"Mind your language, critics warn BBC" describes the recent criticism of BBC's careless use of language. "Replica", for example, is used a synonym for "likeness" by BBC correspondents, when in reality, it is defined as a "reproduction of a work of art". One critic, Bruton-Simmonds, argues that BBC's improper use of certain words, like "replica", can actually have a negative effect on the general population's vocabulary, and for this reason it is of the utmost importance that a high standard of language be upheld. Others make the opposite claim. 'Language evolves and we should evolve with it,' said Adam Jacot de Boinod on the subject.
Obviously, language does evolve and change over time. One LA times article entitled "Tracking the evolution of language" compares the rate at which irregular verbs are regularized to radioactive half-life. A more recent and controversial example of vocabulary evolution is the appearance of words like "irregardless" and "ginormous" in many reputable dictionaries. Obviously, language changes over time.
Bruton-Simmonds' argument is also flawed in that it claims that BBC's careless use of language is causing the breakdown of language within society, when in reality it is much more likely, in my opinion, that society's general lack of precise grammar and vocabulary knowledge is reflected in the BBC correspondent's language.
Although there are flaws with the critical view of BBC's use of precise language, critics due make a valid point: misuse of language does not support BBC's credibility. It would be difficult to take a news correspondent's report on the damage done by "ginormous" hurricane seriously. Likewise, you would not use slang, or profanity in an English paper. Language choice is critical for conveying information to an audience effectively.
One final thought to close this blog entry: I found the high standards to which critics hold BBC intriguing. If only we held our president to those same standards...
Mind your language, critics warn BBC:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/28/bbc.television
Tracking the evolution of language:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-verbs11oct11,1,3635612.story
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Definition of ginormous:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ginormous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I enjoyed this refreshing post about how the written language, taken from a hollistic point of view, can present so many implicit messages.
Regarding your point that jourrnalists shouldn't be condemned for "keeping up with the times" in terms of word usage, do you think that there is, however, a correlation between how much of word purists (that is, sticking with the original definition of a word) journalists are, and how reputable their articles are viewed?
While written language helps to standardize language across the board, it is not enough to keep a language static. John Locke would probably be appaled at our command of the English language even when it is expressed to its highest standard. I think it is practical for the correspondents to write in a style that can best disseminate information without losing credibility.
Post a Comment