Copyright © 2022 Larry Johnson
I have to confess that I know not where to begin with this subject. It is the timeline that provides the problem not the essence of the essay. At some stage in our history, someone (or some group) decided it would be convenient to encourage the abandonment of appreciation for the English language. If one were to view literary trends, the decline could be approximated at some time from the Dickensian era until now. It is even possible that William Shakespeare might have considered a faltering from his time to that of Charles Dickens. We will never know his view, but it is obvious to me that certainly from the middle of the 19th Century to the current era there has been a monumental deterioration in the manner in which society generally conducts itself apropos the English language – in writing and speech. There are a few facets that I will discuss, including the ‘dumbing down’ of the language, the incoherence of acronyms, and the apparent lack of effort in attempting to construct intelligent communication.
The Oxford English Dictionary First Edition was published in fascicles (sections) between 1884 and 1928. Supplemental volumes followed between 1933 and 1986. The First Edition contained 252,200 words. A subsequent Second Edition contained 291,500 entries[i]. Now, it is difficult to make any substantial claims regarding the frequency of usage of many of these entries, but it is difficult to argue that modern text and dialogue includes as many as in by gone days. The modernist may claim that we do not need many of the ‘old-fashioned words. Unequivocally, I posit that the English language has (had?) a certain beauty about it that authors such as Dickens, Trollope, Conrad etc., skilfully applied. As an example, Chapter 2 of Charles Dickens’ novel Martin Chuzzlewit includes multiple paragraphs colourfully describing the wind driving Autumn leaves down a street. The section could be considered as a stand-alone contribution to prose; and I would recommend anyone and everyone avail themselves of at least a perusal. I have not observed the use of such animated and descriptive words or phrases in modern literature to portray simple events. My experience has been that modern novels require a bedroom scene or similar to attract the notice of the reader. I was recently recommended an author of whom, I was informed, wrote eloquently. Within the first few pages resort was made to the old chestnut of the sex scene; the narrative of which was much less than eloquent. It was also disappointing on another level, as some time ago I undertook to not read any fiction written post 1950 and felt much remorse for repeating my error. It will take some convincing for me to ‘dip in’ again – perhaps only if the book is offered free of charge. Disposing of it in the recycle bin will not then have the added regret of fewer dollars in the pocket.
It is painfully evident to me that we have become too lazy to appreciate the beauty of the English language. As with other matters in the modern world, we appear to seek the quick, easy, and mediocre path. The reader may argue we need language that everyone understands, and to a point I agree. However, it is apparent we have dismissed the notion that it is a worthwhile endeavour to improve ourselves. The sportsman or sportswoman will realise that there are aspects in which they would like to advance. They enjoy their sport so the effort will be made to correct any deficit as much as possible. This may involve research from textual resources or access to face-to-face coaching. If I were to read books that did not challenge my knowledge of the language, I fear I would soon become uninterested. If I were to keep accessing novels that poured forth the same trite language, I have no doubt I would become bored and apathetic toward reading, giving the whole exercise away. As readers we have easy access to a useful resource – the dictionary. I place a caveat here, in that if reading older novels, the word you may be looking for may not be in a modern dictionary. Modern dictionaries, some anyway, have been dumbed down as well. The remedy I sought for this was to purchase a used older dictionary: they are accessible. I often read novels with a dictionary by my side. There is no stigma involved here; just some humility to realise I am not as competent with the language as I might be, and self-improvement is always worthwhile.
Acronyms, in respect of writing and speech, have become a plague, a blight on the English language, a boil on the posterior of good communication. I do comprehend that initially acronyms were convenient in referring to organizations or groups etc. RFPBR may be convenient for describing the Residential Facility for Pot Belly Rockers. It is convenient for text and speech and everyone would eventually understand what was meant by its usage. However, when the method spreads to the extent where we shorten ‘see you later’ to ‘cu later’, it can be concluded that the exercise has been reduced to the ridiculous. Have we become so slovenly that we cannot be bothered to write something in full? Is our time so short? Regarding the former, I believe, we have. As for the latter I cannot so consider. No doubt this accelerated with the advent of email and phone texting, but the seed was sown long before. Many years ago, as a young clerical officer in a government agency, the catch cry from seniors was to expedite their instructions as soon as possible, which then, in little time, became “asap”. It apparently had become burdensome to say, or write, the whole phrase, so it had to be shortened. Time is precious you know! I performed a little exercise. It takes one second to say ‘as soon as possible’ and one half second to say ‘asap’. So, I suppose I could save half a second every time I use the acronym! During my years of formal education, it was instilled that for others to understand what you are saying or writing the communication should be clear. With a plethora of acronyms this is becoming more difficult. It is disquieting to have a conversation with someone spewing forth acronyms on a topic that one may not have had exposure to, with the assumption that the receiver actually understands anything of what is being said. All for convenience and time saving no doubt. As stated, the practice has become rampant to the point of ludicrousness. It suggests a level of disregard as to whether one actually cares to be understood.
Of course, we have only highlighted the use of words; primarily the inadequacy of variety and the lethargy with which they are applied. We have not as yet touched on the issue of grammar. It is here I place myself in some peril, as I am sure there are those that will claim ‘physician heal thyself’. In a pre-emptive defence I apologize for any grammatical form that does not concur with conventions agreeable to the reader. Nonetheless, I press on in humility, acknowledging that writers are often at odds with the practices of another. Should I have made any grammatical faux pas regarded universally as poor form, I stand humbly remorseful. However, I am compelled to state that I have read papers by university graduates, professionals, and politicians where the grammar has been chronically incoherent. The same applies to journalist’s reports. The consolation for me is that the below par fare dished up by professionals and academics grants peace of mind with my own work: this writer having never graced the corridors of higher educational institutes. (Presently, I hesitate to delve into controversy regarding subject-verb agreements, particularly regarding journalists and reporters, suffice to say that too many times their choices appear doubtful. However, there have been many grammatical guides written by people more qualified than I, so I will defer to those resources for any judgement).
Apropos speech, one would be foolish to expect that it should regularly follow the conventions of formal writing. When we are conducting a conversation in the street or café we of course do not customarily speak formally, particularly with acquaintances, friends etc. This often applies also in the workplace, especially outside of meetings and conferences. It is, however, most helpful if all concerned have some grasp of the language to be able to express themselves in a polite and sensible manner. I happened past a worksite some time ago. I will not divulge particulars of the type of site so as to not single out professions. The conversation was repeatedly peppered with words of the length of four letters, mostly commencing with the sixth letter of the alphabet. The thought occurred to me that I should perhaps practice an act of charity by purchasing a swag of pocket dictionaries and distribute them free of charge to those concerned; in the hope that they may find some alternatives so as to add some variety to their conversation. Now the reader will claim that this form of the English language has been around for ever and a day; and I concur to a point. However, my workplace experience in days gone by is that proponents of this branch of the language were, more often than not selective, contingent upon the situations in which it was used. When it was not appropriate, they had knowledge of some alternatives to apply.
If the reader would allow I now engage a further divergence, noting that society, including professionals and self-identified intelligentsia, become fixated on using certain words and render them ad nauseam, displaying a limited familiarity of the language. The example that immediately comes to mind is the word ‘absolutely.’ When a statement is made in conversation, agreement appears nearly always to be affirmed with the response ‘absolutely.’ May I make a few suggestions: certainly, most certainly, definitely, most definitely, surely, of course, indubitably, undeniably, unquestionably, indeed. There was a time when the term cliché commonly referred to a hackneyed phrase or saying. It appears the definition now applies also to the singular word. So, the lesson is that if we care to use a dictionary or thesaurus our conversations may tend towards the not so trite and monotonous. I would have thought that those with higher education would have had recourse to these resources at some stage; but perhaps not.
In conclusion, I posit that we are now in a situation where the English language has been dumbed down to a point where people are becoming less able to write and speak in an orderly manner. Or alternatively, writing and conversation has become so stale that one could fall asleep in the midst of its reading and hearing. In days past writers and speakers were fluent and knowledgeable of the language to the extent that they could render beautiful, imaginative, and descriptive expressions to which the reader and hearer was attracted; and through assimilation became more fulfilled and knowledgeable themselves. I have no doubt that this benefited subsequent everyday conversation. It is a recognized actuality that the masses mimic the arts and the self-appointed intelligentsia. At some stage men and women of letters, for reasons unknown, chose to constrict the language; simplifying it to a point where the product became mundane and insipid. Moreover, the general population developed a lethargy whereby it is more convenient to write and speak in shorthand. We entered a severe downward spiral where all too many novelists cannot now write without including tawdry text to attract the baser instincts of the reader. Where many in society cannot conduct a conversation without resorting to a word of the length of four letters commencing with the sixth letter of the alphabet. Where hordes write and speak in shorthand gibberish. Where the masses consider it suitable to mimic the restricted and narrow language of the modern intelligentsia.
