy the speaker some time while they think up something interesting to respond with. This then makes them look more interested and 'switched on'. Being able to respond quickly appears to be more important to the linguistically sloppy. This is poor language.

Extrememly boring people often use the Australian Inflection (of raising the tone at the end of a sentance) purely to get the other person to respond. But hang, John, you are saying that people should be allowed to speak however they want, as long as they don't finish the sentance with an inflection? Is this not some elitist comment? Sounds like hypocracy to me.

I do not agree with the connection with your agurment and your grandfather's. Here, you state two arguments, one about different pronounciations and one about being understood (language). Pronounciations are just one of those things, like dialects. They are deep rooted in the rich history of the Isles and only by improved communication will they ever be resolved. I like pronounciation differences, too. It means that the places that we come from weren't created over night by the UN.

As far as being understood is concerned, I do not agree. If you are trying to get a simple point across, then communication can be reduced into a simple form. However, often the point (especially amongst the educated) is more complex than merely the words. One must take into account the inflection, the particular words chosen and context to gain a full meaning. Taken two names, one written in Calligraphy and the other in Times Roman: the Calligraphic script is likely to draw more attention and raise more questions than the Times Roman name. You note 'As long as the Communicatee understands'. What if the communicator is trying to get across a point very subtle, using the correct language in the right way but the the Communicatee's ability to comprehend is limited by lack of language? By dumbing down the English language, we fall prone to problems like this. Should the speaker then use many more words to describe the subtlety when one would do the trick? I think not.

As far as 'proper' English is concerned, one must make a distinction between Language and Pronounciation. Language is the words, Pronounciation is the way you say them. If you have a problem with the way you speak, then sort it out. If you don't, don't. It's part of what makes you who you are. Teaching children to speak 'properly' should be done locally (thus, I agree with you) but using the English language as a whole not the bastardised version we hear on the streets.

Full of grammatical, spelling errors and huge sentances.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/04/23 10:39:28.

The sentence
"Full of grammatical, spelling errors and huge sentances." is both grammatically incorrect and contains a spelling error. Somewhat ironically.

Posted by john at 2002/04/23 15:08:10.

That's not an argument, its just contradiction, like.

Posted by dsp at 2002/04/23 16:19:19.

Hmmm but I can't help but think of all the turmoil suffered by people whose first language is something other than English when they try to get to grips with our language. Especially the difficulty this then causes them in finding jobs here and so on. As you may well know, at least one real person very dear to me has been affected by this! Suddenly this "richness" of language becomes a very limiting and restricting factor, and this is not a good thing in my opinion. The world should be drawing closer together, finding it easier to communicate, and if we have to sacrifice obscure spellings of bland regional towns I really don't consider it a great loss.

Posted by john at 2002/04/25 18:11:34.

That's a fair point, John. English is a bastard for people to learn: even children.

Of course, language is a dynamic beast and it contains elements of whichever culture happens to use it.

We can be the pioneers: like you were the pioneer of Jafrenglish. Let's bring more popular culture into our everyday lives in the hope of changing the language at greater speed!

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/04/26 10:16:13.

If I add a comment now, everything's going to get totally fucked up isn't it.

Posted by john at 2002/05/16 24:20:44.

Post a comment