Just hanging around

While trawling through today's news pages for interesting material for the blog, this editorial article jumped out at me. Now, if the sentence that I've just typed fills you with horror because of its sheer grammatical ineptitude, then you will probably be in agreement with David Mackie's views on the hanging participle (AKA the dangling participle). And if you didn't see anything wrong with my first sentence then it would be worth your reading Mackie's article to find out what it is about this construction - and others like it - that many people find so abhorrent.

The problem (as far as the strictest rules of grammar are concerned) is as follows: the first clause's present participle verb form 'trawling' appears in that clause without an agent (the 'do-er' of the verb), so it is assumed (again, by the strictest rules of grammar) that the agent of the verb in the second clause (the 'editorial article' that 'jumped') is also the agent of the particple verb in the first clause - there being no other agent mentioned (in this example, at least). The 'while' in the first clause supports this, implying as it does that one action ('to trawl') takes place alongside another action ('to jump'). Now, because these two verbs actually have different agents ('me' and the 'editorial article' respectively), the construction is, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. With me so far?

Now, those of you that are still awake and still reading at this point in the argument might well be thinking 'What does it matter? It's obvious from the context that it wasn't the 'editorial article' that was doing the 'trawling' - and not just because it is an inanimate object'. That might be what some of you are thinking... others of you might be thinking 'Shut up Jones, I'm bored now - and anyway, haven't you got anything better to be doing during your summer holidays than sitting at your computer writing dreary blog entries about grammar?'. Well, in the interest of preserving self-esteem I won't address the latter of these hypothetical comments (and no, it's not because the answer is 'no'), but in answer to the first comment I would say that I agree... to an extent. Certainly editorial articles don't do much at all in the way of physical action (although by means of personification we have seen them 'jumping out', but we'll leave that to one side for now), but what if the agent of the second verb had been a person - for example 'While trawling through today's news pages for interesting material for the blog, the missus brought me a cup of tea'. Now it's not clear who was doing the trawling - me or my long-suffering other half. See the confusion... and the source of the prescriptivists' consternation?

Grammatical pedantry or reasonable cause for linguistic outrage? Admittedly this is a debate with a very narrow focus, but it's the kind of thing that comes up all the time when considering language attitudes, as we will be in unit ENA5. It's up to you to decide where you stand.

Early signs of language

It is a widely-made observation among language acquisition specialists that babies who are deaf and/or whose parents are deaf frequently sign their first word at a much earlier age than hearing children speak theirs. The average age at which hearing children say their first word is about 12 months, whilst deaf children have been known to make their first meaningful sign as young as 3 months old. According to this article published in today's Sun newspaper that 'record' has now been broken by a two-month-old baby who reportedly makes the sign for 'milk' when she is hungry.

It is not entirely clear why deaf babies generally sign earlier than hearing babies speak, but for my money one of the most plausible arguments centres on issues to do with basic articulation: as a baby having to learn how to control the various parts of your own body, it is arguably far easier to co-ordinate your hands and make meaningful signs than it is to position all of the 'precision apparatus' that makes up your vocal tract (tongue, teeth, lips etc.) and make accurate, meaningful speech sounds.

You say tomato...

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.