Is poor grammar becoming more common?

[Beery]

These days I seem to be seeing a lot more TV shows, presenters and commercials (i.e. professional communicators) using very poor grammar. For example I see things like this:

"Progressive Insurance are progressive"

Isn't "Progressive Insurance" singular?

Also:

"When a person comes to us for auto insurance we ask them..."

Shouldn't a person of unknown gender be singular masculine rather than plural?

Then there's Apple's ad campaign:

"Think different"

Shouldn't it be "Think differently"?

Is it just me, or is the English language devolving before our eyes?

[Beery]

Also, there seems to be very little criticism of the situation, and often when someone corrects poor English there's a violent backlash. I wonder why it is that anti-intellectualism is so ubiquitous these days? Has it always been so? It seems to me that there are lots of native English speakers who not only don't understand how to use the language effectively, but who actively reject the notion that English is a skill worth learning. Thus we have forums on the internet rife with misuse of the words "your", "you're", "their", "there", "they're", "were", "we're", "its", "it's" and other similar words.

What do others think of this situation? Am I alone in thinking that English speakers should revere their language and try to master it, or am I just being pedantic?

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

Nowadays a lot of people put more emphasis on communicating a message fast without worrying about accuracy. Modern communication technology like mobiles and SMS texting make fast communication necessary. You can't simply enter long words which take a long time. A new language is developing since English is now a global language. No more British or American English are the only acceptable varieties in the world. You can even mix them if you like. Adjectives are shorter than adverbs: different/differently. In addition think differnet makes you believe you are different. Grammar mistakes sometimes do not make communication difficult. Anyway there is no guarantee that communication is successful if you write or speak perfect English.

[danmahaffey]

I feel your pain, Beery. (I'm also hoping Beery doesn't reflect a malt beverage induced outlook on life :).)

Different, surprisingly, is also an adverb. My dictionary cites, Carol didn't know different, as an example of this usage. So it is possible that a concept like think different...be different works grammatically.

Remember the tobacco company getting trashed over Winston tastes good like a cigarette should forty or fifty years ago? Maybe not. But grammarians then thought the world was going to the dogs because Madison Avenue couldn't bother to use as instead of like. Of course then our highs schools' biggest worries were gum chewing, running in the halls, and blue jeans.

I agree with Dr. Ibrahim (a smart guy, by the way). I really enjoy watching the language evolve. We have to teach our children and their children what is best, but know that they are the makers of the language, not us. Also, dear Doctor: I love your word, differnet. Copyright it quickly.

[Beery]

In response to Dr. Ibrahim...

But the problem with the argument for language development is that it's not evolving - it's devolving, and there's a distinct loss of meaning inherent in simplifying the language. The English language has developed in such a way that it's been one of the most expressive languages in the World, but there's been an apparent decline since Shakespeare's time when English had forms of address that appear to have been more varied and flexible than the current forms: thou and you for singular and plural for example - today we have only 'you', and the simplification can lead to errors in comprehension. In Shakespeare's day a speech using the word 'you' meant that the speaker was talking to a group or to a person perceived to be of a socially superior class. I'm not saying that class distinctions should make a return, but I feel we lose out when we can never be completely sure which person or persons a character in a book is addressing unless the author clarifies the issue for the reader by using multiple explanatory words where one used to suffice.

We've also lost a lot in terms of expression in the last century alone, as we can see by reading 19th century authors such as Dickens or early twentieth century authors like H.G. Wells and then comparing them to modern authors. Sadly, with the inventions you've cited, the decline is gathering momentum - so much so that I fear we'll barely be able to express ourselves at all in a few decades, and context will become so important that individual word definitions will be all but meaningless and learning the language will become even more complex than it is at the moment.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

Meaning cannot be made outside context. No meaning is really possible on word or even sentence level: If I for instance say: it is raining. Can I make meaning? What does it mean? Do I mean stay at home or take your umbrella or I am simply expressing my feelings!

Thanks Danmahaffey I thought you read in chunks but since you detected "differnet" means you read every single word. I agree it is people who make language. Language is not something dead. It needs to develop. It has become more complex on the vocabulary level now. Just compare English now with English a hundred years ago.

[danmahaffey]

Good memory!! Differnet snagged as it went by and I had to back up and reread.

[Beery]

Meaning cannot be made outside context...

True, but my point is that the individual words help in supplying context, and if we reach a point where we have fewer words as tools, we may lose the ability to adequately contextualize. For example, when I take part of a line from Shakespeare out of context:

"...lend me your ears."

People in 1600 would know that the sentence fragment was probably addressed to a group, and certainly not to a friend. When addressed to a solitary friend it would need to be written as "lend me thine ears".

This is not the case today: "Lend me your ears" might be addressed to anyone or any group of people. In this case we have lost meaning and the ability easily to contextualize, due to what I see as the over-simplification of the language.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

"...lend me your ears."
This is metaphor. Shakespeare used a lot of imagry and metaphor. His language is not everyday but poetic which is different. The word you/your was used only in its plural sense as we have now in German. But English "you" developed to be used for singular and plural. In that sense you are right there is no distinction because the words thou/thee formerly used to indicate closeness or even looking down upon somebody are lost now. But that's normal there are new things in language now which were not available when Shakespeare was alive.

[Beery]

Again, not really my point. If he'd written "Will you listen to me?" the issue would be the same. A reader in 1606 would have more context inherent in the sentence fragment (the reader is already aware that the fragment addresses a group because it doesn't use "wilt thou") than we have when we read it in 2006. Again, when speaking to a friend in 2006 the sentence remains unchanged and the nature of the audience is unclear (is the speaker addressing an individual or a group? In 2006 there's no way to tell, but in 1606 the word "you" supplied that part of the context all by itself.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

Please go back to my text it was not complete

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

But the problem with the argument for language development is that it's not evolving - it's devolving,

Langauge depends upon needs. Obviously the distinction between "you" and "thou" was no more important. BTW the words uncle/aunt which are of French origin don't make any distiction between aunt/uncle maternal or paternal side. They replace old Germanic words which made a distinction. This means aunts/uncles do not belong to the nuclear family any more as used to be. This has nothing to do with language but with social development. So languages do not devolve but evolve or better change depending upon the needs which change with the passage of time.

[Beery]

Well all I can say is that, from my perspective, things are changing for the worse. The statement that language changes based on need represents an optimistic point of view, but where's the proof of that? Language may simply change based on a widely held reverence for language, or on a widely practiced contempt for it, or on pure apathy. It certainly seems as if the latter is what current trends are based on.

Sure, it's nice to assume that language changes based on need - that would make things nice and straightforward, like a Hollywood movie with good guys in white hats who beat the bad guys in the final reel, but what if real life isn't all that simple? What if, in real life, things don't always work out for the best? What if language, like any living thing, can have a stimulating life or a pointless and stagnating one? What if some languages stagnate and eventually die out because they fail to evolve, or because they're dumbed-down beyond the point of usefulness? What if society in general decides that language is just too much darned trouble, and that grunts and squeaks are good enough as methods of communication? Is that healthy evolution? I think not.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

Of course you can see it from your own subjective perspective. There is nothing wrong with that. But objectively speaking there is no such thing as good or bad in language. It is as good/bad as the people who use it. It has to change because people change. In a way you might complain that people are going from bad to worse. But this is a social issue not a linguistic one. Language is only a medium to express their needs. Linguistics provides a lot of evidence if you like.

[Beery]

Well surely it's a 'chicken and egg' issue. I mean does need alter language usage or does common language usage drive need? Surely there's no way to tell. People can form opinions about it, but that's about it. All I know is that I have come across the need for certain aspects of language that have existed in the past, yet I no longer have the tools. In my case at least, the need is (on occasion) there but the language exists no longer. I can use the outdated expressions I need, but if I start 'thee'ing and thou-ing' the world will tend to see me as a bit of a wacko.

Also, if language usage is driven by need, one would think that languages would tend to become more alike and outdated expressions would lose favour at about the same time in cultures that were similar in most other aspects. Is that becoming the case? Germans still use 'du' and 'sie' forms (thou and you). What is it about the German character that makes them 'need' these forms that the English-speaking world found useless four centuries ago? Surely Germans aren't all that different from English people. Isn't this evidence that usage drives need?

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

You are certainly right you might need some linguistic tools which are no more existent. But I am afraid this is the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. What was wrong yesterday is right today but tomorrow might be wrong. It is really intersting for me to know about the way you deplore the situation. I do agree if you deviate from the majority there is a lot missing. Try to bear with it.

True Germans still use Du/Sie but Germans also gave up Germanic words like Oheim/Base. Now we have only Romance words like uncle/aunt/cousin. The family has changed and became more Romance. Do you feel the need to distinguish between cousin/aunt/uncle from mother's or father's side now?

[Beery]

It would certainly be handy to be able to make such distinctions without using modifiers to explain exactly where in the family tree the uncles and aunts reside. If the distinction is useful, why drop it? This is why I tend to think that need isn't as strong a determining factor as simple popularity (which can be driven by base impulses such as laziness) when it comes to a word's being extant or extinct.

I do think Germany is going through a sort of love affair with the French language in recent years. Words like 'interessant' and 'chance' are in very common usage ("das interessiert mich nicht", "es gibt kein chance mehr", etc. - they even pronounce chance as do the French). The same Francophilia happened in Russia to a lesser extent in the early 1800s, at least among the upper classes. In recent years increased chances for global travel are tending to make the world polyglottal, so tons of foreign words are appearing in dictionaries every year. This increased vocabulary has to be a good thing, but I fear some needed words and necessary grammar may be falling by the wayside.

Of course it's not as if trends towards over-simplicity or plain old laziness can be stopped. The language will continue to be butchered as long as people don't regard it as worthy of respect. At the moment it seems that folks like me (who strive to improve their command of English and who try to preserve the intricacies and precision of the language) are in a small minority.

[danmahaffey]

From Anglo-Saxon to today, the vocabulary of English has grown from tens of thousands of words, to 600,000, to more than a million depending on who you ask. This alone does not bespeak devolution. We are not losing much except bothersome irrelevancies. In 1,500 years, we have changed from a rigid inflected syntax to a flexible word-order periphrastic syntax that makes English the most powerful language extant. Casual, sloppy speech really can't hurt it, and what has been changing the language to the protestations of the authorities has actually been improving it.

Mind you, I love subjunctive, pluperfect, genitive and the lot, but English moves on, and we are shaping a language to serve our future. We must leave the language behind that served the past. I say this from the perspective of having lived seven decades on this planet, so this is no rash judgment.

Dr. Ibrahim is right on in that what we don't need, like distinctions among blood and marital relatives, we discard. And in my opinion what we do need today, like technology and political terms, we invent. This is not devolution (an opinion) but transformation (a process).

[Beery]

Grouth in vocabulary is not, by itself, a guarantor of improofment. As we discussed earlier they're are many words that have come into use that are merely foren alternatives to English words. Adding words that merely add a foren flavour when a perfecly servisable English word exists is not necessarily evidence of evolution - its' only evidense of change, and change made merely for it's own sake is not a good thing.

Anyway's, its not the modern flexible word-order periphrastic syntax that I'm criticizing - not at all, and its not really the use of non-English words that bother's me. I'm critical of the 'casual sloppy speech' (or casual sloppy writing) which, from the way youve writen of it, u also find to be a negative even tho u claim it to be harmless. I'm not convinced of it's harmlessness and, having lived five decaydes on this planet, I'm not in the habit of making rash judgment's either.

As u say'ed English moves on, but it moves on despight (not thank's to) the efforts of a growing culture of anti-intellectuals who resent the very idea of lerning why they should place apostrophe's when their needed and why they should place them correctly where there required, not to mention the're callous disregard for speling and grammer. If left to linguistic vandalalism such as I've illustrated hear English will be in a poor stayt indeed, and I fere that the laziness of the linguistic vandals is driving some of the change were seeing in the language,

Now, when faced with the appalling mess above (which is actually of much better quality than some forum posts I've seen), surely you all must admit that this sort of nonsense is a threat to the language. I mean when apostrophes are injected willy-nilly in the hope of getting one right occasionally, or missed out when they're needed, and when spelling is so bad that it makes a mockery of a passage, we're plunged into a situation where meaning comes across tortuously, if at all, and reading requires effort beyond the call of duty. This is not a rare state of affairs - on the contrary it is the standard modus operandi found in most internet forum posts and email messages. When I see emails and forum messages that are grammatically acceptable as well as reasonably spelled and punctuated it's almost as if it's reason to crack open a bottle of champagne - i.e. "Woohoo! Someone got it right!"

To quote one of the vandals (from a recent forum message): "Grammar and spelling is a useless thing some people think is important."

I know of a perfect example of a real forum post with the nastiest spelling and punctuation abuses, but the search engine of that forum is down at the moment. I'll try to post it later, as it's incredible.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

1. If you want to read more about people’s complaints pertaining to the process of degeneration of language go back to all protests (in the 60s) Webster was bombarded with when he included words like aint.This is natural. There has always been people lamenting the state (sloppiness) language has come to (the butcher metaphor is one which has often been used). At all times without exception people have been protesting about changes. This means even in Shakespeare’s time people never stopped lamenting language degeneration although Shakespeare was possible because English became so powerful as a result of Romance invasion. There would have been no Shakespeare if English didn’t provide the tools taken from French alongside Germanic tools. English became the language of doubles and playing on words part of Shakespeare's passion.

2. Some lexical distinctions are lost but new tools have emerged. As Danmahaffey said English vocabulary increased exponentially. It also got rid of verbal inflections. The only Germanic ending still left is –s third person singular. Not only English language but its writing system is simplified as well. There are no accents or diacritical points (Umlaut) as in French or German. This no doubt makes international communication easy.

3. Next to need, laziness or sloppiness is indeed a drive in language change. But there are more factors at work than we have discussed.

4. As far as German is concerned there some changes underway:
- Past simple is changing to present perfect
- Genitive is changing to dative
- Nowadays Du is very often used especially at universities and by the new generation. This means that German Sie might make way for Du. German will follow suit.

5. Modern communication technology necessitate new fast ways of communication be it sloppy or not.

6. As I said there is no improvement or degeneration in language. There is only change as a natural process of human life or language. I am afraid if you stop the flow you become a dictator.

I have made some linguistic predictions as a result of mass changes dropping on us so that we are in need of change management. You can access the article at www.usingenglish.com or try googling yourself. As the title suggests they are just prediction made on my part nothing more.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

What is amazing and fascinating at the same time about English is: although English is a multi-cultural offspring mainly from Germanic and Romance ancestors (please see my article Rosemary’s Baby in Book Club forum and even though German and French kept two different ways of address:
German: Du/Sie
French: Tu/Vous

English left the path of its forefathers as is usually the case with stubborn children and created its own way of address: “You” replacing all the paraphernalia if I may say so.

[danmahaffey]

One quick note about spelling and punctuation: speakers of any language cannot make spelling or punctuation errors, by definition.

Errors in orthography, to my way of thinking, are artificial.

When people tried to capture words with legible marks so that they could be uttered again, we created a man-made code, we did not discover a Law of The Universe. English spelling has only become standardized, such as it has, within the last 100 to 150 years.

So, we aren't all using the same code the same way. If you want, you can think ill of me. If you are superior to me, you can give me a poor grade, deny me a promotion, reject my writing, refuse my application, belittle me to others, or whatever you wish. Or not. Don't cede to me the power to harm the language, however. :)

[Beery]

I never imagined that I'd find callous disregard for spelling, grammar and punctuation on a forum devoted to the English language. I guess the cancer runs deeply indeed.

I figured I'd be likely to find people here who revered the competent use of the English language. I guess I was wrong.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

One quick note about spelling and punctuation: speakers of any language cannot make spelling or punctuation errors, by definition.

Errors in orthography, to my way of thinking, are artificial.

When people tried to capture words with legible marks so that they could be uttered again, we created a man-made code, we did not discover a Law of The Universe. English spelling has only become standardized, such as it has, within the last 100 to 150 years.

So, we aren't all using the same code the same way. If you want, you can think ill of me. If you are superior to me, you can give me a poor grade, deny me a promotion, reject my writing, refuse my application, belittle me to others, or whatever you wish. Or not. Don't cede to me the power to harm the language, however. :)

This is indeed your most powerful declaration of independence Danmahaffey. I can't agree more.

[Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim]

I never imagined that I'd find callous disregard for spelling, grammar and punctuation on a forum devoted to the English language. I guess the cancer runs deeply indeed.

I figured I'd be likely to find people here who revered the competent use of the English language. I guess I was wrong.

Language follows democratic principles despite the many dictators we still have in the world.

[danmahaffey]

Thank you, Dr. Ibrahim.

I think this thread is troubling to our new friend Beery, who seems earnest, interested, hopeful, skillful, and game. I truly want him/her to stick around and help us.

By now, though, we have revealed ourselves not to be prescriptivists. I hope Beery can accept us with our three eyes. ;)

Berry, I believe it is incumbent on us to teach the very best to those who would learn, while respecting that the learners will make the next version of the language. And every natural language spoken today is a corruption of another, be it the previous one in time, or the one in the next province.

Let's talk more.