Sunday 7 February 2016

Language - A Living Thing?

The announcement this week that French spelling will be modified, simplified and divested of the Gallic circumflex, is not the start of a trend but rather is the continuation of one.

A few years ago, Germany updated its language, most notably abandoning the double 's' character which to us Brits more resembled a 'B'. This required the widespread replacement of  street signs, changing '- Straße' [street] to '-Strasse'.  More recently, Portugal adopted Brazilian spellings, presumably on the basis that its former colony now dwarfs the mother country, both as a world economy and in terms of population, and hence more Portuguese speakers communicate in Brazilian Portuguese than in Metropolitan Portuguese.

The next logical step, one might suppose, would be for the UK to adopt US spelling. Doubtless, this would cause as much fury in Britain as was expressed in Germany, Portugal and France. That is, it would if the changes were introduced suddenly and arbitrarily. However, changes to and simplification of spoken English have been insidiously creeping in  for a good few years already. [You will notice that in the previous sentence I boldly split an infinitive, something which recently progressed from being a hanging offence to being positively encouraged.]

As a schoolgirl, I quite enjoyed English grammar lessons. I was lucky, however, in having an imaginative English teacher who impressed upon me the merits of the adjective, the comparative and the superlative by use of the words farty, fartier and fartiest, to describe red cabbage, green cabbage and sprouts. Doubtless this lesson had the added benefit of encouraging us pupils to eat our greens, if only to test teacher's assertions.

Sadly, something drastic occurred sometime around the 1960s which was to have a dire effect upon the English language. A new and simplified version of initial spelling was introduced for children and simultaneously grammar lessons were dropped. This revolution was fought to encourage spontaneity of communication, but it produced a whole generation of teachers whose spelling was dubious and confused and who had no grasp of grammar rules at all. Unfortunately, this was the generation which taught my daughter.  Upon checking her homework and pointing out errors such as misaligned clauses, I was horrified to be informed that 'we were never taught grammar'.

The popularity of American and Australian TV soaps and American made feature films has already had a noticeable influence on the English language.  A generation of youngsters raised on 'Neighbours' and 'Home and Away' now end each sentence with a raised inflection, in the style of Jason and Kylie.  The US comedies 'Frazier' and 'Friends' have also had a noticeable effect.  In coffee shops, it is now de rigeur to demand 'could I get ...' rather than 'please may I have'.   I witnessed an amusing incident in a café a little while back when a Polish lady barrista, who spoke faultless and beautifully accented English, was asked by a customer 'could I get a latte?' to which she replied 'Oh no, sir, I have to get it for you.'

I am at a loss, however, to understand why the correlative word 'so' has suddenly appeared at the beginning of each sentence uttered by people being interviewed on television.  'So' usually correlates the phrase which came before it with that which follows. To see it standing alone causes me unimaginable angst. Am I becoming a grammar Nazi, I wonder? Am I trying to choke the life out of a living language? Perhaps I am, and yet I have an overwhelming fear that our language is being 'dumbed down'.

Perhaps it is because the average TV viewer would not understand the phrases 'used you to' or 'he was sitting', that even our BBC newsreaders and interviewers now say 'did you used to' and 'he was sat'. Misuse of 'you and I' in place of 'you and me' is extremely commonplace nowadays, as is the inappropriate use of 'less' with a plural, when it should be 'fewer'. And can anyone explain to me why television gardeners and make-over designers now all pronounce 'create' as 'crate'?

Was no-one at the BBC ever told that the correct comparison phrases are 'similar to' but 'different from'? Does no-one at Tesco realise that '10 items or less' should be '10 items or fewer'? Is the manager of our local curry house being serious when he states 'Try our vindaloo - you'll never get better'? Does our butcher  not grasp the ambiguity in ' Try our Cumberland Sausages - None like them'?  

Perhaps I should not be so harsh in my condemnation of change and the relaxation of standards.  After all, misuse of spelling, grammar and punctuation often generates amusement. Some of the howlers I have encountered recently include:

'Lets eat grandma' when what was intended (I hope) was 'lets eat, Grandma'. 

'Having eaten our lunch, the school bus then departed.'

'He arose from the bed and headed out of the bedroom, leaving behind only the scent of his colon on the sheets' - I do sincerely hope this should have been 'cologne'.   But in this, as in many other things, I may be wrong.