EL1102: Lecture No. 12 (Part 2)

EL1102 Studying English in Context

Good and bad English; political correctness

Lecture No. 12 (Part 2)

What is good or bad English? Metaphors

Singaporean school children ‘almost always speak pidgin English completely devoid of good grammar… Erroneous English will perpetuate for a long time to come’ (letter to Asia Magazine, 10–12/10/97): English that is unstructured

‘It is time to put a stop to the adulteration of English and Mandarin here’ (Lim Boon Hwee, letter to The Straits Times, 7/9/99): English that is tainted, impure, non-virginal

‘Singlish’ is ‘a handicap we do not wish on Singaporeans’ (Lee Kuan Yew, speech given at the Tanjong Pagar National Day dinner, 14/8/99): English that is diseased, 'Singlish' as a birth defect

Questions

· Why is the layperson so sure about the notion of language being ‘good’ or ‘bad’? What do they mean by it?

· Why are linguists so reluctant to talk about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ language?

· What is the position we should take with regard to these moral judgements about language?

Remember!

· The jury is still out on the issue, and there will continue to be lively debate here

· Work out your own position with regard to the issue, in relation to your own values and principles and perspectives.

What do people mean by ‘bad English’ or ‘bad language’?

· Clichés

· Sentence fragments

· New usages

· Spelling and pronunciation

· Swear words, strong exclamations, expletives

· ‘Coarse’ references

· Offensive ways of referring to people

· Non-standard grammatical constructions

· Unclear pronunciation

· Singaporean pragmatic particles

· Americanisms

· Affectation (verbosity, circumlocution)

· Slangy or highly colloquial language

· Coining new words

What is the nature of the objections?

· Moral: offensiveness (‘God!’, ‘fairies’, ‘fuck’)

· Imprecision, lack of concision

· Ambiguity

· Conservative tendencies

· Aesthetics

Is language like other forms of social behaviour? Can it be regulated in the same way that a dress code can? Is ‘bad’ language necessarily anti-social?

How do linguists figure in all this?

· Scepticism about ‘correct’ speech existing somewhere. Cf. Johnson: Tongues, like governments have a natural tendency to degeneration.

· Linguists relativise the notion of good and bad English, and prefer to talk of appropriate or inappropriate English

· Linguists say they take a descriptivist, rather than prescriptivist position.

An assumption in modern linguistics

· All linguistic systems of all languages and dialects are equal.

· All languages and all varieties of a particular language have [structures] that enable their speakers to express any proposition that the human mind can produce. In terms of this all-important criterion, then, all varieties of language are absolutely equal as instruments of communication and thought. The goal of contemporary linguistic analysis is not to rank languages [dialects, accents] on some imaginary scale of superiority. Rather, linguists seek to understand the nature of the grammatical systems that allow people to speak and understand a language. [O’Grady et al., Contemporary linguistics: An introduction (1997), p. 6]

Why then are some varieties favoured over others?

· Standard dialects (eg StdE v East Anglian English/ colloquial Singaporean English)

· If, as linguists maintain, there is no intrinsic superiority of one variety over another, then the prestige accorded to certain varieties must be for other reasons. Prestige varieties are often associated with those in power.

· Sometimes, ideals like ‘eloquence’, ‘wit’, ‘beauty’ or ‘intelligibility’ are invoked (cf. Dr Rubdy’s lectures on standardisation), but others argue that it is only dialects spoken by the powerful that have these qualities. Is it just coincidence?

· Those in power perform ‘gate-keeping’ duties. (Editors, teachers, employers, etc.)

Our reaction?

· ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’

· The status quo is unacceptable; there is hegemony; undue influence and power is accorded to a particular group. We should be more accepting of variation.

· The status quo is acceptable; the choice of any one variety as the ‘standard’ will favour one group anyway.

The notion of ‘verbal hygiene’

· Deborah Cameron coined the term ‘verbal hygiene’ to describe how groups try to change the way people speak

· This includes, for example, ‘house styles’ of journals and newspapers; discussions of the school curriculum on language; advice given on how to speak (including ‘assertiveness training’), and ‘political correctness’.

Cameron’s definition of verbal hygiene (1990: 18)

... a set of practices whose object is to ‘clean up’ the language, whether by upholding its supposed traditions (the project, for instance, of recent revision to the English national curriculum), or by proposing wholesale improvements (the project of spelling reformers, Esperantists and of the so-called ‘politically correct’). Where the underlying values informing such projects are contested, the verbal hygiene practices that seek to express those values in rules about language use will also be contested.

What is ‘political correctness’?

(From Chambers 21st century Dictionary)

· ‘The avoidance of expressions or actions that may be understood to exclude or denigrate certain people or groups of people on the grounds of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.’

· Words ending in -ess should be used with caution. Many, such as authoress and manageress, are no longer used; a few, such as Jewess and Negress are considered offensive.

· Avoid using man and men to refer to both men and women. Instead, use people, humans or human beings. Compounds which include ‘man’ should be replaced by sex-neutral terms: synthetic instead of man-made, working hours instead of manhours, representative instead of spokesman. (Cf. Discussions on the name of the new Ministry of Manpower.)

· It is rarely necessary to specify a person’s sex when referring to the job they do. Avoid terms such as lady doctor, woman judge and female reporter. Equally, terms such as male nurse should be avoided.

· Avoid the terms handicap and handicapped: their association with the image of disabled people going ‘cap in hand’ onto the streets of Victorian Britain makes them nowadays unacceptable to people with disabilities.

· The term disabled, and terms such as blind and deaf, are all perfectly acceptable, but avoid referring to disabled people as the disabled or the blind. For disabled people, such terms connect too closely with the idea of charity. Instead use ‘people with a disability’, etc.

The problem of the English pronominal system

Many have complained about how English forces you to choose the sex of the person in hypothetical situations. Solutions?

· Use the masculine and feminine pronouns (he or she, alternate)

If a student fails EL1101, he or she should retake the module

· Recast the sentence in the plural

If students fail EL1101, they should retake the module

· Use the ‘singular’ they

If a student fails EL1101, they should retake the module

· Use the indefinite one

When one fails EL1101, one should retake the module

· Passivise the sentence

If a student fails EL1101, the module should be retaken.

· Other reformulations

Change towards PC language

My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while you say to the poor man, ‘Stand there’, or ‘Sit at my feet’ have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

(RSV, 2nd edn., 1971)

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or , ‘Sit at my feet’, have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

(NRSV, Anglicised edition, 1995)

Why use ‘politically correct’ language?

· This just reflects a change in attitude? (Cf. Our discussion on new perspectives, Whorfism)

· People want to politicise the issue. That is, it draws attention to the plights of those who are disadvantaged or who are out of favour.

What are some objections?

Cameron (1994) mentions three main objections

· It perverts the meaning of words

But words don’t have inherently ‘correct’ meanings, do they?

· It trivialises politics by focusing on language rather than reality

For some it doesn’t matter if you talk PC but still think non-PC. This represents the public affirmation of PC values.

· It poses a threat to the freedom of expression

But alternative expressions allow for choice, rather than restrict choice

Conclusion

· Some people have very strong ideas about good and bad language. We isolated on aspect: the debate about political correctness.

· Linguists say they maintain a descriptivist approach, and maintain that different dialects (languages, accents) are equal. Some politicise the issue and discuss the problem of hegemony

· The layperson’s notion of good and bad language is sometimes founded on questionable assumptions

· The linguist’s position is an idealistic position, and linguists also need to use language in the real world and have to decide which kind (dialect, etc.) of language to use. They also often have to mark essays and decide on usage!!!

Click here to return to the EL1102 Home Page.
Click here to go back to the EL1102 lecture schedule.
Click here to go to Tutorial No. 10, partly based on this topic.

Email me for comments or questions.