Job Discussion Forums

[Serious_Fun]

[johnslat]

Complaining about how people in any country use (or misuse) a language is understandable, but I think it overlooks the fact that it's common usage, not dictionaries, that (sooner or later) forms a language.
The McDonald's ad, by the way, doesn't use a phrasal (at least not the one I'm thinking of.) Instead it uses a non-continuous verb (i.e. love) in the present continuous: "I'm loving it."
Another fast-food chain, Arby's, saw how effective this was at getting people's attention, and came up with this: "I'm thinking Arby's."

I'd say the reason the marketing people came up with those ads is because they thought that the grammatical misuse would get the attention of the listeners.
And it seems to have worked.

[soapdodger]

And therein John lies the horrible truth. Having realised the intimate connection between language and thought, to say nothing of intellectual development, those whose goal is the creation of global moronism for the masses ( and that means most of us), are carefully shaping and degenerating people's communication through subtle means such as advertising.

Unfortunately it cannot be ignored, not least by those who know better, because it invades our everyday lives, and as a consequence we become almost compelled to simplify our communication in order to be understood, or even avoid social exclusion and worse.

It is a perfect plan. Where is the point in being intellectual in a world of fools? Of course there is a point for those of us who can remember a world where eloquence was valued, but that memory is dying fast and soon people will give up.

It definitely poses problems in the classroom - how to make a balance between teaching "intelligent" language, and language which will actually be understood.

[johnslat]

Dear soapdodger,
Oh you Pollyanna, you. This boundless optimism is, I'd say, a serious character flaw.
OK, the English language may be "degenerating", but if so, that's a process that's been going on since it began to be spoken. I would guess that Chaucer might consider Shakespeare's language "degenerate."
I'll admit there is cause for concern, especially when "the establishment" uses euphemisms to disguise reality, but again, that's not exactly a new ploy. And, as long as it's seen to work, at least to some degree, I very much doubt it's going to disappear.
The hucksters have always been and will always be with us, manipulating language to serve their ends. However, when you compare the world's inhabitants today with those of, say, 500 years ago, I'd say that on the whole, general intelligence is increasing rather than decreasing.
And if you want a world where eloquence is valued, I'd also say that Barack Obama shows that this can still be the case.
So, in my opinion, there's still a long way to go before "global moronism"
engulfs us all.
As far as the "classroom dilemma", i.e. intelligent language or language which will actually be understood, well, I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. While language that can be easily understood may not always be intelligent, I believe that intelligent language is almost always understandable. And, when it's not, well, then I suppose it's part of our job to make it so.
Regards,
John

[soapdodger]

Dear John, I'm afraid you're a bit wrong on a few things. Firstly I'm not actually pessemistic but realistic, something in the world today that sadly doesn't reap many positive results at all. I can understand your reaction because a lot of people have been quietly conditioned not to look at things that may be considered unattractive and accuse those who do of being flawed. There are quite a few taboo subjects today that exist purely to allow those who prefer the cover of darkness to work undisturbed.

I think it a bit strange that you can bemoan the manipulation of the language by political hucksters and then put forward a politician as an example of good language use. Perhaps you think Mr. Obama is different, in which case might I suggest you think hard about the honesty of any political system and those who are allowed to thrive under them.

On the historical example, over the last 200 years education has followed a parabolic curve, peaking around the end of the 19th- beginning of the 20th century, at which point it began to be realised that the ordinary people were getting just a little too smart and that something had to be done to �keep the natives from getting restless�, culminating in a conscious and persistent drive from the late 60's to the present day to replace real knowledge with percieved knowledge. This is very smart indeed. If you take something away altogether, people get upset but if you gradually replace it with something of a (much) lower standard by gentle increments, they never notice. People are certainly not more educated or intelligent than they were 50 years ago, they just think they are.

While I agree that language changes, I do think you're wrong in the comparison of what is happening today with the earlier deveopment of English. In the past the evolution of language was largely upwards, towards more accurate expression of more complex ideas, today it is downwards to profanity and suppression of complex thought. Before, that evolution was natural, today it is engineered.

The classroom dilemma isn't too much of a problem for me. I explain the intelligent way to express things and the modern alternatives and let students decide. Thankfully in places where the subtleties of English-based media propaganda haven't sunk in people can still discern right from wrong, beauty from ugliness and oafishness from civilised behaviour!

[soapdodger]

Thanks for the kind words Jerry. So as not to incite the ire of He Who Eats Pedigree Pal, I'll reply by pm.

[johnslat]

Dear soapdodger,

"Firstly I'm not actually pessemistic but realistic . ."

Ah, my dear soapdodger, is there any one of us, Polyannistic optimist or
Charlie Brownian pessimist, who ever considers him/her self to be anything but a "realist?" We are all prisoners of our subjective points-of-view, after all. And, based on my own experience, I suspect that no one believes anything that does not, in some way, satisfy his/her nature, make him/her more comfortable with whatever take on "reality" he/she may have.
So, even though you rather bemoaned what your "realism" reaps, I'm afraid I have to think that it suits you better than any other attitude.

In my life, I have looked on a fair number of things "that may be considered unattractive"; I believe I can recognize most such when I see them. I am not accusing you of being "flawed"; please do not accuse me of being "conditioned." (except insofar as we all have been.)

You wrote that, after I had bemoaned the manipulation of language by political hucksters, you found my putting forward Senator Obama as an example of good language usage. "a bit strange." Do you believe, then, that generalizations (which I shouldn't indulge in anyway) have no exceptions? While I happen to think that Senator Obama is a man of integrity and probity (a purely personal opinion which could very well be mistaken), I used him as an example of "a world where eloquence is valued, I'd also say that Barack Obama shows that this can still be the case", not as the epitome of honesty.
Whether or not people are "more intelligent than they were 50 years ago" (I'd say that at least I am) is a matter of opinion, not fact, but in any case, your dropping of a zero from my post:

"when you compare the world's inhabitants today with those of, say, 500 years ago"

would seem to indicate that you'd rather not go back too far into the past.

Is language "devolving" or "evolving?" Well, the world is much smaller place today but also much faster, and the language is currently undergoing change which is happening more rapidly than ever before, which makes that more noticeable and therefore more disturbing. We tend to forget that most of us would not be able to read Chaucer�s English that easily. We certainty could not understand Old English. English has changed dramatically over the years and yet here we are on these boards, still able to understand one another. We invest so much attatchment, emotion and identification to our language that we feel we might lose who we are were it to change too much.
This is precisely why the young grab the language by its throat and stamp their sense of identity onto it. They are in the process of creating their sense of themselves and they use the tool of communication to do this. We did it. My parents didn't know half of the �in� words I used.
Wot wood u think of a langwidge that wos fonetical + used simbills 2 express itself. It wood b easier 4 a child 2 lern spelling but coud u rite poetree? Wood the benefits outway the unwieldiness of old Inglish? Y r we wurried.? Inglish coud becum faster 2 rite.

So, I'm not losing any sleep over the degeneration of English. It will change and evolve in ways far beyond my control, whether I like those changes or not.

But, speaking of generalizations:

"Thankfully in places where the subtleties of English-based media propaganda haven't sunk in people can still discern right from wrong, beauty from ugliness and oafishness from civilised behaviour!"

Now that's breathtaking. Since I and many of my friends are living in a land where surely the "English-based media propaganda" is at its very worst, I have to assume that we don't know right from wrong, beauty from ugliness, and oafishness from civilized behavior."

Would you be so kind as to let me know where you're currently residing?
I really miss right, beauty, and civilized behavior so much.
Regards,
John

[soapdodger]

Dear John, As I mentioned to Jerry above, I think if we keep this up here we'll get the inevitable reminders that "free speech is not a commodity available on this site" etc., so I'll answer by another channel.

[gaijinalways]

[Stephen Jones]

There's nothing remotely ungrammatical about the phrase 'I'm loving it', and your rant about it being an example of " carefully shaping and degenerating people's communication through subtle means such as advertising. " with the goal of "the creation of global moronism for the masses" is as hilarious as it's over the top and misplaced.

The idea that certain verbs cannot be used in the continuous aspect is an EFL invention, as opposed to the many imaginary prohibitions that date back to 18th century non-authorities, but if you wish to complain about the degeneration of English Grammar, soapdodger, it might be an idea if you learned some of it.

[johnslat]

Dear Stephen,
Well, I learned something new:

"The idea that certain verbs cannot be used in the continuous aspect is an EFL invention, as opposed to the many imaginary prohibitions that date back to 18th century non-authorities . ."

and I'm not being sarcastic; I really didn't know that. Even so, as I like to tell my students, English is constantly changing, and what may be regarded as "ungrammatical" today (at least by EFL teachers) could very well be standard usage tomorrow.
Regards,
John

[MO39]

[Mike_2007]

McDonald's seem to think so with their 'I'm lovin' it!' stuff.

[soapdodger]

My God MO39...I think you've unveiled the sick core of the McD ad!!! The use of "loving" in the lyrics of the song is reasonable because it may refer to the actual act of making love. Perhaps McD were seeking to get additional customers on the back of the unnatural acts with food portrayed in fims like American Pie. You never know...!!!!!

[Mike_2007]

Well, you do hear the odd urban legend about McD's workers leaving certain deposits in the burgers. Maybe they are 'lovin' it' a little too...