Universe help me but I disagree with Stephen Fry about language.
I don’t wholly and completely disagree with him so I suppose I’m not damned to linguistic hell where everything is in Textlish or Twitterlish and nothing sings, dances, or rolls off the tongue like George Carlin in the back 30 minutes of a sixty minute show. And while I do not entirely disagree with him, I don’t believe he is absolutely correct either.
Someone has turned a portion of a Fry monologue about language and language pedantry into a clever animation which, sadly and ironically, lacks context like so many of the bits and bobs on the Internet. Sadly and ironically because one of Fry’s main points about why we need to abandon linguistic pedantry of the type that shudders at sentences like “She was wearing less clothes then me.” or “The data is clear.” is how context should influence how much we expect people to adhere to the rules of language.
Fry argues those of us who object to the random apostrophe thrown in out of ignorance, who would prefer that the subject in a sentence actually agree with the verb in a sentence, and who want to slap the living fuck out of people who don’t know the difference between infer and imply are overlooking the basic function of language: communication. He insults by saying people who believe linguistic rules have a place don’t enjoy language, a statement with which I disagree with every cell in my body on behalf of myself and least a handful of my friends. He states baldly any insistence rules be followed “for clarity” is merely a sop and that all we are is humorless pedants who insist language must be regimented and controlled and if someone is able to communicate what does it matter if the apostrophe is in the wrong place?
It matters.
Granted, I’ve come to accept certain conventions in context. Abbreviations that would otherwise make me want to pull my teeth out without anesthetic are now fine in the context of Twitter. You can only jam so much into 140 characters and when they steal an additional 5 characters for the technical “envelope” around any included URL you’re working with very little space in which to communicate an idea. Fry posits that we “clean up” for certain contexts. Just as you would put on a suit for a job interview, so too do you clean up the way you speak and write in a business context. It’s highly unlikely if you are prone to calling male acquaintances “dawg” you would do the same in a white collar work environment if you wanted to stay in that environment for very long.
Because I’m trying to be open minded I listened to Fry’s monologue sitting firmly on my inner pedant and I must admit he has a point. Some things that are truly linguistic sins, some things I am sure occur not only on this blog but more than likely within this very blog entry, are not only forgivable but also pass unnoticed they have become so common. I’m willing to admit this may be because American English is in many and varied ways a separate language from British English. Our vernacular is much more common, slippery, and prone to a mental hand wave when it comes to “the rules” of language. I very much doubt, in fact, that students are even taught any more that ending a sentence with a preposition is undesirable. And why would they be because that, like many rules of grammar, really doesn’t matter.
The thing is, I am a very minor linguistic pedant. Again, I suspect you could easily attribute this to being American rather than being British. I can’t get exorcised over someone using disinterested when what they mean is uninterested nor will I burst a blood vessel when someone ends a sentence with of or when they split an infinitive. I am a champion splitter of infinitives.
What I object to, and where I disagree with Fry, is the idea that passion is a valid excuse for sounding dumb as pig shit. Yes, you are communicating your point of view in your all capital letters comment on Facebook or on a blog but when you spell it “confewshun” I am forced to wonder not only about your level of clarity but also about the strength of your reasoning.
I am willing to concede that when it comes to language Marshal McLuhan was, indeed, correct about the medium being the message. No, Twitter, blog comments, and Facebook posts don’t require perfect spelling and perfect grammar, particularly when you factor in the ridiculousness of auto correct on mobile devices. Some sins are forgivable; I’m sure there’s a comma splice in this entry somewhere but I’ll be damned if I can find it right now. Some, however, are not.
So yes, I will continue to whine, wince, and whinge over the fact that people don’t seem to know the difference between your and you’re as, based on Fry’s criterion that communication be paramount, they aren’t actually communicating what they mean. I will continue to write green crayon letters in my head when a reporter on NPR, someone who should theoretically know better, tells me “the criteria for the court coming to a decision is clear.” I will continue to judge you when you don’t fucking know the difference between it’s and its because you sound like the equivalent of a chronic drunk trying to argue profoundly about politics at 2am when all the bartender wants to do is close up and take off her damn shoes.
After all, if we can’t agree that particular object is an apple or this linguistic convention means a particular thing we no longer have commonality of knowledge and once we no longer have commonality of knowledge we might as well be apes in the jungle.
Leave a Reply