David Crystal on BBC4

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:52 pm

Just a quick heads up: noticed that DC was on It's Only A Theory the other night. The proposition he was forwarding was something along the lines of 'Texting enriches rather than damages "the language"' (my use of double quotation marks - hinting at the gist of his argument), which the panel of 3 judges duly approved (he's a persuasive and likeable enough fellow!).

The next guy on, arguing that 'Genghis Khan - the greatest ruler the world has ever seen', fared less well. I finally blacked out at the subsequent comparatively boring bit about robot companions, despite it featuring (a pic of) cute robot toy seal companions for elderly Japanese!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:59 am

English is a wretched thing in great need of enrichment from the jargon used in all number of technologically related circumstances.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:17 am

If English is wretched, then what's Piraha like?

(Hmm, wouldn't it be great if people started typing Piranha by mistake! We could then have some fish in our eggcorn salads).

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:08 am

Interesting... Until I read your extra comment, I really did see Piranha.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:08 am

In a word, Yes!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:05 am

Why might it "damage" the language and why doesn't it, according to DC?

Linguistics usually dodges accusations of damage to normal usuage by claiming all language is additive, to the point of absurdity. 6,7,8 languages for young Libin? Why, no problem at all Mrs.Wang. Confusion is an outdated concept.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:59 am

DC's argument seemed to be (as I tried to imply with my use of double quotation marks earlier) that texting is a separate domain or register or genre or whatever the exact term should be - he quoted kids looking at him 'as if he was nuts' when he suggested that there might be a risk of them using textspeak in e.g. formal answers in written exams for whatever subject. (I guess DC doesn't read the Daily Mail then, which has probably had a story or two about the "Shocking decline in the quality of exam questions and answers!").

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:43 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... xting.html#

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:36 am

It may be "dumbing down", but I wouldn't get very good marks I suppose. Would you?

I dread to think what the mainstream school teachers, who on average know less than zero about language per se, have to say when teaching this subject.

If they did know something it would beat yet more rather baseless wibbling about some trendy book though.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:04 am

I'm sure he's partially right... but it got me thinking about my own use of language, and reminded me that about 3 weeks ago, in the middle of a teacher training course, I scribbled on the board something like:

"to be mad about sth"

It was only when a trainee teacher, with no pre-course experience, put his hand up and said, "What does s.t.h. mean?" that I realised what I'd done. That's an abbreviation that I use with Chinese learners of English, who know what it means, but I didn't mean to use it with native speakers.

Sometimes if we use language a lot in one genre, it's gonna overflow into another.

(I definitely overuse gonna , wanna, and contractions, and I think that comes from both txting and letting my spoken and written English overlap too much.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:52 am

Perhaps he could have said to da kidz:

"We are all much better than many people expect at using the right kind of language in the right context, but all the same we do sometimes let items cross from one place to another, and if you very often text and seldom attempt to write in standard formal English you will probably let a certain influence show here and there when you do try, don't you think?"

They might have snoozed, but they wouldn't have looked at him like he woz crazy, I guess.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:00 am

Nicely put.

Both in summarising what the truth is more like, and in highlighting just how pedantic we can be (in expecting comments to be so precise).

btw. I mean, I understand that I was being pedantic.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:00 am

I tend to like Australian linguists even if they don't praise me. The desire for "no b******t" written into the local "cultural script" is very refreshing in this field.

Linguists never seem to think of the consequences of such praise as they hand out towards particular languages. If one thing is good in language A then it must be inferior in language B. If languages are "enriched" by jargon and electronic faffing about then English is the richest one out there. But of course Crystal would never say that!

Teacher Discussion Forums

David Crystal on BBC4

David Crystal on BBC4

Tricks of the mind.

Overuse of sb and sth.

Exactly, I think.