Has Post-Modern English Arrived?
Each generation, since the dawn of Beowulf, has added new words to the English language. This is nothing new. The sixties generation brought us such delightful descriptors as "groovy" and "hippie," while the seventies rocked us out with "super-fly" and a new thing called "disco." The eighties generation chimed in with such new words as "gnarly" and "radical," while the nineties gave us "grunge" and "bling" all in the same decade. The dawn of the 21st century brought us the "internet" and "ipods" and "cells," and with each increasing technology, new words are popping up all over the place.
As an English teacher at a high school, I am privvy to all of the new words being spoken and written by soon-to-be-adults. Let me tell you: they are not that promising. This generation doesn't seem to want to create new words; no, that would be too time consuming when the next level of Guitar Hero or Halo needs to be conquered and American Idol is about to start. Instead, this generation seems to enjoy bastardizing current English words, mostly by shortening them or creating easier words to remember.
For example, take the word conversation: "We had a conversation. At lunch, we conversed." Conversed is the correct past form of conversation in this example. However, what I hear constantly is: "We had a convo. At lunch, we conversated." What are these children doing to the English language? Sometimes they shorten words to make them sound cooler or easier to say and then complicate a more simplistic word like conversed. It is hardly even recognizable at points, what with the text language and abbreviations being used now. Kids can't even write out words like you and your; they write them "u" or "ur". I know we abbreviated with as w/ in my day, but c'mon, gimme a break! :) TTYL, WTF, LOL, POS...what does it all mean?
As someone on the frontlines of the changing English language, I will be the first to say that though each generation has added it's own list of new words, I think that for the first time, this generation, without even trying, has created post-modern English, as it so rarely resembles anything I call modern, formal English. I knew we wouldn't have modern English around forever, as everything eventually changes, but I didn't think that it would go the way of abbreviations.
It kind of hurts my soul to think that even Elizabethan English would befall this tragedy of shortening, as "To be or not to be, that is the question" would become "2 B or nt 2 B that is the ?". I fear that instead of enhancing the language, these changes will make reading one long series of interpreting what letters stand for rather than what the words mean and stand for. As a lover of literature, this pains my heart and makes me hope that this, too, shall pass.
About Katie
I am a 10th-12th grade English teacher at a rural school in Missouri and have recently taken to blogging as a way to write again (other than the comments I write on graded essays!).
I have written stories and poems all of my life and have never been...
Connections
Katie’s Favorite Books
Choosing favorite books is like choosing a favorite kid; it is impossible to do. However, here are some of my favorites: Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, The...
Me, too!
It drives me crazy, and I am not an English teacher. I must confess that I am a bit of a grammar geek. Having been taught by decent grammarians (disguised in the form of English teachers) I like the English language as it is, not what it is becoming. By the way, I like adverbs and it distresses me to no end to hear people talk without them as in "Come quick!" as opposed to "Come quickly!"
Grammar Geeks Unite!
Hello Nancy,
I do agree that we need to "check the vital signs of the English language," so to speak, to make sure it is still breathing after all of the butchering that has been done to it from what we remember being taught and using in school.
I agree that adverbs are being slaughtered as well in the way you describe and adjectives that are specific and apt and bring the writing alive are reduced to "good" "cool" and "sweet."
Plus, whatever happened to correct conjugation? It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear "We's doing stuff today" or "You is dumb." I want to say, no, you're the one who is ignorant of the English language! :) But, of course, I don't.
Thanks for your reply and thanks for reading! Hopefully there are other grammar geeks like us out there who will rally to save the English language as we remember it: with corect adverbs and spicy adjectives!
Katie
Ah, yes...
that drives me crazy, too. The misuse of subjective and objective pronouns as well as the plural/singular verb tenses. I have to admit to correcting a few employees when I hear "Me and Joe are going to the mall" to "Joe and I are going...." While I don't correct customers, I do sometimes correct employees. I figure that we need to sound intelligent and not dumb down our grammar.
Myself and I agree. :)
It is very hard not to correct employees and colleagues, but it is a fine line, I've found. Some people get really upset if you correct them, but I figure, at least they've heard now how to say it properly if they ever choose to revamp their language skills.
I try not to correct friends, though, as they seem to take it personally and it has caused a bit of a rift between one particular friend and myself. I just worry what will happen to my students when they go to interview for a job and speak in this manner. But, then I wonder if that is even a factor anymore when people are looking to hire employees?
I usually try to do it...
in a joking manner, but you are correct that it is a fine line that must be crossed.
As for hiring practices (at least in the past), I am one that tends to look at the whole package. I look at how well a person speaks and how well a person dresses. If a person isn't willing to come in dressed for a potential job (at least clean clothes that are not totally destroyed or ripped up); he/she doesn't have to be "dressed to the nines", but somewhat appropriately. But that is just me. I have seen many a person hired recently that I may not have considered and yet, once hired, they have turned out to be fine employees. On the other hand, I have seen a few that I wouldn't have considered and they don't stick around long.
I Agree: First Impressions are a Must
I agree and if I had the ability to hire, I think I would have to look at the whole package as well. Like you said, if you can't bother to present yourself in appearance as well as verbally in a manner that befits the position you are interviewing for, why should you be given the job?
Similarly, I am on Match.com right now and I hate to admit it, but I will rule people out based on how much time and effort they put into their profile. If it is riddled with spelling mistakes or doesn't bother to separate ideas with punctuation and capitalization, I pass on to someone else. I know that might be harsh, but again, I figure that can tell me a lot about who you are as a person and what is important. I know I might be missing some great guys that way, but honestly, I don't think I can be with someone who misuses "there," "their," and "they're" or even "to" and "too." I may sound like a grammar snob, but everyone has their limits and this is mine when it comes to dating online. :)
Katie, if you
are a grammar snob, then so am I. Those sorts of things drive me crazy. I can't claim to always have perfect grammar, but there are things that should be obvious.
One of my pet peeves is the "it's" and "its" situation. In fact, I used to write a newspaper column on health issues and concerns. I would proof it and then have my husband proof it, too. One of my columns started with the statement, "It's spring!" and the newspaper changed it to "Its spring!" I emailed the editor bemoaning the fact that I blew it grammar-wise, even though I knew that I hadn't. She wrote back with an apology saying their proofer changed it. She continued that she liked my columns not only for the content, but also because they were written without spelling or grammar problems.
Way to Go!
I'm glad to hear that you were known for your grammatically correct form as well as for your sparkling content. And I cannot believe that the proofreader changed "It's" to "Its!" That seems like a poor mistake to make when you have that position!
Speaking of misspelling homophones: how about "your" and "you're"? Or "to," "too," and "two"? How about the dreaded "there," "their," and "they're"? Grading sophomore (and even sometimes junior's) essays makes my brain tired from constantly correcting these mistakes, and they are so simple to remember if you just put your mind to it!
Agreed..
I sometimes think these errors can be directly correlated to two things.
1) The Write-to-read program where children write stories before they have learned to spell the words. They spell the words as they sound to them and if incorrect, no matter...it's the fact there is a story being told. (I suspect that is one of the reasons neither of my children spell tomorrow correctly. Each has his own unique spelling of the word despite my constant reminder of the correct way to spell the word.)
2) Spell check on computer programs like Word. If there is not a red line underlining a misspelled word, there's nothing misspelled. There's no need to actually re-read the paper to manually proof it!
Homophone errors are so easy to check, yet you see them all the time. Those words that are contractions are the easiest. If it doesn't make sense with the contraction taken out (you are vs you're, for example), it probably isn't right.
Great Analysis!
Nancy,
I agree completely with your astute analysis! I cannot tell you how many of my eleventh-grade students spell the word "does" "dose," which can only be a phonetic spelling as there is no other explanation for it. They were taught using the method you described.
And spell check has ruined student's ability to even use a dictionary properly. On our state test two years ago, only 23% of the students were able to answer the question regarding dictionary use. They may not have to memorize the spelling of everything now, but they should at least learn how to use all of their reference tools.
I keep saying to them: "You wait. One day, there will be a massive power failure and computers won't work. If you don't have any other resources, you're screwed." (well, not the last part, exactly, but that is the sentiment!)
To err is human...
Katie--I enjoyed reading this. Especially about the new words added by the youngsters. I agree youth need to be taught to use correct grammar and punctuation. Thanks for doing it! However, let us remember that most of us make errors unless we have unlimited time to proof and re-proof. Most of us do not have unlimited time, and much of our writing isn't worth that much time if we had it. Ha.
I think the very speed of communicating (conversating??) by Internet causes us to make errors. I certainly know the difference between "their" and "there" and other such simple words, yet I frequently see I have made an drror typing them in. (There goes my age showing. I guess I should have said keying them rather than typing them. Ha.)
If you don't think educated folk can write errors, look at this sentence from your blog: "As someone on the frontlines of the changing English language, I will be the first to say that though each generation has added it's own list of new words, I think that for the first time, this generation, without even trying, has created post-modern English, as it so rarely resembles anything I call modern, formal English."
As I read this, I didn't think you did not know the difference between "its" and "it's" but rather you were writing in a hurry rather than tediously trying to be correct. It's okay. You communicated and still gave us an interesting blog. I make these kinds of hurried errors all the time, and probably some of your students do too. (I do remember how discouraging it is when you think you have taught something and obviously you haven't.)
BTW, is it possible some of these students who spell "does" as "dose" may have a learning disability? That was one error I do not remember ever encountering except in verbal communication when some kids would say something like, "Dose guys weren't very chummy." Of course, others might have said, "Them guys weren't very chummy."
Great Observations!
Hello Sue,
Thank you so much for reading and commenting on my entry. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it!
I have to admit, you made some very astute observations, especially noting my own hurried misuse of "it's"! You are right; even though I proof read that once, I still missed that error, and am glad that it didn't stop you from enjoying my writing. I appreciate the point you are making; many of the mistakes that drive me insane may very well be simple oversights, as we all make these kinds of errors from time to time. And you are right, the speed with which we converse (conversate!) does cause many an error, which I am guilty of quite frequently!
I don't think it has anything to do with your age as I am from a generation that is supposed to be "technologically savvy" and yet I find myself still a "digital immigrant" rather than a "digital native" (to borrow from one of my professors) most of the time.
Thank you, as well, for making the point that some of the students who misspell "does" may have learning disabilities. I have considered this possibility, but so far none of the SpEd teachers have found this to be the case. It seems that for this group of students, they were taught whole word spelling, which is based on just spelling the word how you think it is spelled rather than teaching phonetics and rules of spelling. I cannot blame them for this, but it is frustrating that they are not catching themselves now and re-learning how to spell their problem words correctly. However, again, I must remember a college professor during my masters criticizing our class for continuously making the same errors in our writing, and realize that we all continue to do this, even after we are grown. :)
in defense of spell check
some of us have been greatly lacking in spelling skills since birth. I am one of them. And spell check has made my life so much easier for those having to read what I type. As for the shortening of words. An Oxford professor (I want to say his name is Bill crystal ) has a new book out and the title implies that text writing (LOL, CU later) is just natural evolution for a language. Well that is what the title implies I haven't had a chance to read his book because I am reading another one of his book and it is long and heavy and causes me to sleep (unlike most of his books which keep me up late at night because he makes learning how language works ..well...fun)
The thing that annoys me, smiley faces in formal e-mails :(
I am guilty of said offense...
Obviously, as you can see, I am very guilty of putting smiley faces in emails, though I rarely put them in formal emails. (Though, obviously, you can see my lie if you just read a few emails before this!).
And yes, spell check is a blessing. I agree with that completely and wish I had it for these posts. But, what I want my students to understand is that if they cannot use spell check, they need to be able to use other resources, like a dictionary, no matter how old fashioned it might seem.
I can also see how text abbreviations could be seen as the next step in language evolution, but honestly, it just makes me sad. For me, the beauty of the language is in its entirity; the meaning of words rather than of letters is what brings me to reading, and I just worry we will lose something if we abbreviate everything.
yep
I completely agree with you ...I am just being argumentative. After all If I agreed with you completely that would had been a conversation killer. I still have a dictionary in America but haven't gotten a new one because the words I need to look up haven't changed.
I think things like twitter (and the resultant twitting) is doing more than dumbing down the language, it is also making society as a whole dumber. Actually I will blame the internet for that. I am really angry at the internet on one hand I really want to dislike it and things like twitter and facebook on the other hand it has so much useless information that someone like me would be terribly bored without it.
Play Devil's Advocate!
Thank you for playing devil's advocate. I enjoy having someone point out the other side of the argument; to me, that is the only way we can grow and learn different perspectives on what we believe, as long as we keep an open mind to it.
I do enjoy the fact that Oxford does update its dictionary to include new words and the kids I teach get suck a kick out of seeing words like "bling" and "fo-shizzle" in the dictionary, though I tend to agree with you. Any word that is worth looking up will still be in the Webster's I had when I was in high school.
I also agree that the internet has "dumbed down" our culture, which is ironic, because, as you pointed out, it allows us access to such loads of information, so one would assume it would make us more worldly and intelligent. However, so far, I've only seen the opposite. Students don't even know how to use a library search engine to find a book on their topic or even how to narrow down a google search on their topic to find credible and pertinent information. I guess that means I should be teaching them how to use google as a reference tool, which I am starting to do, but I still believe that other ways of finding information is still as valuable, though outdated to them, I'm sure.
Spell check is invaluable,
IF, and this is a big if, you still take the time to (physically--that is, print out a copy and read it word for word) proofread. In other words, just because there isn't any red underline in the text does not mean there aren't any errors. On the other hand, Google and other search engines are only effective as long as the information obtained is valid. My husband teaches the Bible in the cultural-historical context in which it was "written". (Much of the Bible was orally transmitted for years until someone sat down and transcribed the oral history into some sort of writing material like parchment or vellum.) Part of this course requires papers based on an article that the students choose from one of the Bible dictionaries (more like an encyclopedia, than a dictionary as we know it). Once that topic is chosen, it is amazing that these same students will follow links (or as he calls them "rabbit holes") to prove what they believe it should be, rather than using good scholarship (and checking out the sources). Sue was right; I caught that same error when I first read your blog, but rather than be contentious, I, like Sue, figured it was a "just-in-a-hurry" typing error and understood your intent. I have to admit that I read and re-read my blog posts before I submit them, and more often than not, still end up editing them for errors (extra key strokes, grammatical errors, misspellings, you-name-it). What is worse, if I miss one, and catch it later, I cringe! I worry, too, that others will notice and think poorly of my writing. If possible, I still go back and edit the post, but perhaps that is the proofreader in me. Note, however, I still consider what I am doing is typing, not keyboarding. I grew up in the era of typewriters and to me, there is no difference except erasures are certainly easier than the old-fashioned way. The copies come out cleaner, too!
Just a side note:
Katie, from the response to your blog, it is obvious that your subject on English (and its subsequent dumbing down, in a sense) has resonated with many of us. Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks, Nancy, for your nice comment. And I'm glad to hear that my writing struck a chord with many of you! Connecting and sharing ideas through writing is such a passion of mine and I'm glad I can share that with all of you! I appreciate all of your comments as well, as good writing involves a give and take between author and reader.
I am also a "digital immigrant" who likes to proofread on actual paper with an actual pen. For whatever reason, I can catch mistakes easier if I read them in print rather than on a computer screen. I wonder why that is?
right on
always better to proof read it. I can't count the number of times I wrote a word that was spelled correctly for example "witch" when I meant a different word "which". Also the grammar check is always a bit off...I think it was a conspriacy with microsoft working togther with my professors to make sure I actually read what I wrote.
I vote for the conspiracy theory...
I laughed so hard at the conspiracy theory with professors and microsoft thwarting student's efforts not to have to proofread their own papers!
I agree. I know I mess up a lot as well, but I guess you always try to do your best, even when in a hurry. If we all try hard, maybe we can beat microsoft and those professors at their own game!
cORRECTION
Now I think the Oxford Professor's name is David Crytsal. Alspo I am quite curious how to properly use the word forshizzle in a sentence. I heard someone who was about 10 year my junior use it and now I am curious how to properly you it.
Foshizzle this will rock!
I believe "foshizzle" means "for sure", but I am not sure. Love the irony in that statement. I believe there is an urban dictionary online that lists all of the terms used currently on the "street". Apparently, carling means puking on the street. I didn't know this, and I'll bet neither did Carl, who it probably got renamed after, just like poor Ralph.