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

Someone whom really should have known better than to engage in such arbitrary dictat, given his (unconventional) character and particular personal qualities..

Incorrect use of whom.

One cannot engage in a dictat.

A full stop has one dot; an ellipsis has three.

Reply 221

DanB1991

Saxons would be dismayed on how we have ruined their language...

Seriously though language evolves, even in the last yew hundred years it has changed drastically and spelling of English has only become standardized for a very small amount of time.

Reply 222

DefeatTheElite

Jamaican Patois/Desi slang is pretty much the lingua franca in London these days, and its spreading rapidly through Manc, B'ham etc so over time it is becoming fairly mainstream in England. Traditional English can still be found though in outer suburbs and rural counties like Glos/Cambs.

Reply 223

redferry

Original post by Foo.mp3

You're aware of Rosen's background right? Not sure he's the first person I'd go speak to on such matters..

It's currently devolving,* as per the example in the OP (where this should be apparent)

As I said if it was actually a problem we'd all be going to Wolverhampton for elecution lessons.

Reply 224

DanB1991

Original post by Foo.mp3

Do you seriously think the kind of 'language' referenced in the OP constitutes 'evolution'? :s-smilie:

In fact yes, you site mispronunciation.

Much of our language is spoken as such because of people's inability to pronounce the words.

I have a very local example of this.

We have a castle located in a vale both called Belvoir castle/vale. Now a common misconception is it's pronounced wrong by most people who pronounce it almost the same as you would say beaver.

However the history behind this word is because local saxons could not get their tongue around around the norman/french pronunciation of Belvoir (which means beautiful view in french seeing the vale was given a new name by the norman aristocracy who came after the Norman conquest). As such they pronounced it in a similar way to Beaver which eventually becomes now is almost indistinguishable as a being different in pronunciation.

As such the modern correct pronunciation in 'english' has changed from the original pronunciation in norman/french. As such to this day the upper classes in the area still use the french pronunciation.

Usually it's the higher classes who defend traditional pronunciation, mostly to feign perceived intelligence over the lower classes.

In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with changes in pronunciation or spelling. I would myself actively encourage it as language is something everyone should use and help evolve. If you want right or wrong language make it what the majority of people use, not the upper-class minority.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 225

DanB1991

Original post by Foo.mp3

You're aware of Rosen's background right? Not sure he's the first person I'd go speak to on such matters..

It's currently devolving,* as per the example in the OP (where this should be apparent)

You understand the concept of devolving?

That would mean English is returning to a prior state, which in fact would mean it's getting more correct....

See? Even if you think it's negative change it would still be evolving.

The use of evolution as more "advanced", as opposed to more "primitive" is a common misconception.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 226

LifeOfDreams

Original post by Foo.mp3

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?

You spelt programme incorrectly. But at least you didn't do it in a letter to the BBC, complaining about declining standards of English. Oh.

:wink:

Reply 227

redferry

Original post by Foo.mp3

Completely sidestep my comments why don't you? :tongue:

Not all changes (distortions) constitute 'progress' my dear :rolleyes:

Who decides what progress is?

If anything the decline in the English language is far more represented but the Southern Dialect spreading more with accents being frowned upon and in some schools children being dissuaded from speaking the local dialect.

Reply 228

username1345959

Dialects and sociolects have always existed, even centuries ago. It's natural and there's nothing wrong with it, so long as you know when to make your language appropriate for certain situations when needed.

Reply 229

DanB1991

Original post by Foo.mp3

Surely you can fathom the difference between regional quirks of prounciation and 'urban decay' of our language? :confused:

Actually modern english is a result of a regional quirk as you put it... London and the midlands regional quirk which resulted in the Chancery Standard which is why we had standardized english to this day.

Have something against 'higher classes'/do you think largely/solely in terms of class?

Seeing that historically in this country most decisions have made such decisions regarding language etc, they are the ones who made the decision. I have nothing innately against higher classes but was talking from a historical context.

Sure, this takes place, but does not automatically render related discourse illegitimate in so doing

Actually it does, language is suppose to make communication between the 'majority' possible.

No-one said it was a matter of irrefutable objective truths

But the whole point of your thread is the fact you do not like the change in english language in recent years.

So if the majority (ab)use the institution of marriage, say, suddenly it becomes 'right' to do so? (we are heading that way). Democratic decree may be 'fair', but that doesn't make it 'right' necessarily (not that most Englishmen would subscribe to the view that the examples given in my OP constitute acceptable use of English)

If you view that marriage is innately morally correct, then possibly. However what is 'right' and 'wrong' is decided by the majority 'or' controlling classes (whether they be upper, middle, lower or another class system or group). I would argue nothing is innately 'fair' or 'right' and remains neutral until society decides what is right or wrong.

However as I stated earlier the whole point of language is so people can communicate with each other. In that respect in terms of language I would argue the majority should always take precedent over the minority (or linguistic elite) in that manner on deciding languages direction. It's not about being democratic or fair, it's about making sure English heads in a direction that benefits the most people, not simply being correct for correctness's sake.

How many times do you see people complaining about spelling or grammar? Keep in mind the most important aspect of a word to portray it's meaning is the first and last letter and the content, not necessarily the order of the other characters themselves (apart from the first and last characters). If you can understand a person even with bad spelling or grammar then people should not complain seeing that vast majority of people (including myself), are completely incapable of 100% correct english.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 230

shawn_o1

If all foreigners are learning English from Americans then why don't we just change the name of the language to "American" and say that it evolved from English?

Reply 231

Tom78

Original post by Foo.mp3

(Starkey, 2011).

Why have you referenced your post and if so why have you not included a proper list of references at the end of your post?

Reply 232

Tom78

Anyway I don't think it's a problem people enunciate when talking to elders or whilst working etc.

But when I'm with my bredrin we all talk colloquially ya get me?

Reply 233

DanB1991

Original post by Foo.mp3

Yes

No x 2

Spoiler

To me it seems like your speaking in context of devolution in terms of Devolution being the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to governments at a subnational level. Aka devolution of power.... A fastly different context to devolution of evolution.

Devolution in terms of evolution is claimed on your own link to be "to become simpler or disappear, esp. in the process of evolution."

However is the very process of devolution in that interest relies on misconceptions of evolution in itself.

Current non-technical application of the concept of "devolution" is based largely on the fallacies that:

a) In biology there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that
b) Evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms with more complex structure and function.

Those errors in turn are related to two misconceptions: that:

a) Evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive"; and that
b) Modern species that have lost some of the functions or complexity of their ancestors must accordingly be degenerate forms.

Aka the point devolution in this concept would require a complete reversal of form, however something being made more 'simple' or less useful or less complex would still be evolution. Devolution in reality does simply not exist as an evolutionary concept.

Devolution as a concept of evolution is actually non-existent and comes from an incorrect understanding of evolution, not only in biology but also can be seen in terms of language.

If you understood the concept of devolution correctly you would also understand it does not technically exist in an evolutionary sense.

Also note you only commented on the concept of devolution.

You failed to comment on the whole point of language actually destroying your argument on so called linguistic correctness.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 234

username638250

Original post by najinaji

Hear hear. I find it amusing that it is now deemed unacceptable to find a certain shift in language unpleasant, whereas the same stigma is not put upon the dislike of certain fashion trends, modern architecture or modern art.

More worrying still is the acceptance of the bias against Recieved Pronounciation, to the extent that some politicians take 'coarsening training' to remove the posher elements of their speech.

Personally, I could listen to this man all day:

Can't stand that accent. I much prefer Emma Watson's.

Reply 235

MostUncivilised

I'm irritated by all forms of linguistic stupidity.

I'm angered by the sort of people who say things like, "Irregardless, I'm in agreeance that we should refudiate Patrick and make him our escape goat"