Lessening prices?

[Stephen Jones]

However, ridiculous though ontheway's general attitude may be, there is little doubt that he is right on this particular issue.

First of all Larrry should learn how to use Google to search for collocations. "lessening prices" does not produce half a million collocations but a mere 255. This discussion is actually top of the Google list, and one quote about "lessening prices for digital cameras" is repeated in about half the entries. In comparison, "falling prices" has 610,000 entries.

How did Larry get his figure of 450,000? He typed in the phrase without putting it in quotation marks, so instead of the exact phrase he got all the hits for pages that had 'lessening' and 'prices' somewhere on the same webpage. Another way to get exact collocations is to use Advanced Search and choose the option, exact phrase.

Incidentally, even when you search for the exact phrase you must still look through a fair number of the returns to see if the collocation is valid. Google doesn't take full stops into account, so you can get a large number of false entries for some searches. The British National Corpus is much more limited (only a 100 million words) but is easier to analyse.

The user is king, and we should use the corprora whether through Google or the BNC to find the answers. but in this case the answer is that so few people have ever used the collocation that it should be considered wrong.

[wjserson]

On my first search in an online dictionary I found that the word "lessening" had an entry and gave contexts including an example with "prices" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lessening). I would side with Larry, personally. Subjective arguments like "255 online uses don't make it good English" depend on your opinion of how many uses make "proper English". I got 281 myself.

Although this following example taken from the above link doesn't provide any absolute proof that it is "proper English", it should make it clear that it can be acceptable for some.

Noun 1. lessening - a change downward; "there was a decrease in his temperature as the fever subsided"; "there was a sharp drop-off in sales"

Clicking on "decrease" gives you the following:

"to become or cause to become smaller or less. Decrease and lessen refer to steady or gradual diminution: Lack of success decreases confidence. His appetite lessens as his illness progresses."

So as long as we're using online examples to prove and disprove the use of "lessening prices", I would think this should provide some helpful info. I don't see why you couldn't say "is lessening" when referring to an appetite or prices.

[LarryLatham]

Stephen, you are correct about my forgetting to add the quote marks around "lessening prices" on my last Google search here. Moreover, I simply looked at the total number and came to a conclusion from that. (Very bad form, as Stephen is also correct to say that one should look through the actual returns themselves.) I'm afraid I've been caught with my pants down, here. So, Ontheway, I owe you an apology for my reply to your post. My Google this morning comes up with 308 hits on "lessening prices." I disagree with Stephen that that's few enough hits to call it wrong, however. I'm not sure how many he would require to make an expression acceptable. Would 309 be enough, or would he need there to be 300,000? Or somewhere in between? To me, the point is that the expression is used, but much more to the point, it is clearly meaningful when it is used. No confusion is registered from any competent interlocutor when someone says (or writes), "Improved quality and lessening prices have seen digital cameras grow in popularity..." This feature of clearity is essential (perhaps the most important feature) to good use of the language. Being "correct" is really only useful when it results in clearity, otherwise it would be merely an annoying trifle over which nitwits would argue. What , actually, is correct form in a living language which grows and changes daily? At best, it is difficult to regard "correct" as a settled matter. It will nearly always be up for debate.

Of course I'm referring to certain aspects of the language. One can certainly talk about "correct" if one is talking about how particular words are currently spelled, or if one is explaining to students that English verbs take an "-s" suffix in singular number, or that the plural of wife is wives rather than *wifes. Beyond features like that, however, most elements of form involve certain limited choices to be made by users, and the choices are generally made to improve clearity of meaning (at least in the user's mind). Before self appointed grammar police officers decide they are wrong, they would (in my view) be well advised to consider the whole situation under which the choice has been made. In the case of the BBC expression that started off this thread, I believe there is ample evidence for accepting it as opposed to rejecting it.

Larry Latham

[lolwhites]

I think we need to make a distinction here between correctness and acceptability here. Larry quite rightly points out that some aspects of the language are just plain wrong, but collocating lessen with price does not appear to fall into that category, although it certainly seems to be unacceptable (or just a bit weird) to some of the native speakers on this forum. We should also bear in mind that words and phrases considered "incorrect" or "unacceptable" a generation ago are commonplace today.

So, in the context of the EFL classroom, what are you doing to do if students writes about lessening prices? If you're going to tell them it's wrong, what are you going to say when they wave an article from the BBC, World Bank or Supreme Court in front of your face? "Sorry Kim, but I'm right and the BBC/World Bank/Supreme Court is wrong"? Kim would be perfectly justified in asking by what authority you were making that assertion.

I would suggest that the best advice would be to say "You'll see it, but there are more widely accepted ways of expressing the same idea and you'd best stick to those, especially if you're going to sit an exam." Native speakers can innovate and take risks with the language, students can't. Especially when they need an IELTS, TOEFL, FCE or BEC.

[ontheway]

Now that the issue of "hits" has been clarified. There remains the philosophical discussion of the role of ESL and grammar teachers.

Our students need langage that is widely used and accepted. They do not have the time for esoteric, exotic or controversial usages. They rely on their teachers to give them concise language instruction that will further their careers and lives. When words and expressions are vulgar, strange, convoluted, obtuse, faddish, unacceptable to significant communities or far out of the mainstream, we have a duty either not to teach them or to discourage their use after explaining their meaning.

Furthermore, it is not always necessary to explain "why" it is "wrong" tto the student. Students do not have the time nor the interest in hearing whether something is "incorrect" or "unacceptable". They generally prefer "black and white" answers ie. "This is wrong". I prefer to save my thunder to lecture in detail on why certain explatives and racial epithets (which students inevitably learn and love to use) are unacceptable and dangerous. There is an old saying: "When I ask what time it is, please don't tell me how to make a watch."

Any writer, and especially an ESL writer faces enough career obstacles without using language his or her manager might question. And since judges, and especially Supreme Court judges are often seen to be uneducated, political hacks by the business community, a 1938 court citation would only worsen the situation.

The expression "lessening prices" is not automatically clear. The fact that it rings alarm bells in the ears of many readers means the writing is awkward and leads to wasted time in reading and to questioning the writer's intended meaning and intelligence. If it wasn't awkward it wouldn't have been the subject of the original post. Long ago, my university English Composition professor took off 40 points, out of 100, for awkward writing. It was only 5 points for misspelling.

Finally, as for grammar police, I have no use for them. I teach my students that sometimes good grammar is bad English and sometimes bad grammar is good English. There are times when telling someone "Nope, I ain't neva gonna do it!" is perfect English. So, while highly educated linguisticians may revel in discussing exotic, esoteric formulations, for the real teachers of real students who are in search of practical training:

"Lessening prices" is wrong. It is bad English. The BBC was wrong. The World Bank writer was wrong. The Supreme Court writer (clerk or justice) was wrong. Do not use it.

[LarryLatham]

Now that the issue of "hits" has been clarified. There remains the philosophical discussion of the role of ESL and grammar teachers.

Our students need langage that is widely used and accepted. They do not have the time for esoteric, exotic or controversial usages. They rely on their teachers to give them concise language instruction that will further their careers and lives.

Bravo! I couldn't agree more. Learning to be capable of actually using a new language for practical purposes will be one of the most life-changing skill most students will ever acquire. The academic niceties of English are not for ESL/EFL students.

When words and expressions are vulgar, strange, convoluted, obtuse, faddish, unacceptable to significant communities or far out of the mainstream, we have a duty either not to teach them or to discourage their use after explaining their meaning.

Ah, yes. But then it begs the question of who is to determine which expressions are vulgar, strange, convoluted, obtuse...
Is that really the province of the ESL teacher? Wouldn't clearity of meaning be a better guide, and reach, in most cases, the same conclusions on behalf of the student?

Furthermore, it is not always necessary to explain "why" it is "wrong" tto the student. Students do not have the time nor the interest in hearing whether something is "incorrect" or "unacceptable". They generally prefer "black and white" answers ie. "This is wrong".

This is demonstrably true in nearly every classroom. But could there be value in guiding students to more enlightened ways of viewing differences in language constructs? However much they may wish for "right" and "wrong" answers from their teachers, languages do not work quite that way regarding much of their structure.

I prefer to save my thunder to lecture in detail on why certain explatives and racial epithets (which students inevitably learn and love to use) are unacceptable and dangerous. There is an old saying: "When I ask what time it is, please don't tell me how to make a watch."

Then why lecture in detail at all?

Any writer, and especially an ESL writer faces enough career obstacles without using language his or her manager might question. And since judges, and especially Supreme Court judges are often seen to be uneducated, political hacks by the business community, a 1938 court citation would only worsen the situation.

I have no idea what this could mean.

The expression "lessening prices" is not automatically clear. The fact that it rings alarm bells in the ears of many readers means the writing is awkward and leads to wasted time in reading and to questioning the writer's intended meaning and intelligence. If it wasn't awkward it wouldn't have been the subject of the original post.

In the original post, the meaning of the BBC writing seems crystal clear to me. I wonder if you could suggest plausible alternative meanings that might occur to competent users, leading to "The expression "lessening prices" is not automatically clear."

Finally, as for grammar police, I have no use for them. I teach my students that sometimes good grammar is bad English and sometimes bad grammar is good English. There are times when telling someone "Nope, I ain't neva gonna do it!" is perfect English.

Bravo again! I fully agree with you here.

So, while highly educated linguisticians may revel in discussing exotic, esoteric formulations, for the real teachers of real students who are in search of practical training:

"Lessening prices" is wrong. It is bad English. The BBC was wrong. The World Bank writer was wrong. The Supreme Court writer (clerk or justice) was wrong. Do not use it.

"Finally, as for grammar police, I have no use for them."

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

The point is not that "lessening prices" has 255 or 308 hits (half of which incidentally are of the same press release on digital cameras that appears on lots of different sites verbatiim). The point is that it has 255 compared to 600,000 for the alternative "falling prices". When the more normal collocation is 2,500 times more common than the alternative then I have no compunction in saying the alternative is wrong.

Bear in mind that such unusual collocations as "handsome building" are 10% as common as the more normal "beatiful building" and you will see that ).04% of the norm for a collocation is insignificant.

[fluffyhamster]

Larry, have you been painstakingly "mistyping" 'clarity' as 'clearity' every time in the vague hope that someone (not me!) will take you to task over it (which will allow you to then respond with something like, "Did it interfere with communication at all?")?

[LarryLatham]

Larry, have you been painstakingly "mistyping" 'clarity' as 'clearity' every time...

Oops! Just never thought about it. Thanks for pointing it out, Fluffy.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

The point is that it has 255 compared to 600,000 for the alternative "falling prices". When the more normal collocation is 2,500 times more common than the alternative then I have no compunction in saying the alternative is wrong.

I guess the difference between you and me, Stephen, is that you would be quick to say it's wrong, whereas I would be happier to point out that it's not nearly as common.

But then, I've always been an admirer of the uncommon turn of phrase, because it is often ever so much more interesting than what everybody else always says, especially if it is clear in meaning, which is to say the user makes his point without confusion (as I believe the BBC has above). I only wish I could claim to be skilled in that way myself.

Larry Latham

[lolwhites]

OTW wrote:

. Students do not have the time nor the interest in hearing whether something is "incorrect" or "unacceptable". They generally prefer "black and white" answers ie. "This is wrong".

I know students prefer things to be "black and white", but, whether we like it or not, language simply isn't like that. Anyone who studies a language for long enough reaches a point when they simply won't improve unless they accept that real-world language comes in many shades of grey.

Teachers who take the easy way out of telling students things are black and white and real-world native-speaker language is simply "wrong" with no explanation given are just storing up problems for the next teacher. You do your students no favours in the long term by simply telling them what they want to hear.

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you teach, but I have known plenty of students who won't settle for me telling them "This is wrong"; in my experience they often want to know why.

[LarryLatham]

Totally agree!

Larry Latham

[JuanTwoThree]

Another thing is that it's English as a Foreign Language, for non-natives to use mostly among themselves . Which is teaching that only set expressions are acceptable or that students can be creative and inventive in order to communicate? Even if they come up with an unusual expression that might, oh horror, grate to some?

It's decades since the goal was to produce students who knew exactly who D¡ck Turpin or Johnny Appleseed were and could spend 4 hours in the pub spouting near-clichés before someone would say "Do I detect a slight accent?. It was unrealistic then and pointless now.

However, allowing odd though not wrong expressions from students (or even from young whippersnappers at the BBC) is not lowering standards. "Allowing" sounds too gracious anyway, as if innovation were the sole prerogative of the so-called " language owners", and not all of them even. It's just a recognition that English, or one type of it, is nowadays a tool for effective international communication, though not necessarily the best English imaginable.

[wjserson]

I personally think that one of Juan's points is a key point that illustrates my opinion as well:

"Allowing odd though not wrong expressions from students is not lowering standards."

We might not have a language dictator who's responsible for accepting/rejecting new phrases, but I'd guess (from other postings on this site) that some teachers take that exact role in the classroom. Some individuals have pointed out that, because there are alternatives or better examples to represent a semantic concept (such as lessening prices), a sentence can be "wrong".

I agree that teaching the best alternative is important if you want your student to be understood. It will make life easier for the student. But to identify anything that's "not good enough" as wrong/incorrect, when it could be gramatically correct, is not necessary. In this case, I would provide an alternative, not erase and replace.