The quote from the Lord's Prayer I have chosen to analyse is 'right so haue merci upon us'. This quote doesn't have a direct translation in the current version of the prayer but is based on the topic of asking for forgiveness. This quote, along with the majority of the prayer' is intelligible to us now - with a few slightly misdirecting words. When taking an initial glance at the quote the two main parts that stand out as not having an active place in our daily vocabulary are the words 'haue' and 'merci' and to understand this some historical context is required. Middle English is the result of French and Old English growing together. In 1066, the Normans brought over their French language but some Latinate phrases still stood - creating a combined vocabulary that is Middle English. This could be used to explain why the French word for thank you ('merci') features within the Lord's Prayer as a replacement for the word mercy which we would perceive as better fitting. Old English was heavily influenced by French and so it's possible that, due to the initial language barrier, the English heard the phonetic similarity between the word mercy and merci and so it was borrowed and used in written language by the Norman scribes who controlled most spelling rules. Another potential reason for this semantic shift is that the words thank you and mercy could be viewed as featuring in the same semantic field. Mercy can be defined as 'compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone' whereas the definition for thanks is 'an expression of gratitude'. It can be argued that these words share similarity due to their link to appreciation, whether it's being asked for or received. This could also be an explanation as to why the word mercy is now a well known feature of English vernacular as after it was introduced by the Normans the word underwent anglicisation to make it appear more English and to cut any French connotation.
The other irregularity in the quote is the word 'haue'. From the Middle English era all the way up to Early Modern English, u and v were used interchangeably. In the more recent times (after the invention of Caxton's printing press in 1476) which convention was used simply depended on which printer was used. As mentioned, this featured in the English language for many years and today there are many words we use with ancient etymology. Another example of this from the quote is the word 'upon'. The word doesn't appear to be low frequency or archaic however it dates back to Old Norse origin. In 787AD the Vikings had invaded and brought with them many language conventions - many of which have stayed relevant. The word 'upon' is said to be derived from the Old Norse 'upp à' and it eventually - like the word 'merci' - was anglicised to fit in.
The two opinionated language change articles I am comparing:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/oct/24/mind-your-language-literally
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483511/I-h8-txt-msgs-How-texting-wrecking-language.html
Right from the start it is evident that both articles hold quite traditional views of language and feel as though the way in which it is changing as time goes on is more regressive than progressive.
The Daily Mail article makes it's opinion clear in just the title alone; stating ''I h8 txt messages'' and by saying that texts are ''wrecking'' our language. This declarative statement packs a lot of punch and the use of the active verb 'wrecking' implies that text speak holds power as well as remaining careless; whilst implying that language before hand was totally flawless and the use of the inclusive pronoun 'our' indicates it suited everyone and their needs. But if this were to be the case why would text speak have even evolved? John Humphrys (Daily Mail writer) goes on to say that texters 'are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped.''. The language used here forms a cohesion with the overall opinion of the text: archaic. The etymology of the words ''savaging'' and ''pillaging'' dates back to the Vikings and when they'd plunder and rob. Along with the verb raping, these all hold very negative connotations which, although it's quite clearly hyperbolic, comes off as insensitive when considering the topic being discussed is only texting. By disregarding the potentially offended reactions of readers, Humphrys uses such catastrophic language to state his distaste. He also separates the criminal texters from the rest of the standard-English speaking population through the use of the exclusive pronoun 'they' directly contrasted to the inclusive pronoun 'us'. This makes it clear to the reader that he does not want, at all, to be associated with the pillagers, and neither should they.
When searching for a Guardian article on language change I made a prediction to myself that they'd directly oppose the Daily Mail due to their typically forward thinking and progressive world views. However, these articles differ only slightly. The Guardian article, written by Adam Lewis, starts anecdotally by stating that Lewis once overheard two high school girls misusing the word 'literally' and it goes on to further explore where this ''misuse'' came from and why it has stuck around. He described them as ''culprits'', connoting the same criminal/offender type as Humphrys depicted text users. He also says that the ''misuse has become an all too common trend within modern-day American and British English vernacular''. The use of the adjective phrase ''all too common'' in the sentence appears to satisfy both definitions of the word ''common''- as he is referring to it being a reoccurring linguistic choice as well as it lacking taste and not suiting the standards of language purists. But this article does offer a counterargument, as Lewis goes on to note that this linguistic broadening of the word 'literally' isn't new at all and has been around since the 18th century. He credits famous writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain as having used this, now colloquial, adverb the arguably wrong way.
One key aspect of each article which sets them apart is their acknowledgement of the purpose of the Oxford English Dictionary and why certain colloquialisms now feature within it. Humphrys notes that the OED has ''fallen victim to fashion'' and that by now featuring slang it has ''hoisted the white flag''. Whereas Lewis quotes the OED - “The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary … Its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’.” By identifying that the purpose of a dictionary is to provide a reference for language and if it were to totally ignore colloquial uses of lexis or new phrases coined by texters then where would people learn definitions and the reason for its use? By ignoring this and simply being irritated at the OED, Humphrys comes across as narrow-minded compared to Lewis who is accepting the change.
Contextually, something to note which could further explain Humphrys' dissatisfaction with texters is that this article was written in 2007. At this period in time the first iPhone (2G) had just been released but Nokia and Samsung flip phones were the most popular. This means that it's likely texting was on the rise, and as someone who has lived most of his life without it, Humphrys' hatred is likely to stem from unfamiliarity and uncertainty. He doesn't like this 'new' mode of communication. Today if you asked him how he feels 10 years on from the publishing of that article and 10 generations of iPhone down the line; he may say that he has grown familiar with texting and no longer feels it's as destructive. Even text speak has transformed since 2007. It's rare to find someone saying 'gr8' or using one of the initialisms like 'BRB', 'LMAO' or 'G2G' in a non-ironic way. Texts also used to have a character limit much like tweets do now; so those abbreviations served a purpose. But now you can ramble on for pages using essay structure and standard paragraphing if you feel like it and your phone will allow you to send it.
The main similarity between the opinions of Lewis and Humphrys is that newly coined phrases/uses for words is noticed in a negative light when done by young people. Lewis began his article with an example of teenage girls and their linguistic uses and Humphrys did the same by indirectly aiming his rage towards millennials. However, when Lewis realised that this trend isn't new he didn't label Dickens or Fitzgerald as ''culprits'' or contributing to ''the risk of linguistic anarchy''. But Lewis delves deeper into the change whereas Humphrys chooses use the Daily Mail article as more of a ranting open letter to the OED.
As children develop a sense of written language and how it translates phonetically, it's evident that they won't instantly grasp the concept and will make virtuous errors along the way. However, by labelling them as mistakes that need immediate correction, it ignores the fact that these miscues create opportunities for learning and strengthening or weakening certain linguistic behaviours. Miscues could be issues with blending phonemes, differentiating between letters, tracking or whole word errors. An example of a whole word error from text G is when the text reads 'Mum looked upset', however George interprets it to say 'Mum looked upstairs'. Based on the cues given on the page of the book, it is clear why George assumed the word was upstairs. The illustration on the page is a drawing of Mum walking upstairs whilst carrying a chair and also upset and upstairs share the same 3 initial graphemes. However, as both words begin the same this could also be classified as a word guessing error as when George quickly read it he assumed that the word was upstairs, with reinforcement of this from the picture of the stairs. The mother's responds to George with 'no (.) it looks like upstairs doesn't it (.) but look at the word'. The use of the negative particle 'no' directly addresses what George has said lets him know that he needs to try again but alone would sound harsh and could dishearten him. Mitigation is used to soften the negative reinforcement and the use of the tag question 'doesn't it' indicates that the mother understands why George made that error. This example of hedging demonstrates how parents hint at which strategies to use next to reach the right answer but they don't directly tell them. This benefits the child as if each time they requested help it was simply handed to them they would never learn to self-correct.
Mitigation is used fairly frequently by the mother in the transcript. In line 20 George makes another whole word error and his mother simply responds with 'nooo'. As mentioned previously, the negative particle 'no' is a very harsh sounding nasal consonant and since it's monosyllabic the blunted effect is emphasised. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning and reinforcement, as well as Brown and Levinson's research into politeness and face, could be used as an explanation of this. By elongating the chroneme of the vowel sound 'o' it removes negative connotations and instead signifies playfulness. If the mother were to bluntly state 'no' or 'wrong' every time then George would most likely eventually give up as he wouldn't feel as though he was gaining anything from the experience and it would feel like a punishment. Conversely, being constantly fed corrections would also result in giving up as he isn't learning for himself, thus he also isn't gaining anything. It's essential to find a balance between giving help and letting them figure it out alone as well as finding a balance between positive and negative reinforcement. If a child is constantly praised for tiny things in reading then they won't feel a need to progress as they get comfortable where they are, but if they receive no positive reinforcement or praise then they also won't move forwards as they don't feel they earn anything for their struggle.
On the other hand, none of this means that correction is invalid and unnecessary. Children need a model for language and the parent acts as this model when they correct them and provide them with the skills and strategies needed to be able to read fluently. Between lines 12 and 18 George struggles with the compound word sandbags and his mother models the pronunciation for him. George's echoing back response indicates that he is paying close attention and that in this case, the correction is useful. George: 'to their house' Mother: '[e] [z] (2.0) watch the endings' - this is an example of scaffolding. Scaffolding is part of Vygotsky's ZPD theory and means assistance through strategies. By using phonics - as taught in schools - and telling George to watch the endings, the mother is helping George gather a variety of skills and techniques as well as showing him how to use them so he can self-correct. This self-correction is demonstrated later on when George phonetically sounds out the word 'upset' to get to the correct answer.
Overall, correction of virtuous errors is important if done occasionally and given constructively rather than constantly being told the answer. If no strategies are put in place or introduced by the adult reading with the child, or if the child isn't given an opportunity to self-correct then no progress will be made.
