Is English "degrading" or just changing?

Great Debates
1

So enough of you complained about my lack of grammar conventions when posting, and while I still think it’s stupid that I heard so much about it, I know when I’m beaten.

But it’s gotten me thinking. Every so often you hear cranky professors complaining about how English has been degrading, especially in the US, and especially in the 20th century. The issue was debated hotly when they tried to introduce Ebonics into some public schools in the 70s, and the proliferation of Internet/text message speak, both written and spoken, often raises the issue again.

I have very limited experience studying linguistics, but one of the first things I was taught in that class was that the idea of a “standard” accent or dialect of a language is more or less an invention of whomever has the most power socially, and in the end I think I agree that no variant of a language - Cockney versus London English, southern vs. northern in the US, or Quebec as opposed to Parisian French - is inherently any more “proper” or “grammatical” than another.

Which applies to written language, too. A lot of aspects of what are considered “proper” writing are things like capitalizing letters at the beginning of sentences, which at the end of the day are pretty arbitrary - to my mind, anyway, an uncapitalized post presents no difficulty to understanding the substance of a written statement, nor do many missing punctuation marks. Of course there should be written standards, for literature or journalism, say, but why should a written colloquium like a messageboard be held to a different standard than a spoken one, where all sorts of “non-standard” language is par for the course?

Elitists like William Strunk, Jr. like to complain about words being “misused” when really they’re evolving - to me, all the bitching and moaning about English “degrading” is just patronizing nonsense. All dialects are grammatically coherent and are evolving no matter which old guard wants to adhere to archaic and arbitrary rules. Your thoughts?

P.S. I want to point out that I’m not trying to piss anyone off who was telling me to capitalize - this board has a style sheet, and I get that. The comments got me thinking, that’s all. I’m honestly not out to offend anybody, and I myself don’t take the issue very personally. Fire away.

2

Degradation in and of itself of a language doesn’t really make sense to me. Something like that has to be in context; you can’t just have an innate standard for a language.

Really, the only thing you need to take into account as far as “positive” and “negative” language, in my book, is communication. Do you get your point across? Is it understood? Have you annoyed the other person? If not, great, you’ve used language well. But even that isn’t down to some innate standard.

3

Proper capitalization and punctuation is extremely helpful in the flow and understanding of a text. Without it, reading and comprehending something can become difficult because everything just becomes one big string of consciousness, written down. And to call the standards for the written word “arbitrary” shows an incredible lack of appreciation for our language.

4

Changing. You can find people as far back as the 1300s complaining that the language is sliding downhill at breakneck speed. If they thought it was crap back then, what hope would we have now. Except by all accounts, we’re doing great. We even have more words and can discuss and communicate ideas with greater specificity than ever. If this is a topic that interests you, I highly recommend David Crystal’s The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left

5

I guess, but a lot of spoken conversations are like that, aren’t they? Someone’s written grammar might not be perfect, but an individual’s quirks in writing can be seen as an expression of their personality, which would lend a much more personal feel to a written conversation the same way someone’s idiosyncrasies would contribute to a spoken one.

6

A big difference is that a written conversation is decoded by the reader at their leisure. Spoken conversations are repetitious and vague. Sentences will lack subjects or objects and the speakers hearken back to unspecified but shared antecedents. That is less appealing in written discourse because there is no real-time constraint preventing deeper and more complete understanding. It’s a good exercise to, the next time you are on a bus or outside in public, get out a notebook and transcribe an overheard conversation. You will most likely be surprised at the way people really talk.

That being said, punctuation and capitalization can be used or left out for great stylistic effect.

“Oh,” I said quietly.

has a rather different feel than

-oh- i said quietly.

and it’s silly to limit our palette from these, often more interesting, shades of verbiage. (But it doesn’t hurt to think of traditional spelling and punctuation as monochromatic and good to master before trying too much funky stuff.

7

As one of the 7 email forwards my mother sends me daily pointed out:

"Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse. "

8

Fair point, but the word “of” would do the same thing.

9

This is just crazy talk.

People in the English-speaking world are substantially MORE literate, and their English much more standardized, than at any other point in the entire history of our language. Yes, I get irritated by bad use of apostrophes and people who write “loose” when they mean “lose,” but as English skill goes we’re at a high point in terms of the average English user.

People have been whining especially about Americans polluting the language since, at least, the 18th century, and yet there is not an ounce of logic or reason behind that complaint.

Now, that isn’t to say that everyone should write like Cormac McCarthy’s dog. There is something to be said for clarity and I, personsally, find poor English really distracting. But the situation, on the whole, absolutely is not worse than it used to be. It’s better.

10

I’m just curious, what arbitrary decision made you put that comma in your sentence?

11

I agree with you, but they do complain. Elements of Style is a good example, as are annoying conversations with my dad. It’s not sweeping the nation or anything, but it does come up, just as it has for centuries - I guess I happen to be most familiar with more recent complaints.

As for that comma, I would have paused there if I were speaking that sentence aloud, so I figured the written sentence should reflect that. Who cares?

12

So far as I can tell, that comma is correct. (You’re joining two independent clauses with a conjunction.) It’s certainly how I would punctuate that sentence.

13

English is evolving. Bear in mind, though, that 99% of evolution is death. When it comes to language, that means that most new suggested words, spellings, and deviations from grammatical convention should be met with a resounding “Nah, that’s stupid.”

Good new words etc. should be incorporated into the language readily (a good recent example is “schadenfreude”), but let’s not go nuts.

14

Yep, the comma is correct.

Language changes, and as a journalism and English student I learned the “proper” way to do everything, and now a lot of that has changed. I find it endlessly fascinating and I hope to always keep up with the new and unusual ways we express ourselves.

The only exception is when people use “of” when they mean “have,” it makes me want to smack someone!:smiley:

15

A lot of unconventional phrasings and spellings and pronunciations can still get the point across just fine. But stuff like “your” and “you’re” and “its” and “it’s” being used incorrectly - I think there’s no excuse for that shit. It totally distorts and obscures the meaning of things and it should be called out at every single opportunity.

16

The first thing you need to do is learn what the rules are so you can make conscious decisions about when to break them.

17

Good luck. Calling that stuff out at every opportunity would be a full time job.

Here’s a confession, I have a friggin’ journalism degree and “its” and “it’s” has tripped me up my whole life. I’ve read and reminded and studied it forever, but still… Perhaps I’m not as smart as I’ve always told everyone.:slight_smile:

18

Except that within the context of most sentences, all other things being equal they don’t totally distort and obscure.

“I like you’re house”

“Your going out tonight?”

“What it’s name is I’m not sure but I bet its in the dictionary.”

These are all irritating but perfectly comprehensible. There are of course specific instances where mixing up the terms can cause confusion as you say. I think there are just some terms that bug us and others that don’t. None of us is ever going to be 100% consistent with our written language and thanks be to whatever for that.

19

Ah, but see, what are the rules?

I understand that there are rules for a standard, i.e. written form of the language, and there should be. But regional dialects, for example, will deviate from the standard constantly without being incorrect. The “have/of” issue, for instance. At this point plenty of dialects have developed where, according to that grammar, one says “of” where a standard speaker (or at any rate one versed in a different dialect) would say “have” and it has that same meaning. It’s not incorrect, really, and the meaning is understood.

So whether that dialect has a place in the formal written language is one issue. But even in a more casual environment like this, someone who talks about their “could of, would of, should ofs” would probably be judged for that usage, but then this is a conversation, and aren’t they just saying what they know? Everyday speech in a certain dialect doesn’t say anything about someone’s level of intelligence or even their education, and I think the widely-held (innocently or not) belief that it does is the result of snobbery.

20

Here. If this doesn’t help, nothing will.