The ranters are out in force this week, to profess their horror and disgust at the encroachment of Americanisms into the sacred portals of British English. This is an oft recurring complaint, which doesn't seem to staunch the vehemence of the protesters. Come to that, neither does the fact that their roaring, spluttering and frenzied key-bashing has so far achieved precisely naught; the American lexical army marches inexorably onward across our frontier.
The latest outbreak of anti-American feeling is due to a children's short story competition. Sifting through the 74000 entries, beady eyes have spotted the occasional "sidewalk", "smart" (meaning intelligent), and even "garbage". Cue howls of horror and much cyber hand-wringing. Our children have been corrupted! We're all doomed!
The Daily Mail, as always, treated the subject in a calm and rational manner.
"Two centuries ago, British abolitionists fought the American slave trade. Now a new campaign of abolition is needed - to rid us of American-English." thunders Christopher Stevens, in a tirade that is as offensive as it is inaccurate. His fury runs riot over the page, causing him to compare Americanisms to "destructive and virulent" grey squirrels, and to boast of the fact that he can use the word "mellifluous" in a sentence. Bravo Christopher.
Yet the anger and hyperbole is not, for once, confined to the Mail. Journalists and bloggers everywhere are pressing the panic button, and demanding that action be taken to protect the purity of the British language.
In all seriousness, I can - almost - understand where the howlers are coming from. As a self-confessed linguistic pedant, I do believe that preserving our language is important. I believe that education in language is important, as it is one of the most influential tools we will ever wield, both in our personal and our professional lives. However, my interest lies in teaching people to spell and pronounce words correctly, and to understand the rudiments of grammar. And there it stops. If people can use the language correctly to communicate, convince and cajole, why should we get upset about what words they use?
It is no coincidence that the people who are crossest about these developments seem to be, for the most part, Little Englanders. One doesn't tend to see Scottish, Irish or Welsh people jumping to defend "British English". And why on earth should they? It's a ridiculous phrase with no meaning. The Celtic languages may have almost died out, but each and every area of England speaks its own brand of English, peppered with dialect, accent and idiosyncrasy. It is a ridiculous and conceited idea to think that there is such a thing as a "generic" English, blanketing the British Isles. Even the notoriously reactionary BBC no longer considers Received Pronunciation to be the only acceptable form of televised English. Language reflects a culture, and Britain is proudly multicultural. It's rather a marvellous thing, if slightly surreal, to hear white middle class people using Jamaican patois on television. It shows how receptive and welcoming British people are on the whole to incomers. Apart from, apparently, Americans.
I do not understand how we can possibly justify the exclusion of American English from a language which is made up of French, Latin, Greek, German, to name but a few. Not to mention the many everyday words which Shakespeare simply invented to suit his needs. Why are the European invaders acceptable, but American ones not? British people seem to think it is fine to be rude about the Americans, that they are somehow fair game, and this lack of civility extends to our comments on their language. Apparently it is "Crude", "Simplistic" and "Dumbed Down". This because Americans have a predilection for portmanteau words and using verbs as nouns and vice-versa. What exactly is wrong with that? They are merely adapting their language to changing situations and environments." Sidewalk" is one of the examples used by Mr Stevens in the Mail of a "Frankenstein" word, implying that it is somehow ugly in its simplicity. As far as I'm concerned, it does what it says on the tin. Should we then in Britain stop using words such as "Blackboard" and "Campsite"?
The phenomenon works both ways, of course. American English is also constantly assimilating from many other languages including British English. "Mates", "Bespoke", "Zed", and "Arse" have all appeared recently in the American media. Indeed some of the words that people get most upset about, such as "Vacation", "Gotten" and "Oftentimes" are British words that have gone to America and come back again. Interestingly the Americans don't seem to resent our linguistic invasion of their language at all.
The only theory I can come up with to explain our mass rejection of Americanisms is fear. Not of the language, but of the country itself. We worry that our national and political identity will eventually be swallowed up by the all-dominating giant that is the USA and we are powerless to stop it. Our changing language is symptomatic of the ever more pervasive influence of America over our politics and culture. And as always, when we cannot cure the disease we attack the symptoms instead.
It won't change anything of course. As the French have comprehensively proved through their years of fruitless struggle, a language cannot be legislated. It is an organism; living, growing, adapting and mutating, it truncates, adopts and assimilates as necessary. As long as it is considered, appreciated, and above all used to its full extent, I don't see the problem. The children who have caused this particular storm were behaving naturally; they picked and chose from the words they hear everyday to find the one that best suited their purpose. Does it really matter if that word is American? Let's face it; these children were educated, intelligent and motivated enough to enter a short story competition. How many of us can say the same?
No comments:
Post a Comment