The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is anyone else disappointed by declining standards in spoken English in Britain?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Original post by whyumadtho
There are various dialects across the country and I still don't know why you have a specific problem with this dialect per se. The Syndicate on BBC demonstrates the dialect and accent seen in parts of Leeds, for example. Everyone has an idiosyncratic intonation to their voice; it's how you are capable of identifying people from the sound they produce alone.

My point exactly. You don't know how the behave in different situations. There are obviously substantial portions of the population who can understand them, else the dialect wouldn't be so salient.


Such a shame that the speakers of this glorious dialect have made themselves utterly infamous through astronomical crime rates and lack of intelligence.

Well, we can make educated guesses on how ordinary people will view them can't we, and it won't be favourably. Also, doesn't really matter how they behave in certain situations, if they behave in an animalistic manner outside of the house but turn into lovely chaps in the house, that has no bearing on the behaviour that others have witnessed/suffered.
Reply 121
Original post by Apocalyptic Fish
When I see all the negative rep on the OP, I start to question the sanity of some people on here.


It's hip to like gangsters atm. I guess cos they're so oppressed. =(
Original post by Bonged.
no, per se its what i actually said, its a mix.
But you said the non-standard use of English does not concern you unless there is a criminal element involved. If an upstanding member of the community used such a dialect, what reason do you have to dislike them? Why are you unconcerned by people who do not know how to use possessive apostrophes correctly? Does this not indicate the person is uneducated and therefore likely to be a criminal individual?

I grew up with these "people" I know their average intelligence and that it is frightfully low.

:pierre:
I have many friends who have progressed into law, medicine and various other intensive degrees who speak using the dialect in question. As I have told you in the past, dialects are spatial and the absorption of one salient spatially-contingent trait, especially when it is harmless, does not necessitate the concurrent absorption of whatever other salient spatially-contingent traits that may or may not exist in the area.
Original post by Bonged.
Such a shame that the speakers of this glorious dialect have made themselves utterly infamous through astronomical crime rates and lack of intelligence.
I favour the individual, not the uninvolved and unrelated others.

Well, we can make educated guesses on how ordinary people will view them can't we, and it won't be favourably. Also, doesn't really matter how they behave in certain situations, if they behave in an animalistic manner outside of the house but turn into lovely chaps in the house, that has no bearing on the behaviour that others have witnessed/suffered.
We're discussing language here, Bonged.—keep up. Who is 'ordinary'? There are dialects across the country that may be unintelligible to persons unaccustomed to them, but that doesn't suggest the speakers are themselves unintelligent.
Reply 124
Original post by whyumadtho
But you said the non-standard use of English does not concern you unless there is a criminal element involved. If an upstanding member of the community used such a dialect, what reason do you have to dislike them? Why are you unconcerned by people who do not know how to use possessive apostrophes correctly? Does this not indicate the person is uneducated and therefore likely to be a criminal individual?

I have many friends who have progressed into law, medicine and various other intensive degrees who speak using the dialect in question. As I have told you in the past, dialects are spatial and the absorption of one salient spatially-contingent trait, especially when it is harmless, does not necessitate the concurrent absorption of whatever other salient spatially-contingent traits that may or may not exist in the area.


No, get a grip and stop viewing what I say in such a pedantic manner. It sounds spectacularly moronic to everyone apart from the people that use it and tsrian libtards.

Erm, evidence for this?
Reply 125
Original post by whyumadtho
I favour the individual, not the uninvolved and unrelated others.

We're discussing language here, Bonged.—keep up. Who is 'ordinary'? There are dialects across the country that may be unintelligible to persons unaccustomed to them, but that doesn't suggest the speakers are themselves unintelligent.


Want a cookie?

Quite, but there won't be dialects in cities that are utterly unintelligible to people from the same city, as we see in London. So fail really. :pierre:
Original post by Bonged.
No, get a grip and stop viewing what I say in such a pedantic manner. It sounds spectacularly moronic to everyone apart from the people that use it and tsrian libtards.
Then why doesn't every dialect? People also ridicule received pronunciation and denigrate 'posh' people. There is no objective standard of speech.

Erm, evidence for this?
The evidence is everywhere. There is not sociocultural homogeneity between any two individuals and not all persons residing in inner-city London speak using this dialect and/or are criminals.
Original post by Foo.mp3
It's bad enough hardly hearing an English word on a trip through parts of your home city (London), or, when you do hear it, it's spoken in "this language which is wholly false, which is this jamaican patois that's been intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country" (Starkey, 2011). Hearing it start to 'intrude' on the BBC is, for me, still more disquieting..

Here is a letter of complaint I've just sent to them:

Having once been a bastion for proper English it seems that the BBC is now so keen to demonstrate diversity that it actually risks contributing to the decline in standards in spoken English in the 21st century.

I was watching the BBC Weekend News, the national news mind, and was disappointed to hear the reporter, Naomi Grimley, pronouncing several words as one might expect a slang-speaking South London schoolgirl to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17720269

The words: “Independent” and “effect” end in a ‘T’, “Labour” is not pronounced ‘LAYBA’, and “ever” is not pronounced ‘EVA’.

This sort of thing is not congruent with the rich and exemplary tradition of the BBC in this domain, and I think that (news) program producers need to take a view on this. Positive discrimination/equal opportunity are all well and good, but the number one priority must surely be high standards and a high quality of service?


Does anyone else agree that this sort of thing is a shame/concerning, or is this fundamentally unimportant in modern Britain?

Where do we draw the line between comedy RP newsreader accents of the early 20th century and having people who wouldn't sound out of place in Kidulthood reading the news?

(would be handy to state your own standard of English/cultural background in posting, for context e.g. my spoken English is decent and I'm from a white, middle class/suburban North London background)


I think that it is right to embrace diversity, yet something as neutral as the BBC should set an example - an example of English language as it should be.
I am a white middle class girl from the heart of Yorkshire - I do not speak in the Yorkshire dialect but in standard English. Although it is fairly abnormal to speak 'well' in Yorkshire I never have a problem being understood.
This factor is central to the BBC, they should be understood under all circumstances, and if different dialect creep into the BBC then soon the news will be incomprehensible.
Reply 128
Original post by whyumadtho
Then why doesn't every dialect? People also ridicule received pronunciation and denigrate 'posh' people. There is no objective standard of speech.

The evidence is everywhere. There is not sociocultural homogeneity between any two individuals and not all persons residing in inner-city London speak using this dialect and/or are criminals.


Which you don't have a problem with. Interesting that you choose to defend certain forms of speech but not others. A bias perhaps? Never! :biggrin:

Unacceptable. Evidence is required to back your claim.
Original post by Bonged.
Want a cookie?
Why are you using the actions of unrelated others to justify your point?

Quite, but there won't be dialects in cities that are utterly unintelligible to people from the same city, as we see in London. So fail really. :pierre:
That isn't new. Cockney rhyming slang isn't particularly intelligible to individuals who do not speak using that dialect, is it?

There are several heavy dialects across the country, most notably (in my perspective) in Scotland. It is unqualified to suggest everyone will understand the accents in any city other than London.
Reply 130
Original post by whyumadtho
Why are you using the actions of unrelated others to justify your point?

That isn't new. Cockney rhyming slang isn't particularly intelligible to individuals who do not speak using that dialect, is it?

There are several heavy dialects across the country, most notably (in my perspective) in Scotland. It is unqualified to suggest everyone will understand the accents in any city other than London.


I'm using the actions of a majority of people that use that bastardised form of language. not the very, very few nice individuals who are in fact very nice when they get home. lol.

Irrelevant as cockney is extinct.

Throughout cities in England, people can understand each others dialects as the dialects they speak are native to those cities. An upper class mancunian can easily understand a working class mancunian. A non-jafaican speaking londoner can't really understand jafaican. Though I do like the word dench, it seems to encapsulate the utter stupidity and banality of jafaican.
(edited 11 years ago)
I'd like to see a dictionary with only words that came from this island in it. Quite small, I should imagine. Add to it, words that have not changed (in pronunciation, spelling, or meaning) since they have been conceived, and it would be even smaller. Language will always evolve. Especially English, whose dictionary comes from such a wide range of sources and with such a vast array of spelling 'rules' (all with exceptions), that it's a wonder anyone manages to learn it...
Original post by QI Elf
Sorry, how is he relevant here?


Your posts are basically copying him. Also you might be interested in this.
Original post by Foo.mp3
It's bad enough hardly hearing an English word on a trip through parts of your home city (London), or, when you do hear it, it's spoken in "this language which is wholly false, which is this jamaican patois that's been intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country" (Starkey, 2011). Hearing it start to 'intrude' on the BBC is, for me, still more disquieting..

Here is a letter of complaint I've just sent to them:

Having once been a bastion for proper English it seems that the BBC is now so keen to demonstrate diversity that it actually risks contributing to the decline in standards in spoken English in the 21st century.

I was watching the BBC Weekend News, the national news mind, and was disappointed to hear the reporter, Naomi Grimley, pronouncing several words as one might expect a slang-speaking South London schoolgirl to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17720269

The words: “Independent” and “effect” end in a ‘T’, “Labour” is not pronounced ‘LAYBA’, and “ever” is not pronounced ‘EVA’.

This sort of thing is not congruent with the rich and exemplary tradition of the BBC in this domain, and I think that (news) program producers need to take a view on this. Positive discrimination/equal opportunity are all well and good, but the number one priority must surely be high standards and a high quality of service?


Does anyone else agree that this sort of thing is a shame/concerning, or is this fundamentally unimportant in modern Britain?

Where do we draw the line between comedy RP newsreader accents of the early 20th century and having people who wouldn't sound out of place in Kidulthood reading the news?

(would be handy to state your own standard of English/cultural background in posting, for context e.g. my spoken English is decent and I'm from a white, middle class/suburban North London background)


And she misses 't' on 'amount'. Well done.
Reply 134
Original post by Foo.mp3
It's bad enough hardly hearing an English word on a trip through parts of your home city (London), or, when you do hear it, it's spoken in "this language which is wholly false, which is this jamaican patois that's been intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country" (Starkey, 2011). Hearing it start to 'intrude' on the BBC is, for me, still more disquieting..

Here is a letter of complaint I've just sent to them:

Having once been a bastion for proper English it seems that the BBC is now so keen to demonstrate diversity that it actually risks contributing to the decline in standards in spoken English in the 21st century.

I was watching the BBC Weekend News, the national news mind, and was disappointed to hear the reporter, Naomi Grimley, pronouncing several words as one might expect a slang-speaking South London schoolgirl to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17720269

The words: “Independent” and “effect” end in a ‘T’, “Labour” is not pronounced ‘LAYBA’, and “ever” is not pronounced ‘EVA’.

This sort of thing is not congruent with the rich and exemplary tradition of the BBC in this domain, and I think that (news) program producers need to take a view on this. Positive discrimination/equal opportunity are all well and good, but the number one priority must surely be high standards and a high quality of service?


Does anyone else agree that this sort of thing is a shame/concerning, or is this fundamentally unimportant in modern Britain?

Where do we draw the line between comedy RP newsreader accents of the early 20th century and having people who wouldn't sound out of place in Kidulthood reading the news?

(would be handy to state your own standard of English/cultural background in posting, for context e.g. my spoken English is decent and I'm from a white, middle class/suburban North London background)


Hear hear.
Original post by Bonged.
Which you don't have a problem with. Interesting that you choose to defend certain forms of speech but not others. A bias perhaps? Never! :biggrin:
Do you have a short attention span? Stick to the topic and reply properly.

Unacceptable. Evidence is required to back your claim.

nice individuals who are in fact very nice when they get home. lol.


By the fact you used 'most' and 'the majority'—despite them being inaccurate and unsubstantiated—you accept not all persons who use this dialect are criminals and therefore acknowledge my point that there is not a necessary concurrent acquisition of criminal traits with linguistic ones.

I'm using the actions of a majority of people
Evidence.

that use that bastardised form of language.
They are unrelated and therefore unrepresentative of others.

not the very, very few
Evidence.

Irrelevant as cockney is extinct.
It's not irrelevant, as it demonstrates the fact this is not a novel phenomenon.

Throughout cities in England, people can understand each others dialects as the dialects they speak are native to those cities. An upper class mancunian can easily understand a working class mancunian.
Evidence.

A non-jafaican speaking londoner can't really understand jafaican.
Evidence.

Though I do like the word dench, it seems to encapsulate the utter stupidity and banality of jafaican.
Do you dislike all neologisms? What about the term 'bootylicious'?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 136
Original post by whyumadtho
Do you have a short attention span? Stick to the topic and reply properly.




By the fact you used 'most' and 'the majority'—despite them being inaccurate and unsubstantiated—you accept not all persons who use this dialect are criminals and therefore acknowledge my point that there is not a necessary concurrent acquisition of criminal traits with linguistic ones.

Evidence.

They are unrelated and therefore unrepresentative of others.

Evidence.

It's not irrelevant, as it demonstrates the fact this is not a novel phenomenon.

Evidence.

Evidence.

Do you dislike all neologisms? What about the term 'bootylicious'?


I find it describes your grandmother quite accurately. :pierre: :dunce: :rolleyes:
Reply 137
Original post by supercalifragilist
The BBC has for sometime moved away from RP, this is because it's seen as undesirable, pretentious and out of touch (WHYYOUNOUNDERSTAND) It's incompatible with the modern british audience. The BBC have to appeal to the majority of viewers, which sadly are not the good old prescriptivist language warriors, so please deal with the fact the BBC is using regional accents rather than that elitist old drivel called 'RP'


Utter bull. It's so difficult to listen to a regional accent without wanting to stick pins in my eyes.
Original post by Bonged.
I find it describes your grandmother quite accurately. :pierre: :dunce: :rolleyes:
I can't say the same about yours. :nope:
Reply 139
Original post by whyumadtho
I can't say the same about yours. :nope:


pfft. my grandma brings all the boys to the yard. :tongue:

Latest