Job Discussion Forums

[Aramas]

If it wasn't for TV and the laziness of the great unwashed then it wouldn't be a problem. The various brain-dead mannerisms would be localised and die a natural death. TV imparts viral properties to idiot-speak, and we seem to be suffering from an electronically transmitted pandemic.

Now we have people all over the world saying moronic things like 'aa-aight?', 'You go girl', 'my bad' etc.

I'd pay good money to see the whiny couple from Friends tortured to a horrible end. Hell, make it the whole cast and I'll pay double

That thing with ending sentences with a question is quite common in AU, but I suspect it originated in NZ. The less edurite Kiwis tend to append sentences with 'eh?', as in 'Good, eh?' or 'She's hot, eh?' Bondi has been one of NZ's largest cities for a while now, so it's no surprise that it has been absorbed. Just be thankful we didn't inherit ending sentences with 'boy'. (eg 'Good, eh boy?' )

[dmb]

Just be thankful we didn't inherit ending sentences with 'boy'. (eg 'Good, eh boy?' )

Don't the Welsh do that?

[Mark-O]

"As for the degeneration of the English language, I suspect that there are far more literate people in English-speaking countries now than there were a hundred years ago. I don't share the same apocalyptic visions as some others that "nite" signifies the end of humanity as we know it. "

An apocalypse is somewhat of an over-exaggeration on your part. As the disclaimer at the beginning of this topic mentioned, this is a personal complaint and not the prophecy of doom. I'm not questioning whether the English language has a wider coverage now than it did a century ago. What I am questioning however, is whether the quality of the language is improved. The examples stated previously, I believe, do not enrich the language or give it any further clarity - if anything, they are more ambiguous and uncouth. So why use them?

I disagree that "like" and "so" don't add meaning.

"I was like, what?"
"I was, what?"

This is my point, the "I was like, what?" in the first place is just a lazy expression of speech anyway. The words are already there and exist to convey what is meant by this expression. Try, "I couldn't understand", "I was astounded" etc obviously depending on the context in which it was meant. Why opt for a more ambiguous choice of words?

I respect the fact that you teach your students a multitude of approaches to the language, and agree that it is not really your job to tell them how to communicate. But with the same token, wouldn't you rather encourage your students to communicate in a way that was less ambiguous and more universally understandable? In certain instances I think it could even pose problems for the students when they find that the rules of grammar that they might try to apply to the language are shattered by 'innits', 'likes' etc.

In India people kept asking me "What is your good name?" What's good about it? Would you call this another symptom of the demise of the English language? Will everyone start saying that?

Clearly, this is a remnant from the Raj. The use of the 'good' is much like addressing someone with 'honorable' - a sign of respect. I believe the japanese use similar such terms of reference i.e. san? The implication of respect enriches what is being said and so I would argue that its presence is not wholly unnecessary/worthless.

[/b]

[Mark-O]

DMB: Nearly! I think 'boy-o' is more in keeping with the Welsh!

[Mouse]

The Welsh do use "boy" a lot, yes, and I presume that some Welsh, somewhere, once upon a time did say "boyo". Now, however, it's simply a perpetuated stereotype, but that's normal because people know so little about our country (if you can call it that) and culture (which we definitely have); such comments should be expected (and welcomed? along with the sheep comments). Oh, and it's very funny, too. Ho ho. Ho. Really.

Returning to the main topic, I agree with Leeroy: the language is simply evolving. In fact, Mark-O, I'm sure that were you to go back a few years, the people of that time would find your speech strange and full of unnecessary words and phrases. These 'redundant' sounds can be found in most languages (all of the ones I know, anyway) and serve to give them colour, indeed, to show that they are still alive: latin is very pure now, but not arguably especially useful in business or tourism.

We can't teach them the English of Shakespeare or Chaucer, because it's gone. Ours may not be as beautiful (may not), but it does it's job well, and this 'diversity' which you call 'demise' is a very strong factor in English remaining adaptable enough, and fashionable enough, to be a world language. If the words don't serve a legitimate purpose, they will disappear... bling-bling, I hope, will be one of them...

[scot47]

I think the strange intonation where every sentence goes up at the end is from KALIFORNIA.

I certainly notice that on UK TV the great unwashed on Vox Pop are totally unable to communicate. I compare this to TV I watch from Germany and other countries in Europe where ordinary punters seem quite able to express themselves.

Those from Her Majesty's Shrinking Dominions speak rather like this: " Well, ya know, like it was, eh. I was like eh, over the moon."

What do most kids get from their 12 years in school in the Land of Blair and Brown ? Certainly not the ability to communicate in Spoken English.

[Slim Pickens]

X

[Mark-O]

But Scot47, this is Leeroy's point! The fact that English is now spoken like this means that they are not speaking English badly per se. In fact, they are communicating how the language is spoken in a modern frame of reference! So it appears that we have no gauge to measure whether the language is deteriorating as there is no benchmark with which to compare! So it appears that you, or I for that matter, do not have the right to say that these children " do not have the ability to communicate in Spoken English" - how do you feel about that?!

I'm not comfortable with English being described as "fashionable". But, as Mouse points out, the need for these 'terms' will be tested over time.

[shmooj]

What would your classes make of the words in bold :

He goes "Do you come here often." and I was like "Are you trying to pick me up?"

has anyone ever actually taught students narratives using "was like" and "go"
instead of the verb "say"

I've been tempted - even if just to have a good laugh afterwards at housewives in their 50s who will never get past pre-int saying
My American purend goes, "Tell me about Korea" and I was like "Korea has pour seasons."

[leeroy]

[fat_chris]

My point pertains to American college students. The reason they are at college is to prepare them for the wonderful world of white collar work (nice alliteration). With such work goes the responsibility of speaking properly and communicating in an effective manner that doesn't distract the listener.

Speaking slang is fine in one's personal time when one is spending time with like-minded friends, but rambling on with "like" and "so" would be completely inappropriate in the boardroom.

Imagine:

"Bossman, me and the others were like, if we just re-do the Keller marketing campaign, it would be sooooooooooooooo awesome. We would like corner the market and then we could see our stock like soar mega-high and...."

That is an extreme example that probably doesn't really happen, but once again, my point is, too many students fail to realize when to use appropriate speech and when it is acceptable to use slang and very informal speech.

Yikes.

[fat_chris]

[dmb]

Leeroy, don't you have have any light blue skins? They are much thinner like.

[Aramas]

[Mark-O]