Someone on LinkedIn Answers asked the question “Has writing gone the way of the Dodo?” and wrote that he didn’t mean that writing was extinct, just that standards of business writing appear to have declined. He provoked a lot of responses from writers, and his question certainly hit a nerve with me, so here’s what I wrote in reply:
“Mass literacy has been replaced by mass communication, and many people don’t read any more they just watch or listen. I don’t think you can master the complexities of written language – particularly written English – without reading widely or studying deliberately.
Modern school education hasn’t done a good job of teaching the mechanics of English, and I have taught non-specialist undergraduate university students who have come to a class on writing and been unable to explain what an adjective is. “I didn’t think this class was going to be about grammar”, said one. But if you can’t tell what the parts of a sentence are how can you ever hope to write a meaningful one? These students had clearly passed their GCSEs and A-levels even though they didn’t appear to know much about language, and without devaluing their achievements it does suggest that the English language standards expected by examiners can’t be that high.
Technology and market forces also play their part in keeping down the value of writing. There are people out there who will write you 250 words of SEO-focused junk copy for about 5p, making it difficult for professional writers of any kind to charge reasonable rates. My own approach to technical communication makes this aspect of the problem even worse, as I generally find myself telling clients they need to publish fewer words. Shouldn’t that be cheaper?
I am constantly amazed that although people who have Microsoft Excel on their Windows PC don’t immediately think that they can be accountants, everyone who has a copy of Microsoft Word thinks they can be a writer. Worse still, everyone who has a copy of Microsoft Word appears to think that they can be a typographer as well (and don’t get me started on how “ICT Skills” are being taught in UK schools).
So I’d blame the decline in writing standards on a combination of a number of different expectations all coming together – people are offering very cheap writing services, so it’s not worth paying for; there’s a tool on my computer that “does” writing so it must be easy; I passed my exams at school without making much of an effort at writing skills so why should I bother to make an effort now?”
The latest edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was published this week, and there have been a spate of articles about some of the new words that are in the dictionary for the first time, including custard cream and neet. The OED is a repository of the words we use – it’s a descriptive rather than a prescriptive publication. Our current preoccupations with the economy are therefore well represented, with sub-prime, non-dom, and boiler room all getting in for the first time.
The regular updates of the OED are ignored or mocked by people who have an authoritarian attitude to language (and probably to everything else in their lives).
I’ll let you look up the new financial words for yourselves, but I’ll explain that a custard cream is a type of biscuit (cookie, if you speak American English) with a vanilla cream filling. It’s the iconic snack offered to donors after giving blood, so much so that the National Blood Service in the UK have a sticker with the slogan “I’d give my right arm for a custard cream”!
A neet, on the other hand is less tasty then a cream-filled biscuit. It’s an acronym to describe a young person “not in employment, education, or training”.
Native speakers of English – or any other language – seem to know how to use their own language, and what is correct in language use, even without formal study of the rules of grammar. People just seem to know “what sounds right”. Many very wise people have written about this at length and I wouldn’t dare try and compete with Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker or David Crystal.
Sometimes, as languages grow and develop, confusing situations occur with different meanings or different rules for similar sounding words. While recognising that language changes, we try to pass on these more sophisticated usages as they are keys to subtle yet meaningful variations in our speech and writing. Those of us who love clarity and correctness (and I count myself amongst them) can be upset when distinctions are lost, and this week Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich eloquently bewailed the apparent loss of one distinct variation in usage. The particular distinction that bothered Schmich was the difference between “lie down” and “lay down”. This is a distinction that I understood automatically, but I had to go to Michael Swan for a formal explanation. “Lay” means to put down carefully, says Swan, and takes an object. It has a regular form, but an awkward spelling in its past tense (“laid” not “layed”). “Lie”, meaning to be or become horizontal, is an irregular verb, with the past tense “lay”. It’s easy to see how this may confuse some people.
The unhappiness that people like Schmich and I feel when distinctions are lost is not due to us being “old-fashioned”, or “conservative”, but because we believe that the variety that correct usage entails enriches language, while casual and thoughtless usage makes language poorer for all of us.
