Let's Speak About Text

     None of us are completely innocent when it comes to using text speak, at least once in our lives we've used a cheeky "lol" or the occasional "2nite". Sometimes they come in handy when we need to send a quick message if we're a bit short on time, but should we start to protect the English Language against the dangers of new technologies and their new words and grammars?


     A lot of people are under the impression that text speak has come from the young people of today, originating through the use of more social media and texting, but actually, this isn't quite true. Granted it has become significantly more common, but actually, the abbreviations within text speak have been around for hundreds of years which Professor David Crystal mentions during an interview. It's hard to believe that the common language we use today when sending messages and writing tweets was actually around long before we even had all this social media. This means that abbreviations weren't created by kids from the last two decades. 
     Crystal also states that not all text messages are full of abbreviations, in fact, only 10% are, so it hasn't completely taken over modern communication. 


     The main problem we have now is whether or not text speak and modern technology is destroying the English Language, and will these new words that come from new technologies ruin it? 


     In some opinions, using text speak makes the user seem less intelligent, although, this isn't quite the case. People who purposely use text speak and abbreviations actually have to know the words first so that they then know the abbreviation, since text speak is mostly popular by people who think using it will make them sound cool. Upon knowing the word, they have to know which letters to remove in order to make it the abbreviation. 
     When students were asked whether or not they would use text speak or abbreviations in exams and essays, the students responses indicated that it would be silly as they would lose marks, and actually, Crystal found that people who use text speak are actually more academic than those who do not use it, which goes against what most people would think. 
     However, this research was conducted quite a few years ago and so isn't exactly necessarily relevant to the youths of today. Whereas kids then might have known that text speak would make them lose marks in essays, if kids today have access to phones and other forms of social media at a younger age, then they are likely to become too used to text speak and actually not know how things are meant to be spelled. This could then cause confusion when actually needing to write properly.


     Messages do look nicer when they are actually written properly using correct grammar and punctuation as this means that it is a lot less likely for people to become confused by not knowing what some aspects of text speak mean, by using regular English, people are able to communicate in a way that makes sense to everyone and this overall will be much better for everyone overall. 

God Save The Queen's Received Pronunciation

     "It is important that we teach children that, to get on, they must speak Standard English with an RP accent."

     Every single place on Earth will have people speaking with different accents, it's just the way that it is. So why should we try and get everyone to pretty much talk with almost exactly the same style? Granted it would make life significantly easier if everyone spoke in almost exactly the same way, but surely this would also mean that no one would be their own person. 
     No one can help their accent, my accent will differ immensely from someone who is from the North, and neither one of us and help that. It's just a fact. But should people really get hate from the accent in which they speak? After all, from where they are from, their accent is normal, and ours is the odd one. But how far are we willing to discriminate someone based on their accent? 
     Richard Spillett wrote an article on how workers are having to 'posh up' how they sound in order to avoid discrimination. Within this article it states:

 "Prejudice against certain accents is the 'last taboo', according to Manchester University linguist Dr Alex Baratta, who says people are made to feel 'fake' when they have to 'posh up' while talking.

Dr Baratta is calling on employers to promise that job applicants' accents will not be used against them in the same way as gender, sexual orientation, religion, age and race are ignored.

He said: 'We should acknowledge that any form of workplace discrimination, to include accentism, should not be tolerated in a society which seeks to be more inclusive."

     Is it really fair to make people feel like they have to change their voice in order to feel like they belong, to feel like they're safe? Is this really the kind of message that we want to be sending out to children? That in order for them to fit in and be a member of a specific group, they have to change the way they speak? 

     Another article by Victoria Woollaston talks about how "Scousers have the 'least intelligent and least trustworthy' accent - while Devonians have the friendliest"

     The article shows the percentages that each accent has in regards to friendliness. But by the logic of this article, Received Pronunciation isn't the most friendly and so shouldn't be the accent we try and get everyone to speak. In fact, the best accent that would be most likely to help people get along would be the Devon accent, or even Liverpool. 

     It would seem that everyone has their own opinion on which accent is the nicest one. But it does seem a bit silly to start questioning people's intelligence and friendliness based entirely on their accent, you can't hear someone's voice and instantly decide whether or not they're intelligent.

     Overall, it isn't important that we teach children that in order for them to get along they must speak with Standard English with a Received Pronunciation accent because there are plenty more important things that should come into consideration for children to get on. Being a part of a group does not entirely revolve around your voice or how you speak, it is simply just how you are, how you treat people. 

     Having a voice that is deemed as 'posh' doesn't make you more important than anyone else, but there is this misconception that having a posher accent gives you more prestige and can be very intimidating for others, making people with posher accents have perceived power. It is because of this perceived power that we believe that if we do not share this accent, we are inferior. But again, is this the kind of lesson that we really want to be teaching children?

     

Limited Intelligence My A$$

Does Swearing Make You Less Intelligent?

     There's a constant debate as to whether consistently using bad language is a sign or limited intelligence and vocabulary, but isn't that just a load of sh*t? 

     Many people share the belief that using taboo language (swearing) is a sign of a limited vocabulary and that the person lacks the ability to express themselves and so by extension has low intelligence. But this just isn't the case, in face, swearing a lot actually is a sign of having higher intelligence as we choose to use taboo language in different contexts and for multiple purposes, for example; to have a laugh, to convey emotions, or to just simply be rude. My point is, we're not swearing incoherently, we use bloody context!

     There are many moments when swearing comes in handy and actually does make us feel better, which sounds a bit odd, but it's true. In an article by Richard Stephens, he writes about how an experiment showed that people who swore when they placed their hands in ice cold water found that the experience was less painful and so were able to keep their hands emerged in the water for longer than those who did not swear. Funny how it works but there we have it, swearing makes you feel less pain, although that doesn't mean you should stick your hand in a fire and scream "f*ck"! Although from personal experience of painful situations, I have found that swearing does make it more bearable, so there's a fun little life hack.

     Other Languages

     Now here is another important thing we have to address, swearing is not the same all over the world, a taboo word in English may not seem so bad in French or German, which would suggest that if other countries use the words we deem to be taboo in just regular conversation, how can it be that it is a sign of low intelligence? 

     Swearing is very different all over the world, it's funny, without really thinking about it, we just assume that the words we have in English that are taboo or pretty much exactly the same all over the world, but that's not true. Some of our swear words are actually pretty tame in other countries but some of the worst phrases in their language are just normal for us. Although one thing that remains almost entirely the same no matter where in the world you are is the fact that the most forbidden swear words usually refer to female sex organs. Not quite sure why but there we are.

     In Italy, it's pretty common to yell "che cazzo" when something annoying happens, this roughly translates to "what the cock?" which isn't something we would necessarily yell. But then in Rinconada Bikol, the phrase "buray ni nanya", which means 'mother's vagina', is used as commonly as we might use the 'crap'. 

     It's pretty interesting to think about; the concept of swearing. Each country has it's own taboo language and you're just brought up knowing that you have to be careful where and when you say them, but it's funny how such a simple thing like swearing can be linked with your intelligence as they are just phrases that have become common among many people. Although, be careful what kind of things you say when you're abroad, you never know what might come across as potty-mouthed. 

     

United States of Americanisms

      There are many criticisms about how the use of Americanisms are ruining the English language, but it’s all a load of rubbish…or is it trash? Languages adapt and change over the years and so it is entirely plausible that Americanisms are in fact changing the English language, but not “ruining” it.

     

     Now of course there are the obvious adaptations of certain words that immediately come to mind when we think of how Americans spell words, for example: “color”,  “favour”, “realize”, etc. Many of these changes do have a tendency to annoy English language enthusiasts, but there are some changes to British English that initially came from American English.

    

     Noah Webster, an American lexicographer, introduced a number of spelling reforms in the 1820’s that have been widely accepted into the English language. An example of this being the word ‘public’ in place of ‘publick’, and ‘mask’ in place of ‘masque’. Despite having some of his words accepted, there, undoubtedly, were some that did not quite make the cut, for example, ‘tung’ instead of ‘tongue’, and ‘wimmen’ in place of ‘women’, but hey, can’t have everything, right?

    

     There are many Americanisms that we have adopted into the English language and continue to use, most of us using them and not realising that they are, in fact, Americanisms. One common phrase used by the British public is ‘24/7’; initially the phrase would be “24 hours, 7 days a week”, or “all day, every day”. Another popular change is the use of the word ‘season’ to replace ‘series’ when talking about a TV show.

  

     Plenty of words and phrases came from Americanisms, and we didn’t even notice, many of us now wouldn’t realise that these weren’t already British English. To prove my point, here are some words/phrases that are actually Americanisms:

·         Cupcakes used in place of fairy cakes.

·         Playdates

·         A half hour, instead of half an hour

·         Truck

·         Burger and fries now instead of hamburger and chips

·         Football games instead of matches.

    

    The English language is made up of many different languages, and that is why it is one of the most complex languages in the world, yet it is also one of the most common spoken languages. It was inevitable that over time we would adopt certain words and phrases and include them in English language, so if that’s the case, why are we so quick to hate on the Americanisms that are becoming part of our language? And more importantly, why do we assume that it is “ruining” the English language? Language is not one thing that is set in stone, it develops over the years and will continue to change and expand for many more years to come. Instead of ridiculing Americanisms, we should accept them and use them so that we can keep our language growing.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hi! Welcome to my blog!
This blog will consist of my responses to topical issues about English Language. 
So far, we have looked at Americanisms and whether or not they are 'ruining' the English language itself.
Americanisms are words and phrases that have come from America and that we are starting to use regularly and adopt them into our own every day language. 
I'll try to keep it interesting.