| Author |
Message |
    
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 2:40 pm: |     |
This is a related subject that I am interested to hear your opinions.
It seems like everyone from athletes, to entertainers, to the President is having a tough time with the English language these days. Even anchors on some news programs use slang phrases and TV includes curses on regularly programed shows.
My question is why has there been such a deterioration in the quality of the language that we use to communicate with each other? Also, how do we expect kids to learn how to speak, read, and write properly when popular culture exposes them to this garbage on such a regular basis? |
#9Dream
Citizen
Username: 9dream
Post Number: 540
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Television news reporters have been making mincemeat of the English language for ages. How many times have you heard a reporter say something was "controver-see-al" instead of "controversial?" (It's a "sh" sound folks.)
They also love redundancies like "raging inferno" and "brutal murder." |
crazyguggenheim
Citizen
Username: Crazyguggenheim
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Call me crazy, but the state of the English language sucks, man.
Call me crazy |
ian
Citizen
Username: Ian
Post Number: 136
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 4:42 pm: | |
Eh, this is one of those things, I think, that every generation of emerging fuddy-duddys gets fussed about. Back in the late fifties, parents and upstanding citizens everywhere were convinced that the English language was going down the tubes because people said things like "right on!" or "Groovy!".
Language is constantly evolving and is no more a static entity than pop culture or literature. Imagine the doomsayers when people started switching from "thee and thou" to "you and your", yet here we are, still basically a literate society where only pretentious dorks say "thee" or "thou".
While I understand intellectually that language and the use thereof is fluid, I still cringe when I hear things like the Gap ad where a group of stoop-sitting hipsters ask Madonna and Missy Elliot "Where ya get them jeans?" This usage speaks to the difference between ephemeral linguistic blips (like the popularity of "yo" as a postscript to every.single.sentence. uttered by some teens) and genuine linguistic illiteracy based on ignorance or poor education. The Gap ad illustrates the former (it's a trend!) and GWB's frequent linguistic flubs illustrate the latter. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 62
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 5:24 pm: | |
Maybe the difference is that changing from "thee" to "you" is just a change in vocabulary, while "Where ya get them jeans" is a complete destruction of the grammatical structure of the language. That is what bothers me and worries me. Kids who learn to speak and read well hear adults speak well. How can we expect children to learn how to speak properly when so much of what they are exposed to in popular culture uses grammatically butchered english. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 186
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
reminds me of an old joke:
a Northern woman and a Southern women meet by chance at some women's event. the Southern woman asks the Northern woman: "Where ya'll from?" The Northern woman replies: "From a place where we don't end sentences with prepositions."
The Southern woman never blinks, responding only, "Where ya'll from, bitch?"
and at least these criticized communications actually MEAN something - unlike the vacuous corporate jargon/double-talk that has become so common.
|
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
As my English teacher in High School used to opine, the English language started out with ughs and grunts, ascended to the heights of Marlowe and Shakespeare, and ever since has been descending back to its roots of ughs and grunts. |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 33
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
I am somewhat torn on this subject. On the one hand, I despise the deterioration in language coming from both ends of our societal spectrum. Most of it is attributable to simple mental laziness: why bother to think of and use the proper words when you can just make things up? For example, why would some corporate boob talk about "giving our employees incentives," when he could more easily say "incentivizing our employees?" Instead of using a verb and a noun, as we all should have been taught in grade school ("give incentives"), just invent a new verb from the noun ("incentivize"). Why use a complete sentence with an adverb ("Get home safely") when you can shorten the adverb into an adjective and speak in code, cutting in half the amount of syllables you have to say ("Safe home")?
On the other hand, language is not only evolving, it is also based on consensus. There is no "correct" grammar in the abstract; "correct" is what society deems correct at any given moment. Twenty years ago, I would have choked on the word "prioritize," but I must admit I have used it because it has become accepted in the lexicon. The only languages that do not evolve are the ones that are dead. |
Mr. Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 337
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
It's probably more complex than that, mfpark. Not everyone spoke like Marlowe and Shakespeare. In fact, I bet they didn't speak the way they wrote. The ughs and grunts have probably existed throughout time. Therefore, I'm not convinced about any rise and fall.
Tom Reingold
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
I personally hate the butchering of adverbs, like you said Peirce B. And the over use of "good" for "well" is atrocious. Oh, and while I'm at it, the use of "me" instead of "I" even from grownups is horrifying (Me and Johnny went to town" Ugh!) |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 34
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
ffof, the decline of the adverb is an especially sore point with me. Popular culture seems to favor turning all adverbs into adjectives so that we don't have to spend the energy of saying an extra syllable -- that pesky "-ly." Example: the Dunkin Donuts cup that says "Cool Down Quick." Ugghh! |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 188
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
ay yay yay. butchering? atrocious? HORRIFYING?
yeah, it's a little funny when people say "She gave it to Johnny and I", but really. how upset is it reasonable to get over this? horrified? seems a little extreme.
this reminds me of a woman with whom I work, who is always up in arms about people "butchering" the word "which" when they should be using "that" and vice versa.
when she gets fired up about this and other (alleged) grammatical and linguistic errors, it makes me wonder if she has enough to do. |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 261
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
not being from around here originally, I observe that American spoken English is declamatory in style; it is more like shouting as opposed to speaking in it's rythm and content. I do not know whether this is because of the decline in literacy or of this is causing it.
It occurs to me that when you shout you are less likely to pay attention to the correct structures in language.
eg "DUCK!!"
as opposed to "you should lower your head due to an incoming missile" |
stefano
Citizen
Username: Stefano
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
It is a problem, which we all must face. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
how old are your kids, 1-2many? It is indeed horrifying when the kids come home with graded papers from middle and high school and these things are not corrected. I constantly correct my kids (I pretend to not understand what they are trying to say until they say it correctly). Obnoxious? THey think so, but it works! |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 189
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
ffof - NOW you are talking about something different - which is teaching incorrect grammar, or failing to teach correct grammar. I agree that that is horrible. to answer your question, my kid is 14. I believe her teachers are often wrong or are failing or way behind in their curriculum and teachings - and I tell her that, in addition to whatever grammatical oversights on the teachers' parts I can see.
It seemed to me that the complaint was really how people speak (not whether their papers are graded well or correctly). Spoken English is always colloquial, except for really stuffy types, gaffes and malapropisms are always made (and are often good entertainment), and sub-cultures always come up with their own dialects.
as you seem to being a linguiphile (?), and assuming you aren't put off by lesbianism, you may enjoy the movie Kissing Jessica Stein - it's really engaging for a word- or grammar-lover. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 64
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
But there is a correlation between the way one speaks and the way one writes. Furthermore, if a student cannot distinguish between colloquial conversational English and formal written English, he/she will be doomed when it comes time to express his/her thoughts and ideas in class, at work, during a presentation, or on any sort of interview.
Incidently, this was one of the most disturbing things I encountered when doing a teaching internship at Christopher Columbus HS in the Bronx where most of the students spoke in what most would consider "Ebonics". It struck me that almost regardless of how smart some of the students were, they could not get full credit for that intelligence and comprehension on standardized tests and teachers often stopped grading grammar because it seemed hopeless. Furthermore, that pattern of speech is promoted almost universaly in hip-hop music and popular black culture. Black kids who do speak without the distinctive rhythm, tone, grammatical structure, and vocabulary are often characterized as "talking white". 1-2many says, "sub-cultures always come up with their own dialects" and this is probably true. It is essential then that this strand of young popular black culture drop the image of itself as a sub-culture and join the mainstream. Language is one of the main things that unite a people and is a terribly important aspect of human society. If the goal of integration is going to be acheived this gap needs to be bridged. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 6:40 pm: | |
newjerz- and therein lies the problem! Now big generalization ahead, but...Blacks (young teenager tpes mostly) want their "own identity" (since they think that mainstream is 'acting white'), but in the end it's mainstream that is what they'll ultimately be a part of, like it or not. With such a heavy influence of rap, they are being brainwashed into not realizing this. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4982
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 1:22 am: | |
Good take on the Bush language thing...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html
quote:George W. Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English language.
What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language -- especially negatively charged emotional language -- as a political tool. Take a closer look at his speeches and public utterances and his political success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others.
Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration.
While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and theologians, such as Josef Pieper.
But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in political discourse and in such "hot media" as talk radio and television.
Bush uses several dominating linguistic techniques to induce surrender to his will. The first is empty language. This term refers to broad statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are virtually impossible to oppose. Empty language is the emotional equivalent of empty calories.
Just as we seldom question the content of potato chips while enjoying their pleasurable taste, recipients of empty language are usually distracted from examining the content of what they are hearing. Dominators use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and "reframe" opposing viewpoints.
Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech contained 39 examples of empty language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and skyrocketing health care costs, Bush summed up: "No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit." The multiple fiscal and monetary policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized to: "The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place." The controversial plan to wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: "We will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people." In an earlier study, I found that in the 2000 presidential debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in their debates.
... more
|
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 8:15 am: | |
Dave: Thanks for sharing this link. Here is the kicker to the article where Brooks tells us how to counter the empty rhetoric and rhetoric of fear:
Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the "national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004.
Renana Brooks, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Washington, D.C. She heads the Sommet Institute for the Study of Power and Persuasion (www.sommetinstitute.org) and is completing a book on the virtue myth and the conservative culture of domination. Reprinted with permission from the June 30 issue of The Nation.
|
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 194
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
I think the deterioration of our language is just a small side effect of the deterioration of our culture and values. |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 35
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 9:38 am: | |
Dave, that was an excellent description of the tactics used not just by Bush but by some of the posters (and, especially, former posters) on this board. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 196
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
this MUST be part of the reason for the free ride conservatives get in the media. thanks, Dave, for the link; hopefully the author's suggested solutions will help enable opposition to fight the judgmental, blame-riddled but empty speech of W and other conservative leders. |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 66
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 10:05 am: | |
Dave, thanks for changing the subject. I think that link more appropriately belonged in the "I just heard Bush say . . ." thread (the first one) |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page