Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Queen's English Is Dead

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted April 3, 2008.


Proper English is being supplanted by a language that reflects the lives of all the people who speak it.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

My Last Column
After 9 long years, it's time to move on. One final thought: don't ever stop ruthlessly criticizing everything that exists.
Jul 2, 2008

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die
The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Jun 20, 2008

Using Sci-Fi to Change the World
Science fiction isn't escapist; it can help us envision how to make the world a better place.
Jun 5, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

By the time English truly is a dominant language on the planet, it will no longer be English. Instead, say a group of linguists interviewed in a recent article by Michael Erard in New Scientist, the language will fragment into many mutually-unintelligible dialects. Still, some underlying documents will supply the grammatical glue for these diverse Englishes, the way Koranic Arabic does for the world's diverse Arabic spinoff tongues. English-speakers of the future will be united in their understanding of a standard English supplied by technical manuals and Internet media.

People like me, native English speakers, are heading to the ashcan of history. By 2010, estimates language researcher David Graddol, 2 billion people on the planet will be communicating in English -- but only 350 million will be native speakers. By 2020, native speakers will have diminished to 300 million. My American English, which I grew up speaking in an accent that matched what I heard on National Public Radio and 60 Minutes, is already difficult for many English-speakers to understand.

Hence the rise of Internet English. This is the simple English of technical manuals and message boards -- full of slang and technical terminology, but surprisingly free of strange idioms. It's usually also free of the more cumbersome and weird aspects of English grammar.

For example, a future speaker of English would be unlikely to understand the peculiar way in which I express the past tense: "I walked to the store." Adding a couple of letters (-ed) to the end of a verb to say that I did something in the past? Weird. Hard to hear; hard to say. It's much more comprehensible to say: "I walk to the store yesterday." And indeed, that's how many non-native speakers already say it. It's also the way most popular languages like the many dialects of Chinese express tense. The whole practice of changing the meaning of a word by adding barely audible extra letters -- well, that's just not going to last.

When I read about the way English is changing and fragmenting, it has the opposite effect on me than what you might expect. Although I am the daughter and granddaughter of English teachers and spent many years in an English department earning a PhD, I relish the prospect of my language changing and becoming incomprehensible to me. Maybe that's because I spent a year learning to read Old English, the dominant form of English spoken 1,000 years ago, and I realize how much my language has already changed.

But my glee in the destruction of my own spoken language isn't entirely inspired by knowing language history. It's because I want English to reflect the lives of the people who speak it. I want English to be a communications tool -- like the Internet, a thing that isn't an end in itself but a means to one. Once we all acknowledge that there are many correct Englishes, and not just the Queen's English or Terry Gross' English, things will be a lot better for everybody.

I'll admit sometimes I feel a little sad when my pal from Japan doesn't get my double entendres or idiomatic jokes. I like to play with language, and it's hard to be quite so ludic when language is a tool and nothing more. But that loss of English play is more than made up for by the cross-cultural play that becomes possible in its stead, jokes about kaiju and non-native snipes at native customs. (My favorite: said Japanese pal is bemused by American Christianity, and one day exclaimed in frustration, "God, Godder, Goddest!")

For those of us who spend most of our days communicating via the Internet, using language as the top layer in a technological infrastructure that unites many cultures, the Englishes of the future are already here. In some ways they make a once-uniform language less intelligible. In other ways, they make us all more intelligible to one another.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: multiculturalism, culture, internet, english

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Apr 3, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, OK Annalee. You hear a symphony of blended, creative non-native, futuristic but practical "Englishes". I hear one frightening bastardization after another. OMG, LOL and WTF are already words of a sort...but how do you say them? We have essentially lost the phrase, "So I said...", which has been replaced by the grindingly annoying and completely illogical,"I'm all..." or "I'm like...". Our kids speak an English littered with corporate buzzwords and catchphrases and movie quips, i.e.,, if one more a*****e says, "Houston, we have a problem..." I am going to do serious damage to his (it's usually a male with that one for some reason) ability to speak at all. Almost nobody bothers with words longer than three syllables anymore unless they are adding one that doesn't belong. Websters actually lists the non-word, "irregardless" now. Blithely casting off the mother tongue(s) of this world isn't just stupid the way VHR beating Betamax was stupid. It's stupid the way the loss of bio-diversity is stupid. I read a few years ago that the average American college student's vocabulary was down from 25,000 words to about 10,000. I was actually teaching some of these functional illiterates at the time. They wouldn't have known a complete sentence if you smacked them about the head with "Elements of Style" all semester long. If this keeps up we will only be able to say about 20 or 30 different things to each other, none of which mean anything or give any satisfaction to hear. Use of language can be an art (and a weapon, I suppose). Do we really look forward to a time when the sphere of the spoken and written has become just another bleak, dreary, exhausted and exhausting "marketplace". Oh yeah...I guess we are already there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jareilly Posted by: waltermoss
» RE: it's happened before Posted by: armorica
» RE: jareilly Posted by: talkville
» give me the first five years Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: jareilly Posted by: dgoza
1984
Posted by: e rice on Apr 3, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
destroy the word, destroy the concept.

black/white think.

doublethink.

language changes. this is a fact of life.

language changing because the next generation hasn't been taught vocabulary or grammar? fine for the powers that be. they will be quite happy to have ignorant saps who can't think straight, who can't understand what is actually said or written, and who can't express themselves at more than a three-year-old's level--because they haven't been taught the words, or the concepts, or how to communicate anything more compelling that their experiences at the mall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 1984 Posted by: willymack
Improvements Needed
Posted by: gradioc on Apr 3, 2008 6:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just hope that as the world reshapes English they come up with a standard for the plural 2nd person pronoun. The use of "you" as both singular and plural has bedeviled the language for centuries. German has a similar problem, but at least has the intimate tense of "du" to use instead of "sie". As a southern American I would, of course, prefer "yall" to win the fight, but "youse", "youens", "yall", whatever, let's just pick one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Improvements.... Posted by: morticia
» You Posted by: MikeOckhurtz
» RE: Improvements Needed Posted by: talkville
plethora of englishy stuff on the 1nt3rtub3s
Posted by: particle on Apr 3, 2008 10:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on! It's a treasure trove! For starters:

Early Modern English
"...And eythir slew othir thorow a dolerous stroke..."
Malory

Bislama
"Kastom hemi toktok blong gladhat blong ol gud wok blong ol pipol blong Vanuatu we hemi soem fulap difren kalja blong Vanuatu."
Vanuatu Cultural Research Policy

Singlish
"Singaporeans all very hard to please, one. They all ai pee, ai chee, ai tua liap nee."
Wikipedia

Middle English
"This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle,
And God it woot, that it is litel wonder;
Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder."

Chaucer

China, Olympics
"I like your smile, but unlike you put your shoes on my face."
"Your careful step keeps tiny grass invariably green"
Keep off the grass signs

Old English
" Ræd sceal mon secgan,      rune writan,
leo? gesingan,      lofes gearnian,
dom areccan,      dæges onettan."

Maxims

Kiteh
"Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem."
Genesis 1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And Scots Posted by: particle
» RE: And Scots Posted by: willymack
» RE: And Scots Posted by: particle
» RE: And Scots Posted by: e rice
» RE: And Scots Posted by: particle
reflective of what?
Posted by: wwittman on Apr 4, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bad English isn't reflective of a new citizenry.
It's reflective of a poor educational system.

English has always evolved and will continue to do so.
That has nothing to do with poor usage or simply throwing all rules (such as adding -ed for past tense) out the window.
That's just silly.

You may disdain "Terry Gross" English, but being able to understand actual English is what makes us able to read your column.
Even when you have nothing to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reflective of what? Posted by: willymack
» RE: reflective of what? Posted by: talkville
Bring it on
Posted by: Fruno on Apr 4, 2008 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love English - the one I know, current international standard English. Which is, I think, also literary English. I truly love my language ardently and enthusiastically, and never a day goes by when I don't spend a little time on my "monkey bars" - swinging and flipping around, amusing myself with unlikely new usages. I love English also as a thing of beauty, so full and versatile, so blithe and bonny, so incisive and thunderous in turn. I love to fondle words and phrases and sentences, the way my eyes fondle a favourite sculpture.

This is not to dismiss other languages. I also love French, which I am re-learning now, at age sixty. I wish I knew some Mandarin or something else totally foreign to me. If I live long enough, perhaps I can learn.

But I know that English must change. It would be a weird miracle if it did not. My only hope is that it retains its depth and agility, and adds to them. If our future language is full only of simplified expression, orphaned stumps of words, acronyms and brief syllables, then we will not be thinking in detail, nor communicating anything below our surfaces.

I doubt that this will ever happen. People need to express themselves, and could not tolerate a mute language. We old-timers who love traditional English may as well prepare for the deluge. At the risk of being the second person to regret this phrase, I say "Bring it on."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bring it on Posted by: e rice
» RE: Bring it on Posted by: calibrit
Seems strange, living and dying Language
Posted by: talkville on Apr 4, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes I feel the urge to send a correspondence or an e-mail, but it would be difficult to the level of impossibility of identifying recipients. They would include many in Theology, many in academic 'disciplines' (asceticisms?) in Philosophy Depts, English Depts, Social Sciences, Anthropologies, Economics, Political Sciences (let's just say: The Academy). It would include Theoretitians and Practitioners, Counselors, Therapists and Psychologists. Maybe it might be termed as "a socio-cultural correspondence" or something similar. Considering Answers and Solutions to be Provisional Questions, I would form it into a question:

Esteemed_________,

Are Names and Universals Things which Live? Do they act, speak, do, invoke, intend and maneuver? If so, I would very much like to meet them in your absence. I'd like very much to see what they look like, find out what drives them, learn their ways of life and life-styles. Get to know them, you know? It would be a good thing for you, since then you wouldn't have to Interpret and Translate for them, listening to them and then telling me what they said or did. Perhaps then I wouldn't be so confused and always mis-understanding what's related!

You keep telling me that this God, or IBM or Language or this History spoke to you and you alone and that I must trust you. But forgive me, but I don't trust you, you always seem to be holding back a Secret or something; as if there's something you're not telling me. What I keep seeing and experiencing all around me just doesn't seem to match what you keep telling me. Someone is lying! I don't know who, but it's a strange feeling I get.

I sense myself experiencing an end to this correspondence. Please excuse my impertinence. Perhaps it;s just a mis-understanding at stake? I wonder what it means? Perhaps I might ask Science directly; maybe he or she might grant me an interview and I could ask him or her some questions I've been dying to get answered!

Sincerely,
Spectacle B. Skeptical

cc: God, Love, History, Language, Poetry, Science, et al and not excluding Unknown.

p.s.: Please feel free to categorize this or file it under "Miscellaneous" unless, of course, you crumple it all up and toss it in the waste-bin.

Cheers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is new?
Posted by: hagwind on Apr 4, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you've spent any time communicating with people from other regions of the U.S., or across various English-speaking countries, you already know that the use of certain idioms can lead to confusion, incomprehension, and occasional hilarity. Same goes for generations, and ethnic groups, and different social classes. If you read books written in previous centuries, you're accustomed to making translations in your head, and maybe not understanding some of what you read, and almost certainly not understanding it exactly the way one of the author's contemporaries would have.

Good writers and editors consider the intended audience(s) as they work and make their choices accordingly. A writer might choose to use certain words, idioms, and acronyms in order to exclude certain people from her audience, or to throw them off-balance. Anyone who says, "But everyone knows that!" probably doesn't have a very diverse circle of acquaintance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is new? Posted by: talkville
The more things change...
Posted by: Democritus on Apr 4, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who love the English language have their work cut out for them if they want, not only to speak correctly, but also to convey feelings and provide new insights. In this regard, English is rigid when compared to French or other Romance languages. Yet we native speakers must make do with what we've got, and it's no wonder we attempt to expand our linguistic horizons by adding a little pop to our prose, no matter what the source.

What the internet promises to do is something my elementary school principal tried but failed to do, which was to teach us to use Basic English. The idea was to facilitate communication without all the bells and whistles. Those who pressed the cause of Esperanto had the same goal. Where those attempts failed, internet-speak might succeed. Who knows what linguistic delights await us when we grind English down to its essentials? Perhaps we could even stop agaonizing about which pronoun to use in a sentence such as, "Everyone went his/her/its(?) own way," and still be politically and grammatically correct.

So I say, bring on the new linguistic revolution. If it fails of its purpose, as Basic English and Esperanto did, maybe it will fail better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» that wasn't my opinion Posted by: e rice
English is dying because of unqualified language teachers
Posted by: arthur_ide on Apr 4, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fled the USA because of the lies and deceits of George W Bush and knew the nation was dying. I moved to Peru and accepted an appointment as a professor of the English language at a school in Lima--known as Langrow. What a mistake! The Academic Dean, Mariella Macera, hires people only because they are "native English speakers" regardless of education or background--some are orientals who worked as dishwashers in New York City restaurants, some are retired farmers, and similar professions. Worse yet, her two daughters who bleed the institute of money to attend Boston Univeristy, come back and merrily tell the students that grammar, spelling, and other elements of the language are no longer relevant, while James Knight tells me to teach Spanglish and hold classes only for the time allotted, assign no homework, and forbid the students to contact me by email or telephone (all injunction which I ignored until I quit because the school never had money in the bank to pay wages).

The English language may be "growing" by some standards, but in reality it is transmogrifying into a hideous, odious mesh of gobbledegook that is unintelligible. Those who are congratulated for having advanced linguistic skills barely reach 90 on a TOEFL, and the teachers seldom get above 92. But Langrow is not the only offender (certainly with ICPNA it is among the worse places to learn the language), as the universities are equally bad, using street language to teach aspiring teachers, doctors, and other professionals. It is common to hear "Can I help you?" (a querry as to whether or not the person offering assistance has the physical ability) instead of "May I help you?" (a querry as to the opportunity to offer assistance). In China, I correspond with a man who claims to be a professor of English at one of the major universities at Wuhan, and it takes me nearly two hours to figure out what he writes in an email of 21 words: "Up story talk come" is but one example (translation: visit me and we can talk).

Those who argue that we must be current in conversation are those who within ten years will not be understood or understand other people who "speak English." It is the misuse of words that lead to the disaster Bush Oil for War when he addressed Congress and declared a crusade (which in Arabic means the slaughter of women and children), or Obama's linguisitic imperfection "typical white person" which negates the value of an individual and lumps he or she in with all others.

English is dead, and within my final years I expect the language to have no meaning and the days of Babel to be repeated. Gibberish is the future, and intellect and progress will be the dying victim of immediacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the educational system is not to blame
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 4, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The demise of English--and other languages, I suspect--is not due to "the failed educational system," as some would argue. Education is competing with commerce and technology for the minds of young people and is losing. Bill Gates's vision of education is winning: kids (and later, adult workers)chained to technological devices and fiddling mindlessly with gadgets from morning til night. Why read a book, for heaven's sake, when texting doesn't require the least little bit of brainpower? I teach college and it is appalling how verbal skills and social skills have deteriorated since the internet, computer games, and cell phones came along. Not only can't kids express themselves in inteligible English, they can barely interact with other people. Technology is destroying the ability to follow the rules that make language and social interaction work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We'll be OK
Posted by: jwhitneywise on Apr 4, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There have always been dialects of English, many of them intelligible, and there always will be. Of course our written language will change over time. Our situations change so we need to describe them differently. But, to say that some sort of truncated pigeon language will dominate is ridiculous. Coming from a school that had a lot of international students, I have to say they spoke way more "Terri Gross-like" than we Americans did. The elites and those with means will always uphold the standard of the language regardless of how it changes to meet the needs of its speakers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spelling conventions need to be simplified
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 4, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spelling conventions need to be simplified for the benefit of those learning English. In California, we have millions of people who don't speak or read English at a 4th grade level. Perhaps if we standardized spellings, this would make learning to read and write in English easier. Consider the following: kite/night, phone/fish, shun/ attention/admission, new/through/blue, reed/read, red/bread, etc...

There are thousands of other examples. For the sake of millions of children growing up in homes that don't use English, simplified spellings would go a long way towards giving students access to the code; to literature, to content areas, to academic success.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO! Posted by: suprmark
Speaking as...
Posted by: calibrit on Apr 4, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
someone who grew up in Oxford, and graduated from Cambridge University with a Double First in English, and is a keen Scrabble player... (yadda yadda yadda lol omg!):

I had to learn US English when I moved to the US. There are thousands of subtle differences. The only "standard English" there has ever been is the standard of a particular social class in a particular country. That doesn't make the effort to impose some standard wrong, just consciously provisional. NPR English (though I'm fascinated by the notion) is no more "standard" than my own dialect.

There is a "creative commons" in the middle of these dialects, that speakers of each can use and share. It may once have been based on the Queen's English; now it might be based on standard American business English; next century it might be based on the English of Hong Kong or New Delhi. Then, instead of my adjusting to your dialect to communicate, you and I would be having to adjust to someone else's.

I go to South Africa and read the "English-language" paper, and it is full of loan-words from Afrikaans and !Xhosa and Zulu and Hindi. I go to I Can Has Cheezburger and Cute Overload and see whole new dialects developing there ("Dis my 'hooman before coffee in teh morning' impressionz").

All one needs to communicate is an agreement with one's interlocutor as to the common standard one will use. And as we go on, the English language will keep rippling out, until like Latin or literary Welsh or Sanskrit or Quranic Arabic or Old Slavonic, it is no longer spoken every day in a recognizable form, but is still held in respect as a literary language.

Do we need to be trained in that literary language? You betcha, to the highest degree possible. Should we expect everyone to use it? Not on your life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as the state of the language goes, so goes the nation
Posted by: sensei on Apr 4, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ms. newitz: i am quite relieved to read that so many people disagree with your apparent delight in the demise of the english language. i, too, teach those (bless their hearts) "functional illiterates" in college freshman english classes every day, and it depresses, discourages, and infuriates me no end that kids cannot communicate in writing... and barely in speaking. They are, however, very good at the text messages. The disciplines of grammar and vocabulary are good for more than just writing essays; they really do help critical thinking.
of course, the language should evolve, though i must confess, i love reading english the way shakespeare writes it. nevertheless, what seems to be happening is that our native tongue is de-volving and not the other way round.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Apr 4, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No use in complaining about the misuse of language. The media have already killed both pronunciation and precise meaning. And there's the rub: precise meaning. Sometimes, that really is the way to go.

On the other hand, language is dialect, and dialect grows bottom up, isn't handed down from the "top". Some words or expression are priceless in that there isn't any other way to say precisely the same thing: bummer, far out (or FFO), and a few others from the 60's earn inclusion by being irreplaceable, but have lost favor because each generation wants its own cool expressions and drops those of their elders. I, at 80, still say "neat" and not from the 80's or whenever it had a brief resurrection, but from the 30's. I still say bummer, automatically, knowing full well that today's young are sneering inside, and probably today's middle-aged as well. Language is a living thing, and best not to be too invested in what we "know" is right. Just so communication doesn't suffer in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mick3 Posted by: photon's feather
gee I thought gringos spoke AMERICAN
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 4, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
& not ENGLISH.


English has always had a heavy influence from use & a pragmatic influx of foreign languages.


Americans go out of their way to butcher it for the sake of COOLNESS.

The Merchants of Cool
...sure, some might call it art... but then...

who are we kidding?

they slavishly mispronounce Arctic as OUR DICK & can't differentiate between their common mispronunciation of MISSILE from the MISSLE used to baptize...

excuse me while I roll my eyes.


Sure L’Académie française is a pain in the ass, but at least they have STANDARDS by which they define the language...

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: if he succeeded in communicating Posted by: photon's feather
» Yeah, well, you Canadians... Posted by: morticia
» sucks to be you. Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
» RE: gee I thought gringos spoke AMERICAN Posted by: liberalibrarian
» its all about priorities Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
It's not JUST non-native speakers who butcher the language..
Posted by: olderworker on Apr 4, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several of my co-workers, born and bred in Boston, say "so doesn't she" when they mean "neither does she" and say "I have spoke to you" rather than "I have spoken to you".

Although I was never an English major, these errors grate on my ears!!

Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kind of missed the point
Posted by: dkm on Apr 4, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many of these posts demonstrate a lack of "can read and interpret written English." The whole point of the article is that there is no¨"correct" English, only various types that are approved by different social groups. The French and the Spanish have their academies that by fiat decide what is proper French and Spanish, but English has no governing body, and the French and Spanish experience show that it is futile to try. In Spain a Latin American is considered subhuman for his inability to speak "proper" Spanish and in Latin America, people are too polite so say anything to your face, but official Spanish pronunciation is the basis for a whole genre of jokes.

Ranting and raving about how the language is decaying for lack of proper education is a pastime that has occupied the idle rich since before Chaucer. The most famous recent satire about the penchant for ne'er do wells to wrap themselves in horror is the Broadway adaptation of GBS's Pygmalion. As the line goes, "In America they haven´t used it in years." So it ill behooves any American to bewail the loss of proper English.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kind of missed the point Posted by: lensman_z9m9z
The Queen's English?!
Posted by: photon's feather on Apr 4, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, the Queen's English may be dying, but American English is thriving. (Most Brits can understand American better than the average American can understand British - or Australian, or Irish, or Scots.)

I had heard that American English is still growing in popularity. Non-native speakers of English who learn British English in school want to learn American. Films speed this: one of our biggest exports is film (movies and television).

Internet English? Equivalent to pidgin, a sort of 'bridge' language that is greatly simplified, particularly grammatically: the first generation speaks it, but the next, because of early exposure to the new language, does not need the 'bridge,' but learns the standard form along with their native language - and they even learn idioms. (Compare it with the way immigrants learn their new county's language: the immigrating adults may never get beyond a simplified version, while the next generation knows no such limitations.)

In the case of the internet, the next generation may suffer a bit of a handicap, as they must wait to read the new language. However, I doubt that will be an insurmountable obstacle - especially as the internet increasingly allows users the opportunity to speak and hear the people with whom they communicate.

Some of the article appears to be about jargon/cant. These are nothing new.

There has always been jargon in English, such as technical jargon. There has also always been argot (cant), such as the well-known Cockney of Old London, which not only still survives, but has spread - all the way to America, (for example). However, speakers who employ jargon or argot do not forsake the standard form of the language: instead, they shift between the two, just bilingual people shift between two languages.

English has always known great change, though, and is a very flexible language. This has always been English's great strength: it accommodates - even embraces - change, (historical, social, technological, etc.,) and so is itself changed. It is an open language: when a new word is needed, English-speakers have no problem with the idea of importing one from another language or simply coining a new one. (Think of how its cousin, German, endlessly recycles old ones. It may make for an easier time learning vocabulary, but...)

True, it has become simplified over time. Happily we don't have genders, outside of pronouns; and we're not saddled with declensions. However, there is a limit to simplification: too much simplification can mean a loss of precision and lead to confusion. Unlike the author, I do not relish the idea of saying, "I walk to the store yesterday." Time is an important concept for humans, and I believe our language ought to reflect that.

What we need in English is reform of our spelling system. This is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for all who want to learn to read and write English - including native speakers. Pronunciations have changed over time, but spelling remains fixed. If we no longer pronounce the 'k' or the 'gh' in 'knight,' why must they be retained in the spelling? (Archaic spelling may be of interest to English historians, but it is a royal pain for beginning readers/writers.)

Once you learn the spelling system of most European languages, you can pronounce virtually any written word - even the lengthiest. But English? Through, though, tough, cough, bough... (Any others?)

This is the great contradiction within English: its spelling has been fixed through centuries, while other aspects have shifted and changed.

Give us an article written by a linguist, please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Queen's English?! Posted by: calibrit
» RE: The Queen's English?! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: The Queen's English?! Posted by: calibrit
» americans Posted by: e rice
» RE: americans Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: The Queen's English?! Posted by: morticia
Commodification of communication anyone?
Posted by: jwhitneywise on Apr 4, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody think our language is deteriorating because we pay by the letter to text? Or that our constant mobile communication means we just talk to each other so much that we just don't have anything of substance to say anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For big phun just watch Shameless on Sundance
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 4, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm very proud of my ability to comprehend most accents of English speakers (native and non-native alike). Scots and Manchesterian along with other (mid-lander?) accents still tend to confound me to no end.

I love it. The messiness and localization of language makes for more complexity. I'm more inclined to fear standardization and the loss of nuance and complexity than fear the "loss" of any sort of "proper" language, even English. I rail against the Academy for it's snotty "correctness" even as I applaud it for trying to maintain their intellectual "superiority" in terms of language. I'd always rather have more ways of expressing myself than less.

Besides, if everyone adopted a standard in 'Merkuh, I guarantee that it'd be the typical 'Merkaaner stoopids like "nookyuhler" that would replace common-sensical "nuclear" and then my head would positively explode.

One thing I just don't get yet about the article, though, Annalee, is the whole notion of the internets as the technical standard. huh?! Please explain this in your next article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR? Please, how much more elitist can you be?
Posted by: MikeOckhurtz on Apr 4, 2008 9:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the world's English speakers don't sound like they could speak an article of some boring liberal elitist drivel on NPR. Thank christ for that. This article was a typical NPR piece of what I call a waste of space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question is, *is your communication effective and productive, and does...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 4, 2008 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it help further your goals?*

If I owned an auto shop, I wouldn't give two hoots in hell if the hired sweeper asked *what dis' be* all day long, as long as he showed up on time and swept well.

The problem with talking in pop-speak, ghetto-speak, or with an overly-pronounced southern drawl/northeastern nasalness is that people make inferences.

Thus, for spots in which you represent your company, your *what dis be*, *hiyall doins*, *roflpwns* make you a liability. And, well...liabilities get cut loose out in the real world, kids.

My advice as someone who has enjoyed being stereotyped: take latin, foreign languages, live in other parts of the country, mellow your regional dialect, and think...then think again...before you open your mouth. Beyond that and for language arts, stick to what you learned in sixth grade, and you'll be head and shoulders above the *wut dis be*, *yawl cum back*, *grit wether tahdy, eh*, and *lolwtfe* crowd, at least for other than hometown jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perspective
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Apr 4, 2008 11:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Learning an archaic form of English sheds light on just how artificial some of the schoolmarms' restrictions really are.

The double negative, for instance: I've actually found quadruple negatives in Chaucer. And in many languages, for example Russian and French, using a double negative for emphasis is perfectly good idiom.

The same goes for "ain't" as a contraction for "am not." The fact that something is found in every dialect of English from Yorkshire to Kentucky should indicate that it was normal English before the schoolmarms got their hands on the language.

Most of the spurious "rules" we have now (of which Chaucer and Shakespeare were in regular violation) were invented by the grammarians of the English Renaissance and the lexicographers of the Augustan Age.

The real barbarians who are destroying our language are the advertising industry, journalism, and bureaucracy (using "impact" as a verb is one of my pet peeves).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]