Survey and discussion: Degradation(?) of the English language.

[Nickolai77]

My view on the subject is that the English language is degrading in the way that it is being simplified. Words are being shortened into abbreviations and while the spoken language stays somewhat the same, the ability of a person to write something coherent and understandable for the other party seems to be getting less and less adequate.

English itself was made as a simplified language so all the Jutes, Saxons, Angles and later Danes, Norwegians and finally the Normans could understand each other. FYI.

If your coming from the Netherlands though, i think non-native English speakers are obviously not going to have the same kind of vocabulary as a native English speaker- even if they are pretty fluent. On the Continent i hear they amalgamate English into other European languages like German and France- and they do the same thing in places like Malaysia so i hear. It's going in the direction that there will arise a distinction between English-English, and international English (or perhaps European-English, or Asian-English).

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

Survey completed, Though I'm not sure I'm a worthy subject speaking this debased form of English we speak in America. Just kidding guys.
Very interesting study though.

 

[Veiimas]

My view on the subject is that the English language is degrading in the way that it is being simplified. Words are being shortened into abbreviations and while the spoken language stays somewhat the same, the ability of a person to write something coherent and understandable for the other party seems to be getting less and less adequate.

English itself was made as a simplified language so all the Jutes, Saxons, Angles and later Danes, Norwegians and finally the Normans could understand each other. FYI.

If your coming from the Netherlands though, i think non-native English speakers are obviously not going to have the same kind of vocabulary as a native English speaker- even if they are pretty fluent. On the Continent i hear they amalgamate English into other European languages like German and France- and they do the same thing in places like Malaysia so i hear. It's going in the direction that there will arise a distinction between English-English, and international English (or perhaps European-English, or Asian-English).

I think what we are looking at here is indeed globalization of the English language in one form, however, I don´t think there is a distinct difference as per what you call 'English-English' and 'International English' yet. a quite apparent distinction you see within the language however is that of social environments (For example, a 'benchmark' chav will speak worse English than someone who is better raised (arguably) and educated.), and I think what this will ultimately lead to is the actual globalization of a few languages, making languages spoken in small countries (a prime example being Dutch) redundant as for communication. Think of the possibilities that would open up if the entire world was to speak a single language. As for Europe this would, I reckon, go in 3 steps. English for the western and Northern countries, German for Germany and eastern Europe, and French or Spanish for the southern countries, which will later morph into a 'Europeanised' English. Now, as I said this will open up many possibilities as per communication and culture, but only if done well. If the entire world is to adopt the standard way of speaking English in texts and online, I'd call it degradation in a way. Sure, the entire world speaks English at some point (or Chinese), but if it's so extensively changed that the 'original' English as we know it now (Not shakespeare style) is unrecognisably altered, I would regard it a loss. People online tend to, as stated, simplify their sentences to an extent that certain words would fall into disuse, while being replaced with less qualified 'cousins'. For example, take this sentence.

"The change created less jobs than expected."

For many a person, this would be a perfectly fine sentence. Factually it is correct, but there is a better way, being:

"The change created fewer jobs than expected."

I'm not going nitpicking, but wouldn't you rather patch a pipe with something that could be better but takes a minute more?

Survey completed, Though I'm not sure I'm a worthy subject speaking this debased form of English we speak in America. Just kidding guys.
Very interesting study though.

Cheers.

 

[Nickolai77]

As for Europe this would, I reckon, go in 3 steps. English for the western and Northern countries, German for Germany and eastern Europe, and French or Spanish for the southern countries, which will later morph into a 'Europeanised' English. Now, as I said this will open up many possibilities as per communication and culture, but only if done well. If the entire world is to adopt the standard way of speaking English in texts and online, I'd call it degradation in a way. Sure, the entire world speaks English at some point (or Chinese), but if it's so extensively changed that the 'original' English as we know it now (Not shakespeare style) is unrecognisably altered, I would regard it a loss.

Heh, i don't see English spreading into common use in Western parts of Europe such as France, they so closely guard their own language. (Seriously what's so great about French? It only sounds nice when sung)

I reckon English language use will increase more with young educated and mobile Europeans, which will create a solid market for English media for well educated Europeans, and this media will trickle down to the lower classes. Basically i would think the proliferation of English in Europe and the wider world will be more of a class and generational thing.

In Europe though, if "Euro-English" (or a form of degraded English in your books) language becomes the linga-franca, i think the cultural and social consequences may be profound. I think one of the chief obstacles towards European integration is the language barrier- you remove that and you'll have a more developed European identity emerge.

People online tend to, as stated, simplify their sentences to an extent that certain words would fall into disuse, while being replaced with less qualified 'cousins'. For example, take this sentence.



"The change created less jobs than expected."

For many a person, this would be a perfectly fine sentence. Factually it is correct, but there is a better way, being:

"The change created fewer jobs than expected."

I'm not going nitpicking, but wouldn't you rather patch a pipe with something that could be better but takes a minute more?

Yes i agree, but neither of these sentences is any less valid than the other, and both convey the meaning of the sentence. Your deciding the lesser sentence is degenerated because it sounds less aesthetically pleasing- which is a subjective judgement. Like music or any form of art. Which is why i wouldn't say any form of art is degenerate.

I agree that the English language, in how it's spoken by many, is changing and perhaps becoming simplified, but i don't think that makes it any less valid.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Filled it in for you.

I'll be expecting a check in the post.

That's cheque Daystar.....tut tut

Spoiler: Here's mine

1. Age

26

2. Current country

UK

3. Country of origin

UK

4. Gender

Male

5. Highest level of education finished (Lower school, middle school, etc)

GCE A-Level

6. Are you often bothered or frustrated by other people´s lack of expertise?

It depends on who I'm talking to. There can be underlying circumstances, learning disabilities for example

7. Do you see an apparent difference between your skill and others'?

Yes

8. Do you sometimes wonder whether or not your sentence is correct, and if so,

how often?

Yes, everyone makes mistakes, it's not a regular occurrence though

9. Do you sometimes type in 'txt spk' or something along those lines, and if so,

why?

When I was younger, yes, to an extent. I wouldn't dream of using it now

10. Are there any situations where you think using improper or simplified English

is warranted, and if so, which?

If English is not your first language

11. Are there any questions you would like to see here?

No, I think you have it covered

12. Are there any mistakes you often see?

There are a lot in the region where I live. Improper use of your and you're is a common one, another would using till in place of to, eg: I'm going till the shop

13. Would you be interested in helping out further, and if so, in which way?

I'm already a very busy man I'm afraid

Damn, how did I mess that up?

I don't check my own grammar as much as I think

 

[Veiimas]

Heh, i don't see English spreading into common use in Western parts of Europe such as France, they so closely guard their own language. (Seriously what's so great about French? It only sounds nice when sung)

I reckon English language use will increase more with young educated and mobile Europeans, which will create a solid market for English media for well educated Europeans, and this media will trickle down to the lower classes. Basically i would think the proliferation of English in Europe and the wider world will be more of a class and generational thing.

In Europe though, if "Euro-English" (or a form of degraded English in your books) language becomes the linga-franca, i think the cultural and social consequences may be profound. I think one of the chief obstacles towards European integration is the language barrier- you remove that and you'll have a more developed European identity emerge.

France will obviously keep their own language in the early stages, however eventually, as with the others, it might or will become redundant. Your point about language barriers I completely agree with. As a lot of the things that are important for a country (think of military actions, economical matters, et cetera) are already centralised with the European Union, I can see a state much alike the US form, with every country being a 'state'. Doing that will also create a lot of possibilities trade-wise and the like, but let's not stray off the subject.

Yes i agree, but neither of these sentences is any less valid than the other, and both convey the meaning of the sentence. Your deciding the lesser sentence is degenerated because it sounds less aesthetically pleasing- which is a subjective judgement. Like music or any form of art. Which is why i wouldn't say any form of art is degenerate.

I agree that the English language, in how it's spoken by many, is changing and perhaps becoming simplified, but i don't think that makes it any less valid.

Factually, 'fewer' is used in instances where you can count things one by one, whereas 'less' is used for uncountable quantities. Some part of it may be subjective, yes, but there are of course mistakes that can be supported by rules.

I've gotten about 50 replies in total so far, keep them coming guys, I'll need ~100.

 

[Veiimas]

55, slowing down a bit. Any takers?

 

[wintercoat]

Yep, english sure is degrading. I bet not even half the people in here can read this anymore:

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

Wow, I had forgotten how much reading Olde English burns. Please, spoiler that before you scar some poor individual.

OT:

Spoiler

A. Personal information
1. Age

-25

2. Current country

-U.S.A.

3. Country of origin

-U.S.A.

4. Gender

-Male

5. Highest level of education finished (Lower school, middle school, etc)

-10th grade(the middle of high school)

B. Questions
6. Are you often bothered or frustrated by other people´s lack of expertise?

-No

7. Do you see an apparent difference between your skill and others'?

-Yes

8. Do you sometimes wonder whether or not your sentence is correct, and if so, how often?

Yes, but no often.

9. Do you sometimes type in 'txt spk' or something along those lines, and if so, why?

No

10. Are there any situations where you think using improper or simplified English is warranted, and if so, which?

Yes, though none come immediately to mind.

C. Improvements and others
11. Are there any questions you would like to see here?

How about whether or not the test taker believes that the English language is actually degrading? My answer would be no. Languages do not "degrade", they evolve.

12. Are there any mistakes you often see? (this is for indexing)

Just the usual. "U" instead of "you", "k" instead of "okay/ok". The most common grammatical errors, you're/your, they're/their/there, to/too. I don't frequent many forums, nor do I go on Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media site, so my exposure to "test speak" is low.

13. Would you be interested in helping out further, and if so, in which way?

Not really. I'm not exactly an authority when it comes to the English language, so I probably wouldn't be of any help other than answering these questions.

14. Comments

 

[Euphbug]

Just finished my surveymonkey survey. Don't really feel like repeated what I wrote there on here, but I do hope it helps you in your study.

 

[AndyRock]

Answered this via survey monkey, hope I helped.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

You should search for the linguist David Crystal; he's an authority on the use of the English language, and he's published a lot of works about its use/development etc.

I completed the survey, but I would say generally that the idea that English is being "degraded" is rather ridiculous. It's adapting to technological advances, in the way that it has been since people first started speaking what we would call 'English'. I'm certainly not a prescriptivist - people should be able to converse with each other in a way that acknowledges the situation and participants.

 

[Mafoobula]

Here's some food for thought: The evolution of speech as we know it has only been to more efficiently communicate what we want to say. As a caveman, it's a little hard to tell your friend about the big vicious whatever behind him when all you can do is point and shout "UNGH!" Eventually, they figured out enough of a language to be able to say "bad thing!" and suddenly survival rates went up.

Such has been the case through the eons. Now, one MIGHT say that the stilted, foppish speech that was popular in the 1700's is a step backwards, but it's important to remember that, at this point, there was no need to quickly point out the big vicious whatever. Thus, eloquence was made the big "thing".

Fast-forward to today. Now we have txting, a method of communication that is absolutely perfect for its intended purposes: Short messages sent over long distances.
Think about it, would you rather A) find your friend's number in your contact list, call him, wait for your lazy, lazy friend to pick up the phone, maybe missing you on your first try, only for you to say something like, "Hey, we're meeting at a different place instead of the other one." OR, option B) Send a txt that you know your friend will see as he heads out to meet you at the place. You can even send another txt not long after the first one, just to be certain your friend gets the message.

Now, given that you obviously chose option B, would you rather tap out the entire message, "Hey man, I know we were planning on meeting at George's Diner, but Josh started working at the Pinewood Restaurant, so we're going to go there, because Josh has an employee discount, and we're going to be there around 4. Remember, it's on North Avenue."
OR
"mtng @ pinwud rstrt on north ave @ 4"
Again, the second option only makes perfect sense, right? Even the slowest typer working with an old-school 10-digit keypad can tap that out in short order.

I hate the apparent degradation as much as the next person. I've learned to tolerate to, too and two, but saying "should of" instead of "should've" makes me want to falcon punch pregnant women.
On the other hand, these same illiterate jack-offs are also unwittingly help the written language on its path of evolution. I may not like it, but, hey, time marches on.

Ooooorrrrrr, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. I'm not a big language guy. I just thought it was an interesting way of looking at the issue.

 

[Veiimas]

Just finished my surveymonkey survey. Don't really feel like repeated what I wrote there on here, but I do hope it helps you in your study.

Don't have to, if it's on there I can look there, no need to post here.

Answered this via survey monkey, hope I helped.

Every answer helps, cheers

You should search for the linguist David Crystal; he's an authority on the use of the English language, and he's published a lot of works about its use/development etc.

I completed the survey, but I would say generally that the idea that English is being "degraded" is rather ridiculous. It's adapting to technological advances, in the way that it has been since people first started speaking what we would call 'English'. I'm certainly not a prescriptivist - people should be able to converse with each other in a way that acknowledges the situation and participants.

I'll have a look. Thanks for the suggestion! Still, I think it should develop to become more expansive rather than de-develop and simplify. We have more time due to the technology, why not squeeze in a few words?

-snip-

The comparison between calling and texting is only slightly relevant, as we're mostly discussing spelling and grammar, as opposed to the ability to speak properly. I do, however, see your point. But, for example, I'll type out 'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy goat' on my phone and computer.
Computer: ~6.5 seconds
iPhone: ~9.3 seconds
(In my personal case, ~400 keystrokes per minute on computer)
How big of a difference is that, compared to thinking how to make it shorter? I can understand it's simplified in cases where there is a character limit (for instance, twitter), but when there isn't, why make the effort?

 

[Dondonalien44]

Monkey'd. This topic is very dear to my heart. Let us know how your study goes over. Good luck, fellow linguaphile!

 

[Veiimas]

Right, throwing this to mainpage before I go to bed. If I have 100 replies when I wake up I'll love you all to eternity.

Good night!

 

[Veiimas]

Another try. About 30 more to go, come on lads