Advocacy for Formal Language Instruction

[renzphotography]

One of my gripes as far as the youth is concerned has to do with their lack of utter respect. However, I realized that it is one thing if they do it intentionally and it is another if they do it unwittingly. I think it is more a case of the latter.  Somehow the youth offend my sensibilities without them knowing so or wanting so.
 
Without going as far as criticizing the reduced importance of liberal arts subjects in grade schools and highschools, perhaps we could advocate proper communication etiquette. You see Germans, Spaniards, and even the Japanese would correct us for expressions in their language by saying although I understand you the formal way to say that is ..
 
Perhaps we should teach the youth the difference between formal and informal communication without telling them to kowtow to seniors in society. This way the youth would know how to communicate to people they hardly know and people they know closely; or how to communicate with seniors as against their contemporaries and their juniors.
 

[Joe Carillo]

I think communication etiquette, particularly among young Filipinos, is an advocacy truly worth pursuing. I myself feel that it has become imperceptible or altogether nonexistent today, or is it simply because I’ve become too sensitive to the seeming breeziness—shall we call it brashness?—among the young not only in their actions but more so in their language? Is it possible that their apparent breeziness is culture-induced or media-induced insensitivity or just plain imprecision or laxity in language? I feel the problem in my gut but I really don’t have a clear idea, and I’m glad that you have raised this matter for discussion.

Perhaps it would help crystallize the problem if you and other Forum members can cite specific instances of this apparent “utter lack of respect” among today’s youth. I just want to be sure that we are tuning in to the correct wavelength regarding this subject, so I look forward keenly to getting feedback from the Forum members at large.

[maxsims]

Joe,

My knowledge of Tagalog is miniscule, so I am hardly in a position to reply to your request.    However, as a frequent traveller in jeepneys, I can report on my experience with the passenger/driver interface (to use another hideous example of modern English).

It seems to me that most passengers use "Para" when they want the jeepney to stop.  The remaining minority use "Para po".   This minority is almost entirely female - mature ladies and girls from the better schools predominating.

I conclude (hopefully accurately) from this that, among jeepney travellers at least, the manners divide is not between the young and their elders but between male and female.

(Mind you, given the baldness of the tyres (correct spelling!) on most jeepneys, I'm not sure the drivers deserve much respect!)

[renzphotography]

Allow me to share some odd experiences of late.

On several occasions I have found myself huddled in an elevator with people who work in a call center. Needless to say I over heard their conversations.

At one instance two pretty seemingly college educated girls had a conversation in Tagalog. Girl A asked where girl B was earlier because they were looking for her. Then girl B casually replied "tumatae kasi ako eh" (I was shitting).

I was shocked to hear that of course because I suppose it was enough to suggest that one is in the toilet--but did she have to be so candid about it.

It was just an example of how many people (without referring to a specific age bracket) find virtue in  tactlessness to the point of vulgarity and callousness. I don't know if they take entertainment celebrities like Osang or Annabelle Rama as models of fine virtues but I wonder how the sensibilities of people have changed so drastically and what role media has played.

In another instance, I asked a co-worker in his late 20's about why he utters such vulgar words so casually even if he was not feeling spiteful. He said "bakit pag sinabi kong 'shit' ok lang pero pag sinabi kong tae pangit?" I told him both words are not good to say.

I was wondering if he was under the impression that by being real (as against being hypocritical) he should speak his mind whenever and whichever way he pleases to.  Of course, people in the press would fight for the freedom of speech but what about keeping in line with good taste?

That friend of mine even argued why a nude photo is vulgar if printed in a black and white tabloid paper but tasteful when printed in the glossy magazines of FHM, Maxim, etc.

While I see his point about double standards in society I maintain that people should know what is beautiful and what isn't and strive to attain the former whenever and wherever possible.

[Joe Carillo]

As one of my favorite language slogans says, "A society is generally as lax as its language." Who's to blame for this execrable state of affairs and what can we do about it? Any ideas from the other Forum members?

[maxsims]

I don't know about your country, but the declining standard of English in Australia can squarely be blamed upon our educators, so-called.    The teaching of grammar is almost non-existent, the leftish trendies in our education departments expecting that the students will "pick it up" as they go along.    Similarly, there was a strong move a few years ago to downplay the importance of spelling, the theory being that, if the students were permitted to write phonetically, they could concentrate all the better on their written creativity.   Again, they would "pick up" correct spelling in time.    Yeah, right!

My daughter received only the most rudimentary instruction in English grammar, reflecting the sad fact that the vast majority of Australian teachers have only a passing acquaintance with it.   Indeed, it wasn't until she began French (in late primary school) that my daughter became aware of terms like "noun", "verb" and "adjective".     (The French teacher wasn't too thrilled, either!)

Inevitably, this is leading us downhill, with grammar-challenged journalists providing a tailwind by quoting grammar-challenged politicians and sportsmen.    We could be forgiven for thinking that “positive” and “negative” are the only two adjectives in existence, and that sentences should begin with “Yes, no….”, “Yes, but….” or “Look…”.   And, of course, all sentences should be liberally sprinkled with “like”.

Mind you, we have some fine journalists, writers who know the difference between “lay” and “lie”, between “preventive” and “preventative”, between “aluminum” and “aluminium”, between “infer” and “imply” and between “presume” and “assume”.  May they, like, prosper!

I have a sneaking suspicion that the downfall of English grammar in formal education has given rise to the plethora of grammar sites on the internet.    Nothing inherently wrong with that, but oh! - all that conflicting information!  Who (or whom?) to believe?

Which highlights the lack of a definitive standard.    Bring back H.W. Fowler, I say!

[Joe Carillo]

I agree with Max Sims 100 percent that for those who want to really improve their English, H. W. Fowler is the definitive standard and the best starting point.

This is why the Forum brought back H. W. Fowler's The King's English to the fore four months ago. We made it part of the Forum's "Some Gems of the English Language" collection, which you can check out by simply clicking that link. If you want to go direct to H. W. Fowler's The King's English, just click that second link and you can start studying the book's classic prescriptions for English usage right now. 

[renzphotography]

Max Sims may have provided the explanation that I have been looking for. You see I have worked extensively with the British and I was shocked with my observations. While the British deride Americans for being less educated I must point out that it is the other way around. I could expound on many points of comparison but that would mean digressing from this forum so allow me to focus on the language aspect.

Many Americans commit spelling errors simply because many didn't finish their schooling. The British on the other hand may have finished their schooling but because of the way they tend to spell words the way they sound phonetically (on top of the many regional accents in the UK) you can just imagine the eyebrow raising errors they make--and their grammar is actually worse than the Americans.

Americans are more direct in their language than the British thus the sentence construction of Americans is simpler and more straight forward thus reducing the likelihood of a grammatical error. Whereas the British have a convoluted sense of grammar owing to the hodgepodge of Shakespearean English and street punk language. Or, as Max Sims has pointed out, perhaps there was no rigid grammar education to begin with.

The funny thing is if you point out their misgivings you better be ready for a fight against British pride for the British will assert that the language you are trying to speak originated from their isles.

One marked observation is on how the older generation of Americans speak better English than the younger generation. On the other hand, the British speak convoluted English regardless of generation.

An American educator and editor friend provided the explanation for this. He said that in the past the study of English in American schools was rigid. However, during the 50's (or was it the 60's ) educators noticed how the minorities (those who had a different primary language) were having a difficult time learning English. As providing a special curriculum for the minorities would undermine equality in American education policy makers decided to teach English throughout the states with the minorities in mind.

As a result English was taught in American schools as if it were a second language. Thus, English proficiency among minorities caught up while the English of native speakers deteriorated. This explains why the English of Americans deteriorated after every generation.

And yet, even at today's level of American English I will still pick them anytime against the British.

[Silver Cross]

It seems to me that most passengers use "Para" when they want the jeepney to stop.  The remaining minority use "Para po".   This minority is almost entirely female - mature ladies and girls from the better schools predominating.

True. Although for me, at least, I only get to shout "Para!" when I'm sitting pretty far from the driver. I get to say "Para po" or "Sa tabi na lang po" when I'm either sitting beside or behind the driver.

And I'm only 22. (23 this September!  )

[maxsims]

I confess that I have never read "The King's English"; my bible has been "Modern English Usage",and a 1964 version at that.   I see that it has been rewritten, so I feel obliged to buy a copy.

I looked at some of "The King's English" via your link, and it seemed to be of ancient vintage.   Is there an updated version?

IN TKE, Fowler takes a gentle swipe at some Americanisms, one of which is "back of" (meaning "behind").   That phrase is now "in back of", which grates on most non-American (nonamerican?) speakers of English.   They would never use it.  But - they use "in front of" regularly, and without a qualm!    It seems that our American cousins are often ahead of the game.

Its vintage apart, there is only one problem (and it's a big one) with "Modern English Usage" and that is its imposing scope.    It's not your basic primer, like "The Elements of Style".   The latter devotes one paragraph to "Shall & Will"; MEU gives three and a half pages to 'Shall" and a tad more than a page to "will"!

I read somewhere that W. Somerset Maugham (himself no mean hand at grammar), upon reading "Modern English Usage", said, "I was afraid to put pen to paper!"

[Joe Carillo]

H. W. Fowler's The King's English, which tends to be very severe and exacting in most everything about English usage, is most useful when used today simply as a benchmark for good English usage, and for measuring how the language has evolved over the years since its publication. Some of its prescriptions certainly would strike present-day writers as old-fashioned or outdated, even excessively draconian, but we have to admire Fowler for his heroic attempt to stem the tide of bad English usage during his time particularly in the British press and in literary circles. Yes, I think W. Somerset Maugham had every reason to be afraid of putting pen to paper after reading Fowler, but I do think Maugham's novels like Of Human Bondage and The End of the Affair might not have become such pleasurable, grammar-error-free reading if he (or his editors) had not heeded Fowler's prescriptions.     

[renzphotography]

I dare say, the prime source of the deterioration in language formality (or respect for that matter) among many Filipinos could be traced to the television media.

It is common to see shows with scenes that feature kids who talk back to elders in a manner deemed less formal (and/or disrespectful). The circumstances portrayed in the scenes are no better as in many cases kids brazenly relate to senior members of society in a taunting tone – almost shouting.

In any case, I could imagine two reasons why the dialogs and the scenes were written and shot in these fashion:

(1) Dialogs were written to create an impact. Script writers exist in a competitive world where almost everything has been written about. So in order to sell their manuscripts they have to come up with dialogs that would "leap out of the pages" just as how a script writing book that I have read instructs its readers; and,

(2) Poor sound recording. Perhaps the microphones are not very sensitive or perhaps the director sees the need to ask the actors/actresses to speak up in order to be audible – maybe the directors think the actors are in an old fashioned theater stage with no sound system.

Perhaps the stickiest indictment against the television media is linked with the phenomenon called "reality TV". The only thing worse than badly written scripts is no scripts at all. In reality television shows contestants are put through challenging circumstances and when they get stressed invectives fly very easily.

What's more, reality television has blurred the line between tasteful and not tasteful; between private and public space; between the face you show in public and the face you wear in private, not to mention the things you say.

Suddenly, people started thinking it is cool to be like these contestants in real life. People now have a vague notion of what thoughts, words, or behaviors are best kept private; that anyway is ok as long as you are being "real"; where talking loudly is the normal way to speak; and where blabbermouth is boon and reticence is bane. 

[renzphotography]

I saw a recent article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer online version that may have the same theme as this forum. You may want to check it out.

http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view/20090906-223869/Etiquette-bible-more-accessible-to-Filipinos

"Etiquette bible more accessible to Filipinos" by Elka Krystle R. Requinta of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Unfortunately I have not accessed the full contents of the material being featured. The article starts this way..

"These days, people would talk loudly on their mobile phones or take non-urgent calls even during meetings. Hardly anyone RSVPs to an invitation – let alone know what the acronym stands for. And rude questions or comments to fellow colleagues at work now seem as ordinary as saying “Hi” to your boss."

I hope it is not confined to workplace etiquette. In any case I feel optimistic about it.

[Joe Carillo]

Some insights on the shaping of the social values of children are offered by Science News in its September 12, 2009 feature story entitled “Morality Play.” The author, Bruce Bower, suggests that those social values may be shaped not so much by cultural values but by universal concerns.

Read Bruce Bower’s “Morality Play” in Science News now!

[renzphotography]

Thanks for posting the article on "Morality Play" dear moderator. It is highly relevant considering the anti-spanking (or corporal punishment) bill that is ready for ratification.

If we consider the theme of the article then bring to view language etiquette then I think the question that is begging to be asked is how different is the method of reinforcing (or sanctioning) good (bad) behavior then and now?

I could remember how rigid our teachers were in school as far as disciplining students. There were occasions when a wooden stick was used to smack unruly kids. We were pinched and thrown board erasers at. Some were penalized by squatting at a corner with book on the head for the duration of the class.

Our teachers back then were genuine terrorists and child abusers by today's standards. Then during the late 80's up until the mid-90's there were heightened awareness campaigns on child rights with the "Bantay Bata" hot line as the most iconic of these.

I learned from friends who send kids to school that the stern discipline that marked the education system of the past was gone. However, the lenient environment gave rise to lax and poorly disciplined kids.

So I asked my friends where we strike the balance. Was the old system worthwhile considering today's deterioration of standards? Do kids know how lucky they are?

In the US, spanking is quite acceptable. School systems would even hire security personnel armed with tasers (handy devices that deliver electric shocks) to discipline unruly (and sometimes armed) school kids.

As far as English language education is concerned I know that there used to be schools that penalized kids for not speaking in English. I am not sure if this is still the case though.

In call centers, many executives noticed the need to reinforce the English language proficiency of new recruits that they imposed "English Only Policies" in office premises in order to drive the use of English in ordinary conversations. In fact, the initial part of call center training would always be an English language crash course.

So now I ask people, where do we stand?