Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
26 Answers
Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
Norweigans learn Norweigan, the Greeks have taught their Greek!
In France, every Frenchman knows his language from 'A' to 'Zed'
The French never care what they do, actually, so long as they pronounce it properly.
Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lighting,
The Hebrews learn it backwards which is absolutely frightening!
But use proper English you're regarded as a freak! Oh why can't the English,
Why Can't the English learn to... speak?!
Like anybody with any sanity, I don't mind spelling errors at all, and I can also sympathise with finding 'language police' irritating. However, I know people who seem to be unable to speak or write the language correctly (I think 'text-speak' for example has a visibly negative effect on spelling abilities). What makes you want to tear your hair out is when people positively look down on you for writing things out correctly.
Now, I'm sure plenty of you will have gotten used to me by now and should be aware that I'm never going to sit here and proclaim the end of western civilisation over something like this, but this really, really gets my goat.
Thoughts? Possible solutions? I was also wondering if I was just getting more pedantic or if anyone else has had such experiences.
[if this turns into an immigration debate, I'm going to stamp my feet and scream. Please keep it out of this topic.]
Norweigans learn Norweigan, the Greeks have taught their Greek!
In France, every Frenchman knows his language from 'A' to 'Zed'
The French never care what they do, actually, so long as they pronounce it properly.
Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lighting,
The Hebrews learn it backwards which is absolutely frightening!
But use proper English you're regarded as a freak! Oh why can't the English,
Why Can't the English learn to... speak?!
Like anybody with any sanity, I don't mind spelling errors at all, and I can also sympathise with finding 'language police' irritating. However, I know people who seem to be unable to speak or write the language correctly (I think 'text-speak' for example has a visibly negative effect on spelling abilities). What makes you want to tear your hair out is when people positively look down on you for writing things out correctly.
Now, I'm sure plenty of you will have gotten used to me by now and should be aware that I'm never going to sit here and proclaim the end of western civilisation over something like this, but this really, really gets my goat.
Thoughts? Possible solutions? I was also wondering if I was just getting more pedantic or if anyone else has had such experiences.
[if this turns into an immigration debate, I'm going to stamp my feet and scream. Please keep it out of this topic.]
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I totally agree with you.
The English language, spoken and written properly, is beautiful but the way some children are taught now, by their parents, is awful.
There has always been slang and there always will be and language never stands still, we don't speak the same way as the Victorians for example. However, I think that a whole generation of children will grow up unable to string a sentence together. There is also the threat that this present government will disallow any freedom of thought and ideas because, let's face it, they're trying to ban everything else. But that's a whole new argument!
It's like the best of British is being done away with including our language.
The English language, spoken and written properly, is beautiful but the way some children are taught now, by their parents, is awful.
There has always been slang and there always will be and language never stands still, we don't speak the same way as the Victorians for example. However, I think that a whole generation of children will grow up unable to string a sentence together. There is also the threat that this present government will disallow any freedom of thought and ideas because, let's face it, they're trying to ban everything else. But that's a whole new argument!
It's like the best of British is being done away with including our language.
Remember years ago when young children were asked to listen but not speak around the table. This enabled them to listen to how english was spoken and could catch onto proper sentences. Since the youngest children now have freedom of speech adults have changed their talk to suit them
There's nothing better than a family debate around the table where each child can voice their opinion but if they don't know how to put their thoughts into words, because they've never been taught, it comes to nothing.
From being little, children need this contact with the adult world and not the eternal 'do this' 'don't do that'. We learnt to imitate our elders whereas children nowadays are expected to 'know' what's right and wrong. That's what gets MY goat, Kromovaracun (incidently, what does that mean???!!!)
There's nothing better than a family debate around the table where each child can voice their opinion but if they don't know how to put their thoughts into words, because they've never been taught, it comes to nothing.
From being little, children need this contact with the adult world and not the eternal 'do this' 'don't do that'. We learnt to imitate our elders whereas children nowadays are expected to 'know' what's right and wrong. That's what gets MY goat, Kromovaracun (incidently, what does that mean???!!!)
It means 'it irritates me a lot'. I'm not sure of the phrase's origins, other than it must be rather destressing to have one's goat stolen...
I think the big change is actually that kids don't read nearly as much (mostly because there's a hell of a lot more competing with their spare time with the rise of TV and especially computer gaming, not to mention the internet).
Perhaps an increase in more 'required reading' or set texts for school subjects might change something (for example having older kids reading a set book in history and examining the argument. Or something like that).
I think the big change is actually that kids don't read nearly as much (mostly because there's a hell of a lot more competing with their spare time with the rise of TV and especially computer gaming, not to mention the internet).
Perhaps an increase in more 'required reading' or set texts for school subjects might change something (for example having older kids reading a set book in history and examining the argument. Or something like that).
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Are you just not objecting to change perhaps? No language is static, it constantly evolves. What is considered correct and of high standard at one point in time will be inaccurate and dated at another point in history. If we were to use the spelling and pronunciation of Shakespeare we would be if not unintelligible very difficult to understand. Also who owns the English language and who should arbitrate on what is correct or not. I think arbitrators have historically (and even now possibly) been white middle/upper class intellectual men who are not truly representative of the wider population. Why shouldn't the young people wrest control of the language and use it they way they want to?
A Google search gave me this- This expression comes from a tradition in horse racing. Thought to have a calming effect on high-strung thoroughbreds, a goat was placed in the horse�s stall on the night before the race. Unscrupulous opponents would then steal the goat in an effort to upset the horse and cause it to lose the race.
A Google search gave me this- This expression comes from a tradition in horse racing. Thought to have a calming effect on high-strung thoroughbreds, a goat was placed in the horse�s stall on the night before the race. Unscrupulous opponents would then steal the goat in an effort to upset the horse and cause it to lose the race.
I can sort of see your point about a constantly evolving language, but I'm a little confused as to what the point you're making in rest of your post is.
Are you saying the language is some kind of repressive elitist control over the poor? Pardon if this isn't what you're trying to say, but that seems a touch daft...
Are you saying the language is some kind of repressive elitist control over the poor? Pardon if this isn't what you're trying to say, but that seems a touch daft...
No I don't think the purpose of language is a form of control, even my Marxist/feminist beliefs don't take me that far into the world of conspiracy. I think language is universal to all human societies. But, I do think language can be used as a form of control. Knowledge is power and you can use language to include and exclude. Professional jargon is an example of this.
In this country the power has rested with a certain class as I have already mentioned and they have had the ruling on what is �correct� or �incorrect� English. What I was asking is that right, why should they determine what is good rather than a teenager who texts. English belongs to all and to no-one?
Did bit of research to see if I could find any academic support. :-
-Boyd (1995), indicates that in the years after the American Civil War, the ability to speak and write �correctly� became more and more a class distinction Boyd, concluded that a small but powerful minority of �verbal critics� called for a purification of linguistic behavior in secondary and post secondary schools
-Smitherman, in 1977, saw a continuation of the cult of correctness, fed by misconceptions and myths regarding languages in general. She points out that one of the myths was that in every language there were �primitive� or �underdeveloped� languages. The belief was that some people spoke the correct version of the language, and that other people spoke a dialect, or wrote or spoke a form of the language that was sloppy and unsystematic.
In this country the power has rested with a certain class as I have already mentioned and they have had the ruling on what is �correct� or �incorrect� English. What I was asking is that right, why should they determine what is good rather than a teenager who texts. English belongs to all and to no-one?
Did bit of research to see if I could find any academic support. :-
-Boyd (1995), indicates that in the years after the American Civil War, the ability to speak and write �correctly� became more and more a class distinction Boyd, concluded that a small but powerful minority of �verbal critics� called for a purification of linguistic behavior in secondary and post secondary schools
-Smitherman, in 1977, saw a continuation of the cult of correctness, fed by misconceptions and myths regarding languages in general. She points out that one of the myths was that in every language there were �primitive� or �underdeveloped� languages. The belief was that some people spoke the correct version of the language, and that other people spoke a dialect, or wrote or spoke a form of the language that was sloppy and unsystematic.
In written text, if the English is perfect and the
punctuation, syntax and spelling are faultless,
we can deduce only one thing; that the writer is
educated.
No hint of social-class, wealth, occupation, gender,
nationality, politics, religion, personality, character,
region, accent or dialect will be detected.
The subject-matter might disclose these variables,
but not the structure of the prose, per se.
The spoken word gives the game away. In Britain,
as in many other cultures, it pays to guard one's
tongue. 'Estuary English', the glottal-stop and the
less-favoured regional accents can cause the
listener to squirm.
Parents and teachers must be aware that children
learn lessons that were never knowingly taught.
punctuation, syntax and spelling are faultless,
we can deduce only one thing; that the writer is
educated.
No hint of social-class, wealth, occupation, gender,
nationality, politics, religion, personality, character,
region, accent or dialect will be detected.
The subject-matter might disclose these variables,
but not the structure of the prose, per se.
The spoken word gives the game away. In Britain,
as in many other cultures, it pays to guard one's
tongue. 'Estuary English', the glottal-stop and the
less-favoured regional accents can cause the
listener to squirm.
Parents and teachers must be aware that children
learn lessons that were never knowingly taught.
While I can certainly see Ruby's point about language evolving - we'd all still be talking like characters from Chaucer if it didn't - the trouble I have with a lot of (for want of a better phrase) "teen speak" is that it seems to show the language regressing rather than evolving.
I fink u no wot I mean (see? Hardly sounds like progress, does it?)
I agree completely with the original poster, even down to a distaste for 'language police'. There is certainly at least one semi-regular AB poster I could name (but won't) whose sole "contribution" (if you can call it that) seems to be to correct the spelling or grammar of others. I must admit to pouncing gleefully if said poster ever makes an error himself, but that's just to give him a taste of his own medicine. I do find it hard to stop myself if anyone uses the phrase "could/would/should OF" (instead of 'have') - a pet hate of mine which should be punishable by flogging - but I usually manage it.
Slang is fine by me, and the introduction of new slang terms is indeed one of the main ways in which langauge progresses, but I find the use of 'txt spk' in any setting other than a mobile phone to be lazy, inconsiderate and, quite frankly, makes the user seem a bit thick.
I fink u no wot I mean (see? Hardly sounds like progress, does it?)
I agree completely with the original poster, even down to a distaste for 'language police'. There is certainly at least one semi-regular AB poster I could name (but won't) whose sole "contribution" (if you can call it that) seems to be to correct the spelling or grammar of others. I must admit to pouncing gleefully if said poster ever makes an error himself, but that's just to give him a taste of his own medicine. I do find it hard to stop myself if anyone uses the phrase "could/would/should OF" (instead of 'have') - a pet hate of mine which should be punishable by flogging - but I usually manage it.
Slang is fine by me, and the introduction of new slang terms is indeed one of the main ways in which langauge progresses, but I find the use of 'txt spk' in any setting other than a mobile phone to be lazy, inconsiderate and, quite frankly, makes the user seem a bit thick.
-- answer removed --
As an ex-teacher I can understand many people's anxieties concerning the need to communicate with good speech and ability to write so that others can understand what they mean. For parents I would say that they should constantly be aware of how their children's communication skills are developing but in later life the children will have to make up their own minds BUT good examples are everything.
Kromovaracun
Is your last answer genuine gibberish or is it a text sort of speak or in a language that I can not read (can only speak and read English). Is your point that if we do not follow the grammatical rules we run the risk of being incomprehensible? Or is it something more subtle? I need subtlety explained as it is not one of my strong points.
Is your last answer genuine gibberish or is it a text sort of speak or in a language that I can not read (can only speak and read English). Is your point that if we do not follow the grammatical rules we run the risk of being incomprehensible? Or is it something more subtle? I need subtlety explained as it is not one of my strong points.
It's English, ruby - backwards. It reads:
Really? But surely that makes for some communication troubles?
By the way, what do you think of my new style?
My point was really the chaos that everyone going on their own 'individual styles' as advocated by someone else would result in disaster as people would struggle to understand each other. Better to have one set of universally-adhered to language rules - so everyone can understand. Albeit presented as a gross exaggeration...
Really? But surely that makes for some communication troubles?
By the way, what do you think of my new style?
My point was really the chaos that everyone going on their own 'individual styles' as advocated by someone else would result in disaster as people would struggle to understand each other. Better to have one set of universally-adhered to language rules - so everyone can understand. Albeit presented as a gross exaggeration...
-- answer removed --
If it can make you feel better I can tell you (being one of them) that the French are not better than the English at speaking properly. I assume it is due to the fact that the school standards are not as "drastic" as they used to be some years ago, because of the culture of targets, where both in France and in England, 100% of pupils are supposed to be able to pass their A-level/Baccalaureat. Problem is, by making these exams easier, more people will obviously pass, but it does not mean that they actually master neither the language not the basic sum of knowlegde we could expect from them.
In addition, I would say that the TV programmes standards really do not help. It is clear that French TV is far from being perfect in the cultural sense, but having spent some times in England now, I feel able to compare and English TV programmes are ridiculously stupid and do not help developing a wide vocabulary as well as a critical mind. Given the time children spend watching them, little wonder that the cause of their poor vocabulary notably lies here.
In addition, I would say that the TV programmes standards really do not help. It is clear that French TV is far from being perfect in the cultural sense, but having spent some times in England now, I feel able to compare and English TV programmes are ridiculously stupid and do not help developing a wide vocabulary as well as a critical mind. Given the time children spend watching them, little wonder that the cause of their poor vocabulary notably lies here.
