Protecting the English Language from language used 100 years ago?

When making the argument that we must protect the English language against the dangers of new technologies and their new words and grammars, has anyone thought about how we would be texting each other if nothing had changed since Shakespearean language? Just a quick “u ok?” text would be “thee tis fine?” and take you 3 times the amount of characters. Surely it makes sense for the language we use to change and adapt to the way we are communicating, especially with the different technology we now use.

However, one thing everyone can agree on is that this doesn’t mean we should be using text speech in everyday conversations. Just as texts are meant to be quick messages that don’t always have to be perfectly constructed, conversations with people face-to-face shouldn’t be full of contractions. Saying “lol,brb” to someone, especially if they’re not familiar with the meanings, maybe because they’re from an older generation or just don’t use technology very often, is basically pointless because they won’t know what you’re saying and you would have to explain it, taking up more time.

This is a good example of showing that we are able to change the type of language depending on the context of the situation. If, for example, someone goes from texting a friend to writing a school essay, there will be a big difference in the language features used in the two. When teachers were asked if students using text speech in essays and exams was a problem, they said that they very rarely come across mistakes of using these features in their work because the students are able to differentiate the appropriate situations to use the language in.

The English language doesn’t need to be protected because there isn’t anything that is trying to destroy it. There has never been one English language that has travelled from the start of speech to now, it has constantly changed over time, and this is what’s happening now. There isn’t a way that we would be using the words and language we do now if there wasn’t changes over time. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the idea of degrees of appropriateness with the language used in different situations. In addition to this, the idea that abbreviations that are commonly associated with text speech and are thought to only now being introduced into our language were actually used 100 years ago and in Victorian times, and therefore cant be a danger to the languages as they have already been used in the past.

In conclusion, the English Language doesn’t need to be protected from language from new technology because it was either already used in the past and is just being used again in a new context, or we are able to use the degree of appropriateness and decide what language we use for the conversation were having.

Swear by it: Why swearing shouldn’t define your intelligence

Swearing is associated with being a deciding factor of whether you have a limited vocabulary or not, but I think that swearing enhances your vocabulary by making it more expressive. This means that you can get your point across easier and more efficiently, especially when you need something to be done in a hurry, or you need to express an emotion to its full extent. For example, if someone is taking too long, “hurry the fuck up” would be more effective than just saying “hurry up” as it emphasizes the point that you want them to be quicker, and it also conveys some annoyance, which the other may not. Other taboo words that many people don’t class as ‘swear words’, including phrases such as “what the hell” and “Jesus Christ” are also used to convey the same emphasize on emotions, but some may argue they’re less intense or offensive than the ‘normal’ swear words.

Swearing has also been linked to improvements in performance. For example, experiments were conducted to test the theory of whether swearing is connected to a limited vocabulary, by making a group of people list as many words that start with the same letter as they could in 1 minute, and then the same group of people say as many swear words as they could in 1 minute. The results showed that the people who listed the highest amount of swear words also listed the most words. This correlation suggests that swearing isn’t a sign of limited vocabulary but is actually the opposite.

Releasing anger is one thing that some find hard to do which may result in it all being bottled up before reaching a point where all the anger is released but swearing is meant to be a way of expressing all this emotion before it reaches its peak. By releasing all your anger, it will give you a clearer view on things, allow you to become more open minded and think about situations rationally. Scientifically, it has been tested that those who swear are able to withhold pain for a longer time as it triggers the body’s sympathetic nervous system which makes your heart pound faster, as if you are in danger. This therefore shows that any swearing at pain will release anger and allow your body to calm down. In the same experiment, they also found that swearing can give you a boost of strength, as half of the volunteers were asked to pedal for 30 second while repeating a swear word, and the other half a ‘neutral word’. The results showed that the power of the bikes of those who repeated the swear word increased by 24 watts. This could show the release in anger from the pain of pedalling on a bike at full speed.

I don’t believe that swearing makes you a less intelligent person, as although your use of words in certain situations can be a defining factor, swearing is usually avoided in those situations and only used when comfortable around the people you use it around. For example, swearing will most likely not be used in a formal test or around your grandparents, but may be used around friends. Intelligence also isn’t just based on your ability to write with certain words and speak in a certain way, and therefore any use of swearing shouldn’t define the way in which others view your intellectual abilities.

Doesn't swearing add a few more words to your vocabulary list?

Americanisation - A Colorful Mistake?

Americanisms are the one thing that can cause controversy in the British-English language. Why? I don't know.

I don't understand the argument some people make of English people having prior rights to the language, and anyone who doesn't fall into that category is an 'interloper' who is trying to take over the language. Why do we, as the British people who apologise for anything and everything, feel as though we have to be so defensive over words, that we will call out anyone who is even partially incorrect?

One of the most argued points is that Americanisms are ruining our language, but how can they be ruining it when some of the words we use most often are Americanised, meaning that some of them are accepted. Is it because they're beneficial to us, or because we don't have another word for the same thing, or even because we don't know that they're Americanised? When we already have a good enough word, such as biscuit, why would we need the word cookie? Or the spelling color? This argument makes us seem unaware and uneducated about the origins of the language we so proudly call ours, with British-English speakers even taking credit for the words we "borrowed" from another part of the world but made it ours by changing one letter. This is just the first sign of hypocrisy in our language.

The British people love to point out all the Americanisms that they see, immediately commenting that the language is ruined, but do they do the same thing when they see the words that we have taken from all over the world? Shouldn't the words with Chinese, Indian and Arabic origins be treated the same way? Or is it okay because we want more power, or because or because we have influence as a country, so we can take whatever words we want? Are we, as a country, threatened by America, who is bigger than we are? Do we not want them to take over our language, just like they have done with so many other things? Some things from America I would enjoy being over here, but others... not so much.
Or, is the reason we hate the Americanism of the British-English language a less political case of just wanting to avoid confusion with spellings and ambiguity of certain words? This could be the case when trying to teach young children to read and write, and there are words with multiple different spellings and meanings, which make the process a lot harder. This could result in them using the wrong spelling and being confused when it is corrected. Another example of the ambiguity in the language could be when a British-English and American-English speaker are communicating and there is confusion around different words. For example, Pavement means two different things, depending on what English you are speaking.
For me, the Americanisms of the English language isn't the worst thing to happen to us. Yes, some words have different spellings, but is that what we should be worrying about right now? The American-English adds some enthusiasm to the plain British-English, and shouldn't we be ambracing all different cultures anyway?

Welcome!

This blog will be my responses to the topical issues about the English Language. The first thing I have looked into is the great British debate on Americanisms, and the way in which the British-English language has changed over time, because of the different influences from different cultures and countries around the world.

Thanks for reading!

Queen Elizabeth GIF from Queenelizabeth GIFs