Americanisms, and the evolution of language

[apple_pathways]

The planets have aligned once again to provide me with a topic for blogging: faery_fall posted a video of Stephen Fry discussing language as part of her 15 Day Meme, and fail_fandomanon had a discussion thread wherein a poster was complaining about the comments to an article on the BBC website about Americanisms creeping into British language. Surely these two occurrences are more than worthy of a mash-up here on this journal?

First, full confession: I used to be a total grammar pedant. I love language, and I love grammar! Mine is a brain easily seduced by the idea that there's a 'correct way' and an 'incorrect way' to do things. I love the idea that things can be done with "perfection", and I love to torture myself with the idea that perfection is obtainable. Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not obtainable: or even desirable! And yet, despite a couple years of linguistics courses, my grammar pedantry persisted for years.

I can remember the exact day I gave it up.

I went to visit a close friend of mine: we were going swimming at the pool in her parent's condo complex. Before heading off, we chose reading material from her collection to read poolside. I was excited to discover she owned a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, by Lynne Truss, a book I'd been eying up in stores for months. I delight in learning grammar and punctuation rules the way sports enthusiasts obsess over the minutiae of the game.

I could barely make my way more than a few pages in before I was absolutely disgusted with the tone of the book: the way the author describes the shrieking paroxyisms of pain she experiences at the sight of a misplaced apostrophe! The agony of inadequate commas! Incorrect capitalization! Oh, the horror! THE HORROR!

*eyeroll* Please! It didn't take me long to realize I didn't want to give people the same vibe I was getting from this author.

After that experience, I quit cold turkey: no more complaining about the "10 Items or Less" line at Trader Joe's. No more "it's 'whom', not 'who'!" No more "better than 'they', not better than 'them'"!

(I still do have my Do Not Cross lines: it's "should have" or "should've", not "should of"!!! I am taking that one to the grave...)

All of this is to say: I know where these angry commenters are coming from. Really, I do! But...well, just look:

(These are responses readers sent in in response to the article about Americanisms creeping into British culture. I cherry-picked the most hyperbolic responses. You can read all of them in the article listed at the end of this post.) (Bolding is mine.)

14. I caught myself saying "shopping cart" instead of shopping trolley today and was thoroughly disgusted with myself. I've never lived nor been to the US either. Graham Nicholson, Glasgow

22. Train station. My teeth are on edge every time I hear it. Who started it? Have they been punished? Chris Capewell, Queens Park, London

27. "Oftentimes" just makes me shiver with annoyance. Fortunately I've not noticed it over here yet. John, London (Then why are you mentioning it?)

29. I'm a Brit living in New York. The one that always gets me is the American need to use the word bi-weekly when fortnightly would suffice just fine. Ami Grewal, New York

50. "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" has to be the worst. Opposite meaning of what they're trying to say. Jonathan, Birmingham


(I had to mention that last one, as I've heard it before. It's actually a misunderstanding of the American phrase: "I could care less" is meant sarcastically.)

I have to confess that whenever the discussion of Americanisms comes up, I tend to find myself confused: America is a big country, and some vocabularly is not as wide-spread as one might imagine.

I remember listening to one of my favorite BBC radio programs, when one of the hosts started talking about a program on language that they'd recently listened to. He started talking about the phrase "tit-bits". "Did you know it's actually supposed to be 'tid-bits'?" he said. "'Tit-bits' is an Americanism!"

This was news to me! I've always said "tid-bits", and I'd never heard "tit bits" before I started listening to that program! It might be a genuine Americanism (as I said: it's a big country, and I'm not familiar with all its vocabulary) but I can't imagine that it is: mostly because the word 'tit' is much more common in the UK. I think it's considered a much ruder term in the US.

Which is to say: it's often confusing what terms and phrases are attributed to one country or another. Some 'Americanisms' actually originated in the UK, but fell out of use there before being re-imported via American media. Some Americanisms, reviled at their introduction, have simply merged with the language and become common use everywhere English is spoken: 'lengthy', 'reliable', 'talented', 'influential', and 'tremendous' all originated in the Colonies. (The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge was particularly disgusted with the word 'talented'. Read the article listed at the end of this entry for more!)

(Lest anyone think all the Brits are hyperbolically annoyed, here's my favorite reader quote from the article:

19. I enjoy Americanisms. I suspect even some Americans use them in a tongue-in-cheek manner? "That statement was the height of ridiculosity". Bob, Edinburgh

*touches nose* Bingo! Somebody get Bob a prize... And yes. I made up the word 'hyperbolically' to illustrate Bob's point!)

There are many Americanisms I wouldn't bother to defend. No, I take that back: I wouldn't bother to defend any of them! Because that's not how language works. Societies don't choose their vocabulary by committee: language evolves, with little influence from most individuals. (Oh, that I had the influence of Shakespeare and all of the many words he coined!)

The concluding point of the original article is that the author mourns the erosion of British culture as distinct from American culture. I can see why that would be worrying: the increasing globalization of the world means that a lot of change is happening very quickly, and I'm sure all sorts of culture and customs get lost in the shuffle. I just wonder if policing language is the tact to take? (I don't think so. Language evolves, and there's not much use in trying to stop it.)

I do think I might have lost the point in this long ramble of an article: I think mostly I want to spark discussion, as I love talking about language! So, here's a list of discussion questions, followed by a list of resources:

• Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?
  
• What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?
  
• Pro or anti-pedant?
  
• How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?
  
• Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?

Resources:

Stephen Fry! (The video faery_fall posted.)

The BBC articles:
Viewpoint: Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
Americanisms: 50 of your most noted examples

Separated By a Common Language: I should have guessed that she would be discussing these articles! :P I was merely going to suggest this as an excellent blog dealing with the differences between American and British English. It's written by an American linguist living in the UK.

Comments

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

I can't say that I disagree with any of the points you've made. I...would only expand and clarify!

I would never argue against rules for language use, mostly because it would be pointless: language wouldn't function without them. In short, we couldn't communicate without rules. It's an impossibility. What's considered part of the rule system and what's considered "messing with it"? That's a much thornier issue.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of "keeping language understandable". Why would language evolve in a way people couldn't understand? Even those who like to complain about incorrect apostrophes and misplaced commas are unlikely to have their understanding impeded by them. I'm not saying that incorrect use doesn't or can't make understanding difficult: I'm just saying that if that were the case, that sort of usage is likely to be weeded out on its own.

Written communication has always been much more tightly controlled than speech, likely because written communication can be more tightly controlled. Considering all of the incredible variation that exists between different forms of English, the actual spelling differences are relatively few and far between.

That said, people write in an incredible variety of situations, and have an amazing ability to adapt from one context to another. I have a friend who's an attorney who sends me text messages in the most dense and incomprehensible netspeak, often with numerous typos and misspellings. Are we to assume that because she'd text me a dense block of netspeak that doesn't contain a single 'proper' English word that this is how she writes at work? Of course not! Her skill at legal writing is one of the qualities that landed her her recent job.

You'd write differently if you were texting, or chatting on the internet, or writing an email to your boss, or writing a novel, or writing a technical manual, or writing a poem, or writing for a newspaper. The conventions are different for all, and engaging in one (no matter how 'non-standard') doesn't preclude anyone from conversing fluently in the others.

Should children be taught 'proper' grammar? Sure! I think people should be exposed to all sorts of different language conventions. My problem comes from the idea that there is a 'proper' way to speak, and that it's appropriate for all contexts. (Or that because it's appropriate for more formal contexts, that means it's somehow more correct than language use which is deemed appropriate in other situations.)

People learn to use language the way they need to use it. It is quite possible to not need to know the correct use of the apostrophe, or the rules for comma usage, or the meaning of the word 'hyperbolically'. It's quite possible to communicate effectively and successfully in one's daily life without that knowledge. And the idea that letting these people 'get away' with their 'incorrect use' is somehow damaging the rest of us? Well, I don't see the base for it. To borrow a phrase: piffle, I say! (I'm not saying this is the POV you're advocating, but it is most definitely the one I'm arguing against!)

Basically: is it wrong to notice when language isn't used in a convention you're familar with, or even to be annoyed by it? No, I wouldn't say that. I brought up my annoyance with the use of "should of" to illustrate the idea that I find it a natural and relatable position, not to define some arbitrary standard that makes it OK for me to have my pet peeves but deny them to others. But I don't put any more weight behind my annoyance than that of a personal pet peeve.