In her editorial column in today's Guardian Siobhan Butterworth brings a well-worn language debate out for another airing. The debate focuses on the use (or rather misuse) of the phrases "bored of" and "disinterested in", among others. Butterworth gives a clear explanation of the 'correct' (as prescriptivists would have it) uses of these phrases and of the debates surrounding their misuse, but ultimately makes her own - more descriptivist - views plain by observing that "at some point we have to let go and accept modern usage or risk sounding clumsy, or worse, pompous".
Arguments like these about changes in what is considered to be 'standard' usage are the stuff of which Language Debates (ENA6) and the Language Change element of ENA5 are made, so it's worth considering your own views on these issues.
Monday, 28 July 2008
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Shows potential but lacks the necessary application...
I found this article rather amusing - it's about the language of school reports and how it has changed over the course of the last few hundred years. Charlotte Moore, the writer of the article published in yesterday's Guardian, clearly has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek when she discusses the differences between the language of her 10-year-old son's 21st century report and that of the school reports of the likes of Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Stephen Fry (actually Stephen Fry hasn't been given a knighthood, but surely it can only be a matter of time...?).
Putting the article's humorous approach to one side for a moment, though, it does make some important points about language and representation, and about changes in language that can probably be attributed to the PC movement. For 'relaxed', suggests Moore, read 'bone idle', while if your teacher describes your behaviour as 'challenging' it is highly likely that you are considered to be something of a pain in the proverbial. Moore argues that these kinds of linguistic changes have arisen out of schools' fears of litigation, but it's debatable whether such changes in language really change the way people interpret the message. Determinists would, of course, say that they do, while their reflectionist friends would argue that the changes in language are symptomatic of changes in the way in which educationalists think.
Have a look at the article and decide for yourself. You might also want to have a look at some of your own recent school or college reports and have a go at interpreting the language along the lines suggested in the article!
Putting the article's humorous approach to one side for a moment, though, it does make some important points about language and representation, and about changes in language that can probably be attributed to the PC movement. For 'relaxed', suggests Moore, read 'bone idle', while if your teacher describes your behaviour as 'challenging' it is highly likely that you are considered to be something of a pain in the proverbial. Moore argues that these kinds of linguistic changes have arisen out of schools' fears of litigation, but it's debatable whether such changes in language really change the way people interpret the message. Determinists would, of course, say that they do, while their reflectionist friends would argue that the changes in language are symptomatic of changes in the way in which educationalists think.
Have a look at the article and decide for yourself. You might also want to have a look at some of your own recent school or college reports and have a go at interpreting the language along the lines suggested in the article!
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Time to call time on "chav"?
Smells like another language debate is in the air. In an article published in yesterday's Guardian Tom Hampson calls for the word 'chav' to be banned. His argument is that this word is "offensive to a largely voiceless group and – especially when used in normal middle-class conversation or on national TV – it betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred". He goes on to say that "the common use of the word chav creates a sense that this type of discrimination and stereotyping is acceptable and legitimate", arguing that in fact the word is no less offensive than any number of racist or otherwise bigoted terms that most of us, thankfully, would never even dream of using. Hampson's plea is that we should "not replace the racist or bigoted language of the past with a new set of words that are just as hateful", and that we should, in fact, ban the word 'chav' altogether.
But not everyone agrees with this solution to the problem. In a response to Hampson's article publshed in today's Guardian Unlimited, Zoe Williams argues that banning words like 'chav' is pointless, because this does not address the real issue - i.e. the inherent snobbery amd prejudice that the word reflects. In an attack on the methods adopted by the PC movement in the 1980s and 1990s, Williams says that "the old strategies of striding around, banning bad words, did their job, but have had their day". Expressing what amounts to a reflectionist viewpoint (remember this from Language and Representation?), Zoe Williams is arguing that language reflects our views rather than shaping them (as a determinist would argue), and that the problem is not really the word itself (although she does agree that it's not a very nice word) but the bigoted attitudes of the people who use it.
Why not have your say? Post a comment below, or start a new thread in the VLE discussion forum.
But not everyone agrees with this solution to the problem. In a response to Hampson's article publshed in today's Guardian Unlimited, Zoe Williams argues that banning words like 'chav' is pointless, because this does not address the real issue - i.e. the inherent snobbery amd prejudice that the word reflects. In an attack on the methods adopted by the PC movement in the 1980s and 1990s, Williams says that "the old strategies of striding around, banning bad words, did their job, but have had their day". Expressing what amounts to a reflectionist viewpoint (remember this from Language and Representation?), Zoe Williams is arguing that language reflects our views rather than shaping them (as a determinist would argue), and that the problem is not really the word itself (although she does agree that it's not a very nice word) but the bigoted attitudes of the people who use it.
Why not have your say? Post a comment below, or start a new thread in the VLE discussion forum.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Is modern language a load of hyperbolics?
Someone recently said that modern society has turned into one giant marketing campaign.
OK, nobody has actually said that, but if they had said it then it's almost certain that what they'd have meant by this is precisely what journalist Finton O'Toole argues in today's edition of The Irish Times. In his opinion piece, which you can read here, O'Toole claims that hyperbole is "rampant" in our modern language. Using a rather topical metaphor he refers to this as "the inflation of language, the hyping-up of the ordinary into the extraordinary, the mundane into the epic".
What O'Toole is saying is that we seem to no longer talk about everyday things in neutral terms, but instead we feel the need to 'big everything up'. No longer do we talk about sporting fixtures... instead we see 'epic battles' of 'heroic proportions' between 'the legendary X' and the 'almighty power that is Y'. Whilst the kind of examples that I've just given are really quite harmless, O'Toole does make a point about some arguably (albeit unintentionally) more offensive uses of hyperbole. And although he concludes his argument with the deliberately ironic hyperbolic observation that the use of such language is "horrific, cataclysmic, disastrous and apocalyptic", O'Toole's real - and very serious - conclusion is that "this relentless hyperbole is corrosive". It seems to me that the logic of his argument cannot be contested: if we use all our superlatives up on everyday matters, there won't be any left to use when talking about those events that are truly 'awesome' or public figures who really are 'iconic'.
Far be it from me to try to influence your views, but I have to say that I don't entirely disagree with O'Toole's argument (thought I'd redress the balance with a bit of litotes there...).
What do you think?
OK, nobody has actually said that, but if they had said it then it's almost certain that what they'd have meant by this is precisely what journalist Finton O'Toole argues in today's edition of The Irish Times. In his opinion piece, which you can read here, O'Toole claims that hyperbole is "rampant" in our modern language. Using a rather topical metaphor he refers to this as "the inflation of language, the hyping-up of the ordinary into the extraordinary, the mundane into the epic".
What O'Toole is saying is that we seem to no longer talk about everyday things in neutral terms, but instead we feel the need to 'big everything up'. No longer do we talk about sporting fixtures... instead we see 'epic battles' of 'heroic proportions' between 'the legendary X' and the 'almighty power that is Y'. Whilst the kind of examples that I've just given are really quite harmless, O'Toole does make a point about some arguably (albeit unintentionally) more offensive uses of hyperbole. And although he concludes his argument with the deliberately ironic hyperbolic observation that the use of such language is "horrific, cataclysmic, disastrous and apocalyptic", O'Toole's real - and very serious - conclusion is that "this relentless hyperbole is corrosive". It seems to me that the logic of his argument cannot be contested: if we use all our superlatives up on everyday matters, there won't be any left to use when talking about those events that are truly 'awesome' or public figures who really are 'iconic'.
Far be it from me to try to influence your views, but I have to say that I don't entirely disagree with O'Toole's argument (thought I'd redress the balance with a bit of litotes there...).
What do you think?
Friday, 11 July 2008
Siarad Cymraeg...?
There's a bit of a language debate going on in the pages of the WalesOnline website this week. It's all about the proposals to expand the provision of Welsh-medium education in Cardiff, as reported here earlier this week.
In 2003 the Welsh Assembly Government published its National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales, but only recently has a coherent strategy for Welsh-medium education been established. This has resulted in an increase in the number of schools teaching primarily (or, in some cases, solely) through the medium of Welsh.
The strategy has polarised the opinions of people living in Wales. In an opinion piece published in the South Wales Echo yesterday, Dan O'Neill speaks out against the "language loonies" and argues that the average citizen of Cardiff is "being bulldozed and bullied into a culture no-one here cares much a damn about". Mr O'Neill's view is that speaking Welsh is of little real benefit to anyone, and he argues that "our schools should be used for all-round education, they should be preparing kids for a tough life... they should not be pandering to a Welsh-speaking elite".
Today's South Wales Echo features a response to Mr O'Neill's opinion piece, written by Meirion Prys Jones, chief executive of the Welsh Language Board. Mr Prys Jones argues that there are "many advantages to being able to speak two (or more) languages... children are able to enjoy two (or more) cultures, and are able to mix and communicate with a wider variety of people". He also points out that "the fact that parents continue to campaign for more Welsh-medium and bilingual provision proves how successful the education is in these schools", citing studies that "show that children who study through the medium of Welsh do just as well, if not better, at school".
Interesting debate... and the stuff of which ENA6 is made! Watch the pages of WalesOnline over the next few days - you can bet there'll be more people pitching in with their own views on the matter.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
Is 'fashion' undergoing new trends or going down the maxi?
Maybe it's because the fashions are going around a time loop and keep coming back (-and I should know because I was wearing maxi dresses back in....ah no, that would be giving it away!) that fashion writers are finding new fashions in language instead. Lisa Armstrong clearly had a good time writing her article for the Times today - check it out here. Spot the uses of the word 'fashion' and the 'on trend' use of fashion terms - what do you think? Is she being creative and genuinely using 'fashion' in new ways or is she recycling? Mind you is the latter a good thing too? After all green is the new black!
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Storm Brews over Translation Proposals
They say there's no accounting for taste, and this is never more true than when talking about views on language use. Ask ten people to identify what they consider to be the most heinous 'language crime' and you'll probably get ten different answers. Different people's attitudes towards language use are as varied as their tastes in music or their favourite colour... and just as hard to account for.
Take, for example, the polarised reactions to plans to translate the Bible into Patois, the unofficial language of Jamaica. As reported in this article that appeared in last week's Telegraph, there are those who welcome the proposals, arguing that Patois is a "powerful tool of communication" among the vast majority of Jamacians and that there is "nothing wrong with translating the Bible into someone's native tongue". Those who oppose the plans, however, claim that "errors could be made, and essentially what is translated is not necessarily reflecting the true meaning of the Scriptures".
At the heart of this controversy lies a very common language debate. Many people are of the opinion that there are certain places in which standard English should be preserved - and, along with law, medicine and the world of education, the Bible is one such place. It's important to bear in mind that Patois is an unofficial language (English being the official language of Jamaica) and, as the article tells us, "only recently have the middle and upper classes been speaking it in public". So it would seem that this debate boils down to the age-old battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists, a fight between those who wish to preserve the standard form of language in formal contexts such as the Bible and those who see language variation as inevitable, desirable and part and parcel of everyday life.
So what do you think? Should texts like the Bible be translated into non-standard linguistic varieties? Should we do the same with, say, Shakespeare, or legal documents, or school and college text books? I'd be interested to hear your views... please feel free to express them in whatever linguistic variety you prefer.
Take, for example, the polarised reactions to plans to translate the Bible into Patois, the unofficial language of Jamaica. As reported in this article that appeared in last week's Telegraph, there are those who welcome the proposals, arguing that Patois is a "powerful tool of communication" among the vast majority of Jamacians and that there is "nothing wrong with translating the Bible into someone's native tongue". Those who oppose the plans, however, claim that "errors could be made, and essentially what is translated is not necessarily reflecting the true meaning of the Scriptures".
At the heart of this controversy lies a very common language debate. Many people are of the opinion that there are certain places in which standard English should be preserved - and, along with law, medicine and the world of education, the Bible is one such place. It's important to bear in mind that Patois is an unofficial language (English being the official language of Jamaica) and, as the article tells us, "only recently have the middle and upper classes been speaking it in public". So it would seem that this debate boils down to the age-old battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists, a fight between those who wish to preserve the standard form of language in formal contexts such as the Bible and those who see language variation as inevitable, desirable and part and parcel of everyday life.
So what do you think? Should texts like the Bible be translated into non-standard linguistic varieties? Should we do the same with, say, Shakespeare, or legal documents, or school and college text books? I'd be interested to hear your views... please feel free to express them in whatever linguistic variety you prefer.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Who wants to be a Millionaire?
Apparently the English language does... and according to the Global Language Monitor it will achieve its ambition on 29th April 2009, for that is when this group of "linguistic experts" predict that the one-millionth word will be coined in our language.
This article in today's edition of the Scotsman tells us that at the last count there were 995,844 words in the English language and that the GLM have calculated that "a new word is created every 98 minutes". Now, leaving aside for the moment the obvious question 'How exactly have they calculated this?' (and, if you want to be cynical, 'Why?'), the GLM's observations do raise some interesting points if we think back to the subject of last week's Custard Creams and Muffin Tops post. You'll remember that this post looked at the list of new words that had been added to the latest edition of the Concise OED, noting that "it's always interesting to see which words the dictionary makers deem worthy of an entry in their latest edition". Bearing in mind that this new edition of the Concise OED updates the edition published two years previously, using the GLM's figure of one new word every 98 minutes, a grand total of 10,726 (and a half) new words will have entered our language in the time between the publication of these two editions (and yes, I really did spend my time working that out...). Surely this begs the question why only a handful of these new words have made it into the dictionary?
Perhaps this points to the transience of many of the new words and phrases that enter our language, and/or to the fact that the use of many coinages is restricted to relatively small groups and specific contexts. Some of the comments that have been posted in response to the Scotsman article have some interesting things to say about this.
This article in today's edition of the Scotsman tells us that at the last count there were 995,844 words in the English language and that the GLM have calculated that "a new word is created every 98 minutes". Now, leaving aside for the moment the obvious question 'How exactly have they calculated this?' (and, if you want to be cynical, 'Why?'), the GLM's observations do raise some interesting points if we think back to the subject of last week's Custard Creams and Muffin Tops post. You'll remember that this post looked at the list of new words that had been added to the latest edition of the Concise OED, noting that "it's always interesting to see which words the dictionary makers deem worthy of an entry in their latest edition". Bearing in mind that this new edition of the Concise OED updates the edition published two years previously, using the GLM's figure of one new word every 98 minutes, a grand total of 10,726 (and a half) new words will have entered our language in the time between the publication of these two editions (and yes, I really did spend my time working that out...). Surely this begs the question why only a handful of these new words have made it into the dictionary?
Perhaps this points to the transience of many of the new words and phrases that enter our language, and/or to the fact that the use of many coinages is restricted to relatively small groups and specific contexts. Some of the comments that have been posted in response to the Scotsman article have some interesting things to say about this.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Custard Creams and Muffin Tops
Where can you see slebs, neets and non doms all in the same place? The new edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, that's where.
It's always interesting to see which words the dictionary makers deem worthy of an entry in their latest edition. Of the vast array of slang terms and coinages that burst onto the English language scene in any given year, those that are chosen for a place in print offer a fascinating insight into the issues, fads and fashions that are currently of the greatest significance in society. Whether the accolade of appearing in the dictionary points to - or even encourages - the longevity of a given term is another matter though; while I feel safe predicting that custard creams are here to stay, I can't imagine that muffin tops as a linguistic term will last much beyond the fashion that gives rise to this physical attribute.
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph published the full list of new words added to the 11th ediiton of the Concise OED. Have a look and let us know which other current words and phrases you think should be added to the dictionary.
It's always interesting to see which words the dictionary makers deem worthy of an entry in their latest edition. Of the vast array of slang terms and coinages that burst onto the English language scene in any given year, those that are chosen for a place in print offer a fascinating insight into the issues, fads and fashions that are currently of the greatest significance in society. Whether the accolade of appearing in the dictionary points to - or even encourages - the longevity of a given term is another matter though; while I feel safe predicting that custard creams are here to stay, I can't imagine that muffin tops as a linguistic term will last much beyond the fashion that gives rise to this physical attribute.
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph published the full list of new words added to the 11th ediiton of the Concise OED. Have a look and let us know which other current words and phrases you think should be added to the dictionary.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
On the other hand...
In yesterday's Relatively Speaking post I talked about some research that seemed to offer evidence in support of the theory of linguistic relativity. As part of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, this theory makes the assumption that language and thought are inextricably linked and that one cannot exist (in the form that we know it) without the other. The evidence from the study pointed towards the conclusion that language and thought cannot be separated.
Simple enough? Apparently not. An article appearing yesterday on the Wired Science blog network reports on the findings of a recent language study carried out by psychologist Susan Goldwin-Meadow. The study focuses on the translation of simple sentences into hand gestures and observes that speakers of SVO language (those whose sentences follow the order of subject-verb-object - e.g. Bill eats cake) almost universally switch the order to subject-object-verb when communicating with their hands only. So in the example I've just given, someone communicating by gesture would probably point at Bill, then point at cake, then mimic the action of eating. Goldwin-Meadow claims that this suggests "the independence of language from thought". What she's saying is that the structure of language cannot be an immediate product of our thought processes because our gestures almost always fall back on a different structure. This, of course, completely contradicts the conclusions of the study I was discussing in yesterday's blog - but it does support some of the key theories of language acquisition that we're going to be exploring for Unit 6 (ENA6) of the A2 course and in Unit 1 (ENGA1) of the new AS level course. Have a look at the article and see what you think.
Simple enough? Apparently not. An article appearing yesterday on the Wired Science blog network reports on the findings of a recent language study carried out by psychologist Susan Goldwin-Meadow. The study focuses on the translation of simple sentences into hand gestures and observes that speakers of SVO language (those whose sentences follow the order of subject-verb-object - e.g. Bill eats cake) almost universally switch the order to subject-object-verb when communicating with their hands only. So in the example I've just given, someone communicating by gesture would probably point at Bill, then point at cake, then mimic the action of eating. Goldwin-Meadow claims that this suggests "the independence of language from thought". What she's saying is that the structure of language cannot be an immediate product of our thought processes because our gestures almost always fall back on a different structure. This, of course, completely contradicts the conclusions of the study I was discussing in yesterday's blog - but it does support some of the key theories of language acquisition that we're going to be exploring for Unit 6 (ENA6) of the A2 course and in Unit 1 (ENGA1) of the new AS level course. Have a look at the article and see what you think.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)