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.
No comments:
Post a Comment