Is the English language being "dumbed down", and if so, why?

[ilikeverin]

Think you'll find that people have been complaining about this for rather a long time.

Amen.

[angus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were probably lawyers, that ending up teaching in the Law School at whatever place you were at angus were this sort of thing occurred (that no doubt referred to itself as a "university" - is there such a thing as a "college" anywhere anymore on the Fruited Plain?), en route into moving into management.

Actually, I first heard the term from a physicist, and it was at Boston University, on the very edge of the fruited plain.  In later years the lingo really became fashionable.  Most of the administrators I've known have been mathematicians and scientists by training.  I wouldn't know a law school dean if one drove a bus full of lawyers off a cliff in front of me.  I should get out more.

[Oak Hills]

No, it is not being "dumbed down". The common people have always used less formal speech. Our society just recognizes them more, so the speech in media is more informal, whereas in the old days, the common people in many cases couldn't or barely could read and write.  It's not about the language becoming more informal; it's about the people we see writing things down. From what I've heard, many people thought it was scandalous when The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published and it was written using everyday speech; now that is extremely common in literature.  It is time we stop complaining about this sort of thing and admit that people have always talked like that; actually, it's possible that with higher levels of education in the general population, that the average person's everyday speech is less "dumbed down" than it used to be.

[fezzyfestoon]

Judged mainly by the reading level of Presidents' speeches over the years, I would say so. That's not necessarily indicative of a universal drop in English language skills, but it's definitely indicative of something. I'm not sure I have a problem with that in and of itself, but thinking of the likely roots of it makes me queasy.

[Vosem]

The English language has already been dumbed down. Anglo-Saxon had five grammatical cases, grammatical gender, and nine different regular conjugations. And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

[Vosem]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

If we consistently used k for /k/ then there would be no need to accent c for /tʃ/.  Conversely, we still need an orthographic distinction between w and wh since there are still dialects for which there is a distinction between them.  Indeed, the multiplicity of dialects is the biggest obstacle to a meaningful reform of English orthography.  Save for letter combinations such as  'ph' and 'ps' which we retain to keep the etymological link to words imported from Greek, practically all other simplification would eliminate a spelling distinction still useful in some dialect.

[anvi]

I'm late to this discussion.  I tend to think that the spoken language should be as rich as possible with idioms and everything else.  And I think it's good for all of this to be reflected in literature.  I don't think there is ever "dumbing down" in that.  But for some kinds of prose, I like more conventional writing styles, not because I want to impose anything on anyone, but I think it helps if writing is a clear as possible.  It's easier to communicate one's meaning in a spoken conversation where there is a lot of back and forth and there are ample chances to clarify what one says.  But often in writing, there aren't too many second chances to successfully communicate one's meaning, for all kinds of reasons.  Good, clear prose, in my experience, really helps in that.  So, when certain kinds of written prose are "dumbed down," for whatever reason, I think that doesn't do people much good.  JMO

[Vosem]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

If we consistently used k for /k/ then there would be no need to accent c for /tʃ/.

If we're keeping phonemic 's' to signify plural and ''s' to signify ownership (because drawing a distinction in written language is helpful), then for disambiguation's sake it would help to have an alternative glyph for phonetic /s/ at the end of a word -- c. That was my thought. But in all honesty, there are a million ways to do this that make more sense than what we have now.

  Conversely, we still need an orthographic distinction between w and wh since there are still dialects for which there is a distinction between them.

True; this somewhat slipped my mind, as where I live the difference is quite literally zero. In which case, in the above sentence I posted, the words would be rendered hwič and hwut, most logically.

  Indeed, the multiplicity of dialects is the biggest obstacle to a meaningful reform of English orthography.  Save for letter combinations such as  'ph' and 'ps' which we retain to keep the etymological link to words imported from Greek, practically all other simplification would eliminate a spelling distinction still useful in some dialect.

This is true, but I still think a universal reform which takes all dialects into account, and might write sounds which are still expressed in one dialect but not in another; or might preserve old spelling for contentious words (for instance, since 'schedule' is pronounced 'skejúl' in America and 'šejúl' in Britain, the word could be an 'exception' and continue to be written 'schejúl' to preserve language unity; or, alternatively, more differences between American and British spelling could be introduced; or, some dialects geographically removed from it may not adopt the reform) is very possible and would greatly benefit the English language. But who am I kidding; the English language has never developed a central authority, so there's no way at all anything like what I would like could come to pass.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, you have no idea quite how many dialects of English there are, now do you? Of course most have many less words of there own than was once so, which is sad.

[Хahar 🤔]

The important thing to keep in mind here is that grammar is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Formal writing may be aesthetically pleasing, but its purpose is to communicate ideas without ambiguity.

[angus]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

No, it wouldn't.  first of all, you're totally ignoring the difference between the "w" sound as in water and the "wh" sound as in what and why.  You're also pronouncing "what" like some inbred trailer trash, which isn't really standard.  What is a perfectly fine spelling that is actually closer to the word's proper pronunciation than "wut."  Ernest is treating the vowel sound in "because" the same way.  Maybe it's a South Carolina thing, so it's forgivable, but he is also ignoring many syllables, for example in the last word of his post, which properly has five, he shows only four.

That tripe you're posting would only lead to more amelioration.  At least it would be standardized "dumbing down" in pronunciation, which may be better than the non-standardized version we have now, but it don't do nothing for the broader grammatical problems to which the thread refers.

[King]

Idk I'm ok wit it

[angus]

The important thing to keep in mind here is that grammar is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Formal writing may be aesthetically pleasing, but its purpose is to communicate ideas without ambiguity.

I'm not sure I agree with that.  If all you want to do is communicate an idea without ambiguity then you choose a dead language.  There's a reason that so much American legalspeak and sciencespeak is Latinized.  A language that isn't evolving doesn't have the term-ambiguity that a modern language has.  As for the point of correctly writing and speaking, it shows not only that you have learned something, but also that you are capable of learning something.  It can help you land a good job or impress the lads and lasses.  It has historically been taught as an end in itself and as a means to an end, with that end being so much more than formal communication.

There is also an argument that informal speech is sometimes used more effectively than formal speech if all you want to do is communicate without ambiguity.  

"Here's your change, man."  

"Na, we straight."  

The preceding is a good example of a two-phrase dialogue in which a worker communicates an idea effectively and a customer communicates just as effectively.  It is more efficient, and perhaps less likely to be misunderstood, than:

"Sir, I shall endeavor to return the remainder of your remittance.  Please accept it."

"It is unnecessary, and you may retain the balance."

[opebo]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

If we consistently used k for /k/ then there would be no need to accent c for /tʃ/. 

Are you guys all linguistics majors?  Who else would know how to use that bizarre esoteric script - whatever it is called.  I've noticed a lot of people using it on here these days - is it something people normally study in school nowadays?  Because I've never seen it before in my life, and it seems entirely useless. 

[angus]

it seems entirely useless. 

It has uses, but not for what they're doing with it. 

There are many things we never encounter outside this forum.  This is one of them.  If you read articles in newspapers in magazines, they all have much more intelligent ways of passing along pronunciations in textual environments.  "Tomato.  Middle syllable same as middle syllable in godfather or middle syllable same as first syllable in apron?"  Done.

[opebo]

it seems entirely useless. 

It has uses, but not for what they're doing with it. 

There are many things we never encounter outside this forum.  This is one of them.  If you read articles in newspapers in magazines, they all have much more intelligent ways of passing along pronunciations in textual environments.  "Tomato.  Middle syllable same as middle syllable in godfather or middle syllable same as first syllable in apron?"  Done.

Yeah, its not entirely useless, it just suffers from the problem of being uncommunicative, since so few people know about it.  And considering how rarely (if ever) we have to communicate textually (or even at all) about pronunciation, it seems a waste of time for most people to learn this 'phonetic script' or whatever it is.

I rarely teach English, but when I do, I certainly don't make any technical comments about either pronunciation or grammar - I simply give examples and do repetition.  (I don't really know any of the terms for grammar either, which I think is normal)

For example a Thai English teacher friend had to explain to me yesterday what a 'preposition' or 'prepositional phrase' is (something about on, in, under etc.) because I had no idea.  No need to know when you already speak and write perfectly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest is treating the vowel sound in "because" the same way.  Maybe it's a South Carolina thing, so it's forgivable, but he is also ignoring many syllables, for example in the last word of his post, which properly has five, he shows only four.

Yup.  In my accent, the 'au' in because and cause is pronounced as a monophthong and not as a diphthong.  Similarly, I drop the useless -al- infix from many words.  'Phonetic' is already an adjective.  It doesn't need an -al added before adding the adverb suffix -ly.

[angus]

I noticed something on the radio this morning that I've been hearing more often lately.  Two independent clauses not connected by a conjunction or anything else:

"Haywood Jablomi of our affiliate station WTF in Tupelo, Mississippi reports the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator."

Now, it seems to me that "Haywood... reports" is an independent clause and "the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator" is an independent clause.  There should be a conjunction between the two:

"Haywood Jablomi of our affiliate station WTF in Tupelo, Mississippi reports that the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator."

This was on Public Radio, which we assume is staffed by eggheads and grammar Nazis.  Moreover, I'm starting to hear this omission of conjunctions frequently.  Is it correct?  Is it evolution?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This was on Public Radio, which we assume is staffed by eggheads and grammar Nazis.  Moreover, I'm starting to hear this omission of conjunctions frequently.  Is it correct?  Is it evolution?

Evolution, and it's noticeable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This was on Public Radio, which we assume is staffed by eggheads and grammar Nazis.  Moreover, I'm starting to hear this omission of conjunctions frequently.  Is it correct?  Is it evolution?

Evolution, and it's noticeable.

The reasons for it are perfectly understandable.  First off, English is a largely caseless language (retaining them only in pronouns), so there is no need to use a conjunction to mediate the use of cases in the dependent clause.  Secondly, context alone is usually sufficient to enable the recipient of the sentence to determine which is the dependent clause.  In the given example, "The arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator." is clearly the object of the verb reports as from context one can easily determine that ""Haywood Jablomi reports the arson suspect" is not a dependent clause serving as the subject of the verb 'was'. Reportage is not human and thus cannot have been an Elvis impersonator.

Now in the case where context cannot determine whether NP V NP V NP should be conjugated (NP V NP) V NP or NP V (NP V NP), then a conjunction is required, but the only reason to require it when context alone would be sufficient would be to ensure that a difference in the context understood by the producer of the sentence and that understood by the recipient does not lead to ambiguity.  (Ambiguity could arise if the producer is unaware of a context the recipient might infer, or if the recipient does not have sufficient contextual knowledge to resolve the structural ambiguity via context.)  Given the target recipients (snooty NPR listeners) there was no reasonable chance of ambiguity arising in this case.

Wait wait...  I had an idea. If instead of an Elvis impersonator, the suspect had been a Kasell impersonator doing voicemail announcements for a living, then perhaps there might have been a chance of ambiguity. Perhaps the meaning would have been that the reportage would be done in the style of Carl Kasell?  The idea of Elvis Presley as a news reporter is an intriguing idea, tho.

[angus]

"relative pronoun" or conjunction?


The bread I ate was stale.

The bread that I ate was stale.


optional?  necessary?  depends upon whether any ambiguity could arise?

If it depends upon possible ambiguity, since the first sentence is unambiguous.  Is this your point?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"relative pronoun" or conjunction?


The bread I ate was stale.

The bread that I ate was stale.


optional?  necessary?  depends upon whether any ambiguity could arise?

If it depends upon possible ambiguity, since the first sentence is unambiguous.  Is this your point?

The word 'that' can be used as a relative pronoun as in your example, but in the NPR example it would be a conjunction if it had been included.  Except when functioning as the subject of the dependent clause, dropping of the relative pronoun is acceptable in all but the most formal modes of English.  'That' is mandatory in "I ate bread that was stale." altho why not simply say "I ate stale bread."?

[angus]

altho

I bet you also like the Drive Thru window.