Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

"I often hear conversations and ask, how do they understand what each other is saying? However, I think nothing more than that and certainly voice no opinion, during my research into the English Language, I stumbled across a particularly interesting group of people, prescriptivists. They share a belief that English is a vulnerable feature of our lives which must be protected from the decay threate would be hard to deny that I, as anyone calling themselves a writer should, believe in a certain standard of language use, both written and spoken, though to myself written quality of English holds more importance. However, if one were to read the introduction to the English Dictionary, written by Samuel Johnson in 1755, he says:
"We laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be decided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption, and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature or clear the world at one from folly, vanity, and affection."
Dr Samuel Johnson, described by many as a prescriptivist of the English language was under no illusion that language could be "purified" and "preserved", he knew language would change, it has always been inevitable and has, since its roots, changed.
So why are there then some people who believe language is decaying and should be protected, since within history, there is huge sign of change? The English language as we know it is made up of multiple European languages and changes between each country which speaks it. Then is there really a case for a decaying language?
I understand the view that language should be of a high quality, and all who need should have access to levels of education where English is taught at the same standard, but how can we remain equal if each persons view on language, and what they expect of it, is different? If a variation in lexis happens from region to region, let alone throughout the world, can we say one form of this language is more equal than another? Taking Spanish, spoken by the Spanish and with historic invasions, is now used throughout much of south/Latin America. With three different versions between the home country of the language, Mexico, and the South American Continent (Excluding of course Brazil), is one form of the Spanish Language classed as more equal or correct than another? Or is it simply different?
Of course English is not the only language under such scrutiny, I just wonder why when we live in what is called an equal, free society, we should be judged on the quality of our use of language alone. It seems as though the power which language gives us is still in this day and age, limited to the select few who are fortunate enough to have what is considered the right language use along with the right accent."

http://articles.mibba.com/History/4418/The-Correctness-of-English-A-Decaying-Language

So, what do you think?

Regards,
John

[EFLeducator]

All languages are alive and changing. Relax everybody, English is alive and well!

[Zero]

What he said. It's hard for some to accept, especially if they happen to speak a "prestige" dialect, that no one dialect is inherently superior to any other. Ebonics and hillbilly English are able to express any concept just as well as the version you speak. Yours. Is. Not. Better.

[johntpartee]

Good topic, johnslat. This is something I constantly mention to students about our beloved mother tongue. It is changing even as we speak. Although I would never discourage a student from reading the classics of Western literature, I usually recommend that they start with modern stuff as even native English speakers would be somewhat confused by some of the idioms, syntax, etc., of some of the greats. Some of the great books from as little as fifty years ago ("To Kill A Mockingbird" comes to mind) sound a little "strange" (bad way to put it, probably, but apropos) to the contemporary ear.

[johnslat]

Dear johntpartee,

Don't tell anyone, but I've taken (when teaching adjective clauses) to telling my students to "disregard whom", a word that I'd say is fast disappearing from the language.

This is especially true with adjective clauses since "whom", being only an object, can almost always be dropped anyway.

Regards,
John

[johntpartee]

Okay, johnslat, you can count on me. This is just between you and me. My lips are sealed. Tick a lock.

[johnslat]

Dear johntpartee,

Thanks - I knew I could count on you. If that ever got out, why I'd probably be drummed out of the Grand Order of Prescriptivists (and I'm a member in good standing of the SPOGG

"The Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar is for pen-toters appalled by wanton displays of Bad English. . . . SPOGG is for people who crave good, clean English � sentences cast well and punctuated correctly. It�s about clarity."

http://grammatically.blogspot.com/

Regards,
John

[johntpartee]

Whom?? Youm!! Meem??

RIP, Rowan & Martin

[fladude]

Go back and read the Declaration of Independence.

You will be surprised how many words you don't recognize, or which are used completely differently than they are today.

English is a dynamic language. The people who believe that it is stagnant and governed by rules are ignorant of its history.

[EFLeducator]

[LongShiKong]

There's a thread commenting on the appalling level of English on these TEFL threads but almost every online national news article I read contains at least one error. The other day, I saw a typo in a sidebar ad from...Microsoft (?) Seems even books are no longer proofread. Years ago, an immigrant friend pointed out a grammatical error even the queen herself made.

English is far from a dying langauge but the number of non-native speakers coupled with the digitization of the language (in the future, perhaps less text, more audio-visual) could once again radically transform the language in ways not seen since Webster.

Here's a bit of humor to that affect:

[artemisia]

I think I�ve seen that before. It�s like watching an episode of �Fawlty Towers� (minus the goose step).

English is a language that can be spoken (or written) very badly but still maintain the overall meaning. For example, �I shopping now�, �She happy� or �He not go� are the type of mistakes we so often hear. Auxiliary verbs can be omitted because they�re largely redundant when it comes to conveying basic meaning, and sometimes the main verb can be left out completely. Spelling can be atrocious but still understood. I don�t think other languages are as flexible, although I suppose people must be able to understand a broken form of their own language. Too much variance, however, and the meaning is lost or compromised. There has to be general agreement of the grammar rules and vocabulary of any language for it to be effective.

Unless you constantly have very high-level students, teaching a language has the effect of stripping it down to its very basic functions with less importance given to its expressive possibilities. The trouble with English being the international language is that this status seems to go hand in hand with attempts to justify its permanent simplification or reduction. If you see language as purely as means of functional communication then this sort of reduction will not be a problem but the richness and subtlety of expression used in a book like �To Kill a Mockingbird� is not common these days and I see it as a loss.

I doubt language evolves by merely simplifying spelling and structures, and reducing vocabulary. Doing so often strips out the expressiveness and nuance of meaning, leaving behind just the bare bones, which seems to me to be the very opposite of evolution.

[Sashadroogie]

The people who say all languages change and that this is natural are of course correct. However, very often this natural evolution argument is used to explain away a more discomforting aspect of language change: very often changes occur due to nothing more than the speaker ignorance.

[johntpartee]

Very true, Sash, but once that happens, it then becomes "correct". Case in point: "Umpire" used to be "numpire". The change came about because of the incorrect use of the indefinite article (by whom [who ], I don't know; I believe I read somewhere that it was a sportswriter).

[johntpartee]

Welcome back, by the way.