Take a look at this video from The Guardian a few days ago:
This journalist makes some valid points here. We all know that words and language structures are in relatively constant flux. We all know that understanding meaning is probably more important than obsessing over minor rules that have little effect on a message. But what is the line? How do we know if we should ignore linguistic norms? At what point does language become a free-for-all?
Consider this: while this journalist is condemning proper language and criticizing those who enforce its rules, did you notice that she did so while using perfect diction and impeccable syntax? Why did she do that? She is also a journalist for a renowned newspaper and has worked at the Bank of England and the Economic Intelligence Unit as a researcher and writer. Do you think during her time at any of these prestigious jobs she decided to purposefully use incorrect sentence structures, employ confusing spellings, or ignore punctuation conventions? I doubt it.
Again, maybe those of us who are sticklers for English go too far sometimes--we know we should let things slide now and again. But reducing a method of communication to a vague (and inaccurate) form of privilege ignores the very purpose of language itself. Confusing grammar can cause serious problems. This is less so for conversational language (as we receive other visual and auditory clues to decipher meaning), but writing greatly depends upon a mostly agreed upon set of structural guidelines. When all you have is black words on a white page, separated from your audience by time and distance, you cannot afford to let confusion into an already challenging mode of messaging. And ultimately, what's the point of having something interesting to say if no one can understand it?
Perhaps this woman would like to spend some time in my college classroom to see just how difficult communication can be when conventions are disregarded.
So take it easy on us snobs. We are not as uptight as you think. We just want people with interesting ideas to be able to share them with each other. And I appreciate how this journalist made it easy to understand her perspective by using proper English.
Consider this: while this journalist is condemning proper language and criticizing those who enforce its rules, did you notice that she did so while using perfect diction and impeccable syntax? Why did she do that? She is also a journalist for a renowned newspaper and has worked at the Bank of England and the Economic Intelligence Unit as a researcher and writer. Do you think during her time at any of these prestigious jobs she decided to purposefully use incorrect sentence structures, employ confusing spellings, or ignore punctuation conventions? I doubt it.
Again, maybe those of us who are sticklers for English go too far sometimes--we know we should let things slide now and again. But reducing a method of communication to a vague (and inaccurate) form of privilege ignores the very purpose of language itself. Confusing grammar can cause serious problems. This is less so for conversational language (as we receive other visual and auditory clues to decipher meaning), but writing greatly depends upon a mostly agreed upon set of structural guidelines. When all you have is black words on a white page, separated from your audience by time and distance, you cannot afford to let confusion into an already challenging mode of messaging. And ultimately, what's the point of having something interesting to say if no one can understand it?
Perhaps this woman would like to spend some time in my college classroom to see just how difficult communication can be when conventions are disregarded.
So take it easy on us snobs. We are not as uptight as you think. We just want people with interesting ideas to be able to share them with each other. And I appreciate how this journalist made it easy to understand her perspective by using proper English.