Between You and I the English Language is Going to the Dogs 

Thank you for pointing out that the best way to teach students English is to explain that there are different registers used depending on the situation. I am a high school teacher and this is how the Language Arts teachers in our school teach conventions of speech.

From a blog entry by Adam Gopnik: The war against euphemism and cliché matters not because we can guarantee that eliminating them will help us speak nothing but the truth but, rather, because eliminating them from our language is an act of courage that helps us get just a little closer to the truth. Clear speech takes courage. Every time we tell the truth about a subject that attracts a lot of lies, we advance the sanity of the nation. Plain speech matters because when we speak clearly we are more likely to speak truth than when we retreat into slogan and euphemism; avoiding euphemism takes courage because it almost always points plainly to responsibility. To say ‘torture’ instead of ‘enhanced interrogation’ is hard, because it means that someone we placed in power was a torturer. That’s a hard truth and a brutal responsibility to accept. But it’s so. [If I recall correctly, Gopnik was commenting on the American detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but I think the point about language and responsibility is relevant. ]

At my Cambridge overseas oral English exam it took me some time to understand that the examiner was not interested in my answers but my ability to answer.

Its interesting that they did not mention the distinction between formal and informal language use. The 'getting it right' is about the definite and exact use of formal language. In teaching we need to learn the formal rules so that we have an option. Only knowing the informal colloquial use leaves a person open to the criticism of being 'uneducated;' but I must say it was a pleasure listening to such wonderful speakers of English. Thank you one and all.

The distinction between "speak" and "talk" seems to have been lost on the panel as is the distinction between a living and a dying language. A living language builds vocabulary . A dying language is ultimately reduced to grunts.

I think it is safe to say that what the majority of people consider to be a good grasp of the English language is a comprehensive knowledge of the framework and rules and the ability to play with those rules. What we do not do today is teach those rules. It is like asking a child to write music and be creative before teaching them how to play an instrument.

English language is beautiful in many ways; in many dialects and accents. This does need to be taken into the account. Yet here on RU-vid we all meet and speak the language, that we all understand. I love to polish my English. I'm Polish.

59:40 Mary Beard suggests that we haven't 'given up' on making differences in language such as that between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', but that we've found other ways of expressing that difference. Once again, she speaks for the educated, who might well understand what that difference is between the two and are able to express it in other language. No such luxury for those who don't understand the difference, because they've never been taught one or the other. The Kamm/Beard side of the argument constantly depicts itself as the liberator of the uneducated; it's not - and its arguments again and again depend on the acquisition of knowledge, from which truly liberated language can then flow. It consistently supports the argument that teaching and learning of the rules is, in fact, necessary.

Min 20:14 is fun

Wonderful debate: it is telling that all the presenters use standard English.

To the students for whom English is the second language, it is the exception to the rule in grammar that always confounds.

My new favo>u

This actually turned out to be a great debate. Both sides had solid points, I'm not sure which way to vote.

As a novelist and poet I disagree that the primary purpose of language is to communicate. It is the fabric the material of thought.

Having taught ESL for years, students want to know the "proper" ways of communicating. Their futures depend on it. The reason that many minorities don't get good jobs is often because they can't express more than the most simple of ideas. Semi-literacy is a strong stigma. People who don't learn to communicate according to standards don't get far in the economy -- unless they're in the entertainment industry.

The opposition forget that, at least in my experience, the word 'disinterest' is not just a casual word, it is also a concept famously expressed by Kant. Disinterestedness is not the same as being interested or uninterested. Disinterest for Kant represented a kind of distance and impartiality in the face of works of art, paintings, a play etc. Looking at something openly and without any personal considerations, but to just observe, think, reflect for its own sake.

What a swell blend of information, debating and entertainment.

Simon Heffer at 1:06. This is the whole argument. We teach to prepare our children.

@6:57: The word "sick" used in that way (to mean something like "amazing" or "unbelievable") has actually been around since the late-19th century, but disappeared after WWI until it suddenly came back. You can hear it uttered in period movies like "The illusionist" (2006), with Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti.

Learning German and being frustrated at how it is difficult, I still love the language all the more. The precise feelings and situations that one can describe, the range between formal and informal terms, it's just something to behold. I wish I'd learnt English when it was just so grand and full of culture and content.

Both make good points. There is certainly an issue with people - at least people living near me - who struggle to communicate because of their lack of education. There's a difference between evolving language, and people that are so lazy that they can't even express themselves clearly in their own current tongue. Words are becoming terribly homogenised. How many words do we need for 'good'? Incredible doesn't mean good, it means incredible. We are losing vocabulary to an extent which robs us of the ability to actually describe what we mean sufficiently.

'Is our children learning?'- George W Bush

Would very much like to see an update of this debate for our current time.

Confusion: John and Simon seem to say that we need to embrace change but rules are important, and Oliver and Mary are saying that rules are important but we need to embrace change. Who do I vote for??

Just started the debate, but I imagine an important point will be this: People write/talk in different ways in different contexts. The fact that we have instant-messaging today, which invites a very informal and 'chatty' tone, does not mean that the language in general is in decline. It's merely the advent of a new genre, in my view

I'm not a native English person but I believe thoroughly that the grammatical or syntactical accuracy of English language should be preserved.

I found Mr. Oliver's arguments on solid founding and very well put. I think he argued for different dialects and styles but without breaking the immortal rules of the language.

This was a real treat to watch!

25:25 Rivers don't flow through tributaries. Tributaries flow INTO rivers, ie they contribute.

"We should take an aesthetic pride in using the precision tool of our language properly". Bravo! To extend the metaphor a bit more, I think he hit the nail right on the head with that sentiment. (32:43)

On the english lingo goin' south: As a danish person I appreciate RP, because it is very easy to understand, clearly articulate and of course familiar. And I also love all the thick accents very dearly. They are highly inspirational, wonderful and beautiful. And also educational, in that they expand my view of the english language - because they obviously add to said language. As do all the american quirks, twists and, to use a danish phrase, language flowers. Sprogblomster. I of couse think that both points of view are correct. As a musician, I know that it is important to know a song, if you want to expreass yourself singing it. As Tommy Emmanuel, a great australian guitarist once said (paraphrasing): "Practice until you know it by instinct. Then, keep practicing, because that will make it easier!" So, teach your children well. And while you do so, let them play. Finland has the best school. Go, see, whatch, learn, copy, paste. What's with all the talkativity? And knowing that no english speaking person would understand the language of Shakespeare, who by the way spelled his name in many different ways - once he even spelled it in two different ways on the same occation - I believe that the english language is growing in number of words, ways to speak, dialects in which to do so and degrees of depth and clarity. So it's perhaps like the old indian myth of the three gods, one creating, one preserving and one destroying. And the one relatively moderne word (ancient greece) that is a kind of short form: Cycle. So here's my take on it all: We are on a bicycle. One wheel is steering, the other is driving. We have a conservative steering wheel to remain balance, and a progressive rear to provide thrust. And we have a panel of people who are debating which one is right? But thei're both centre, or else we would lose ballance, then grip, then conciousness... Thanks for an interestiing debate, which I watched to the very end with amusement and pressure, sorry pleasure (Asian joke: Asier is a danish word for pickles.) no I did mean asian joke.

brilliant debate . thankyou.

This is one of the most wonderful videos I have ever watched.Intelligence squared should organise more language debates.All the speakers were brilliantly eloquent in presenting their arguments though I really believe that english language is going to the dogs.Thoroughly enjoyed the video,nevertheless.

The first speaker in voice and mannerisms reminds me so much of Rowan Atkinson

A absolutely brilliant and absorbing debate ,I am a high school Professional English literature, language and social sciences teacher .I have done English literature in my M.A. A assure Oliver that English language will never be at any point of losing its popularity or demand to be taught. I too agree with Simon that another foreign language need to be taught, such as the French or Latin because many English words are taken from those languages.And I too have done Frence .As for BBC I am listening to BBC from 1984 and even didn't know that the language is called received pronunciation or R.P. I find it the most easiest accent to understand. In India we didn't have the cable in the 80th so listened to BBC and Voice of America. In the end I do like the way Erika handles the entire debate.Thanks for presenting such a video on the RU-vid.

I think split infinitives should be valid. The adverb between to...verb is clearest place to specify which verb it modifies. They get rid of ambiguity, not make it worse. If anything they should be mandatory. Most other grammatical errors increase ambiguity. That is why they are to be avoided.

All the speakers made excellent points.

So nice to see John H. doing something different and more lite-'arted..

Great discussion/debate, as a American, I actually prefer the English way of speaking, expressing things, but appreciate the various forms of speaking, even those whose English is not their native language, when I use to travel, those I encountered alway apologized for their English, to which I replied, your English is better than me trying to speak your language, but I must agree, one must lean how to speak English correctly (not sure exactly what that mean) before adapting to all the various form of speaking, however growing up English was my second worst subject, math was my worst, I’m dyslexic and left handed, anyways, you all killed this subject, also great comments and questions by those in the audience, I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you, IQ2 puts on the most interesting programs, even though many of these accrued years ago, again thank you, this discussion is as relevant today as it was then..

interesting debate ...thank you ...

Ye knowe eek that in forme of speche is chaunge With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so.

8:25 Okay... his inner George Carlin is coming out! xD

Your first speaker speaks to me. Language influences. Wonderful topic and debate.

Thanks you so much

Muddling disinterested and uninterested does not make the language more expressive, or free, just confusing. In modern English, both uninterested and disinterested mean uninterested. The concept of disinterested has dropped from the language. This is not a good thing.

The side against the motion is unjustifiably satisfied. If you note, they repeat the few simple points they have over and over again. Yes, we understand language is an evolving, live thing. But it is also a valuable human possession that we should obviously take care of. "Speak as you will" cannot exist as advice on how to treat or use language. That is an already existing inclination, we needn't promote it further. The lack of humour on the opposition side is also notable, especially as regards the lady - who thinks, incidentally, she is both witty and righteous.

The thing I HATE the most is double negatives! Like “I didn’t see nothing!”

Language, as well as the way we communicate, should aim for assignment of precise meaning and usage of terms for the purpose of science. I find the complexity of Greek for example condones the full potential of the educated mind. There were scholars of positioning of accents. (I wish I had to struggle with Greek in school however briefly or unsuccessfully)

I have just come from listening to Sir Oswald Mosley (a 1975 interview) to this; and if this is, as it should be, the best example of spoken English by native English people, then yes - English is going to the dogs. I say that with the greatest respect and tributes to what was a very articulate panel, but I firmly believe that English has declined due to cultural influences. If we listen to just about ANY BBC program or interview before possibly the mid '80s, we will find it obvious and striking how very much superior the quality of the language was. Even the accents were different, and to me, an Irishman, such accents even sounded like they were more capably suited to faster and more precise communication. Regarding our panel, I found the flow which Oliver spoke approvingly of, was rather poorly exhibited by himself, and best exhibited by Simon Heffer., though still, as proficient as Simon undoubtedly is, his articulation was nowhere nearly as masterful as Sir Oswald. I am not an English academic by any means, but in the comparing of this panel, I suspect that Simon's better ease with which to 'flow', was because of his better overall knowledge of the language and its mechanisms (than the others), as when spoken at its absolute, English is grandly satisfying in its precision and is breathtakingly beautiful and intriguing. I don't think we will see the likes of Mosley's or even Tolkien's level of English being publicly spoken ad hoc again. It saddens me. I will go back and listen to more of Sir Oswald!

Was there even any disagreement here? I feel like there wasn't any concrete point on which the two sides disagreed. All the people on the "against" side conceded that of course some degree of keeping to the rules of grammar is necessary if people are to understand each other, and all the people on the "for" side admitted that the development of new words, and shifts in meaning and grammatical rules are all good things and there's no reason to try and hold them back.

Any language starts with building blocks (words). Next comes putting the words together to make sense (Grammar). Later comes colloquial language. Grammar is absolutely necessary!

All children are language geniuses, it’s incredible how much and how fast they learn languages. If only we could bottle that ability for adults for learning new languages! Talking to, singing to and reading to children magnifies their incredible language learning ability.

I was taught that good English is about communicating accurately. Language changes over the years, so good English also entails paying attention to the world around you.

The pound has plunged!...media proclaimed...it had fallen around 1%.

dear god such breathtaking cheekiness and cleverness on every side. I'm so entranced. such shining lights

wonderful!

The same with the german language! But one small detail I want to make clear: Communication and language are not the same.

The English language is centred around a few words now like hot,cool and expressions centred around a certain part of the human anatomy.Perfectly straightforward words have taken on an entirely different meaning so one can not use them because of the double meanings that they now have.

I hate a moderator who clearly favors one side as she does when she gives the original vote.

Great debate.

Speakers, Commenters. Evolution's the rhythm of the moment!

Every dialect has its rules. There might not be a book explaining them all, but there are clearly sentences that are correct and incorrect in that dialect that a native speaker would recognise. Read Pinker The Language Instinct. You have to be aware of what dialect you are speaking . If you say sentences from some other dialect, chances are they will be WRONG. Oliver seems to disagree.

My next question: How can I access to the last, most recent one of this event? I will appreciate if any of you can share a link to it. 2023? 2022? The last or preferably the whole series of these events. Thank you.

As a supply teacher, I was given a class of Year 6 juniors for a week. On introducing myself I noticed three or four well-known advertising slogans their usual teacher had written on the blackboard; one of them was "Should of gone to Spec-Savers". Oh, dear.....

Stop making the issue political! The English language, as any other language, is continually evolving. Samuel Johnson recognized this over 200 years ago: as soon as a language stops doing so, it becomes endangered.

Two of my pet peeves are "Quote, unquote' and, "I could care less". Neither use makes a bit of sense.

Great debate. I also left school at 16 , with 9 O levels including both English lit and grammar , but with no formal grammar lessons as such . I am poor at specifying what the rules of grammar are, but I believe I instinctively know how to construct sentences grammatically. No doubt someone will quickly point out some mistakes I have already made.

I reviewed a three paragraph, handwritten letter this week with no less than eight simple spelling errors. The person who drafted it was a second year university student.

Miss Beard is such an engaging speaker. She does miss the point though. You can't flaunt the rules creatively if you have no knowledge of or respect for said rules.

It’s “between you and me” by the way. Just a small point when you’re bashing the English language...

57:15 Kamm: "People know from the context what the difference is between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' ". Do they? I'd say yes, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Context might reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, but it doesn't eliminate it - which 'correct' usage does. Kamm is arguing for partial chaos rather than total chaos - that's all.

Really delightful.

Your ..You're and Their ..There ...There are times i could scream !

I completely agree with Simon Heffer.

Ultimately, yes, the English language /is/ going to the dogs. And the "for's" were addressing this properly, while the "against's" seemed to be missing the point. It's not about expanding definitions or shifting usage, it's really about that teacher who didn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of." It's about the plethora of people seen using "then" and "than" as if they're interchangeable. It's about the people who don't know which "there" or "which" to use in which case. This /IS/ a problem. And it's ultimately a problem with lax educational systems. As to technology, (excluding the plague that is autocorrect) I'm far more concerned about - at least in the US - the decline of PENMANSHIP, and that schools are no longer teaching cursive writing at all. Lastly, I find it really heart breaking that the globalization of English seems to be expediting the deaths of other languages, or at least their bastardizations. It feels like an unsalvageable loss of cultural variation for the sake of a wider, globalized way of communicating.

On the Writing and Language Test, the subcategory Conventions of Usage calls on knowledge and skills associated with common practices in formal, well-edited English writing.

I would love having the younger guy try to read the writing of our high school students. There ARE grammatical rules that are used to write clearly and meet the standards necessary to communicate effectively.

25:55 Missed attempt at split infinitive. Many laughs. Good presentation. One nation!

I don't really think either side essentially contradicted each other. The speakers for the motion seemed to articulate a view of language bound by rules and principles, yet they didn't necessarily state that anything outside that language was inherently wrong. Even John Humhreys at the end said he admired how the youth missed language, which resonated with Oliver Kamm's argument that people can use different registers in different situations. All the opposition argued was that there are conventions, not rules, and that these are changeable. (Although the distinction between "law" and "convention" is ambiguous since no grammatical rule is actually enforced by law, so the words "law" and "convention" have less meaning here.) The opposition accepted that some linguistic conventions are cemented; they didn't advocate a free-for-all. I think the dispute really boils down to semantics - what are rules and conventions?

45:30 Beard: "Rules allow us to debate and transcend them." (not verbatim). Yes, but only if you have a knowledge of them in the first place. It's like Wilde's assertion that All Art is Quite Useless; you don't know this until you've spent a lifetime absorbing it, studying it and discussing it. Enlightenment through knowledge! This knowledge endows us with confidence - and what is lacking in modern speakers and writers and is precisely the (in italics) confidence to use language effectively because, precisely, they know the rules! Mary Beard herself then makes this very point! So her argument is: Language sticklers are silly; but being a stickler allows you to subvert the language effectively; but sticklers are still silly. Great argument.

"Between you and me, the language is going to the dogs. You and I must understand this." I do not want to read any more of such incorrectness in the advertising. Do you know what I means?

The precise use of language is essential for understandable communication.

Excellent discussion.

Good one!

If you use words incorrectly, pronounce words eccentrically, and mangle your grammar, the older people who decide if you should be hired or promoted will evaluate you as an idiot, ditto if you have verbal tics, such as upspeak, frying or talking like a drag performer, randomly elongating and emphasising syllables. Nearly all young people, especially female, show some signs of these tics. Get rid of your "um" filler words such as and, and stuff, as it will, at the end of the day, basically, big in size, eh, cruel in nature, honestly, I mean, if you will, like, literally, lot of, move forward, perfect storm, red in colour, step up to the plate, to be honest, to tell the truth, yeah, yes, you know, you know what I mean, you know what I’m saying, uh, um, very.

I grew up bilingual, and in fifth grade I was introduced to English as a foreign language (60 years ago). The panel members all spoke in what might be described as 'announcer's English', and I could comprehend every word. I can't say the same for some of the comments from the audience, and in TV programs that insist on representing authentic local English speech, I have to turn on the subtitles.

Wonderful tube vid

Oliver Kann is speaking critically about much higher concerns than are most of us who are trying to defend the ability to communicate. My students (in an art academy) have never been shown how "we drove on to the beach" is basically different from "we drove onto the beach." Or, citing a more famous example, the difference between "eats shoots and leaves" and "eats, shoots and leaves." Yet another example of the importance of linguistic structure is the difference between "I learned from God, my parents and Ayn Rande" and "I learned everything from my parents, Ayn Rande and God."

Between you and I the English language is going to the dogs.

May someone please help me understand, "the English language is going to the dogs." What exactly does "going to the dogs" mean especially if figuratively in context of the proposition. English is not my first language. Thank you in advance!

I would agree with the third speaker. Knowledge of language usage is a measure of your knowledge in general. I don't want my young daughter to be immersed in a culture where people ignorant of contemporary usage dominate the conversation, because that, in short, compromises her ability to excel in this "stodgy old world" of academia and business where the ability to express yourself well is still prized.

When I was a child all the presenters on television spoke BBC English. As an adult I lived and worked abroad and when I came back to England I was shocked at the ungrammatical English being spoken by the presenters. My first thought was how difficult it must make it for the children to know how to speak 'properly'. I also noticed children using American words, including that nauseating 'whatever!'. I have taught English abroad and I also thought how little evidence of the correct English grammar that my students had needed to pass their exams they would hear on English television. I speak several languages and the 'italo-inglese' being used in Italy horrifies me. It is so sad to hear italians misusing an English word, when they have a perfectly good italian word for the purpose! If any of you speak italian I recommend the brilliant Tedx talk ' From Bello to Biutiful'. I noticed recently that Macron is using Franglais on posters.

There is a more fundamental question here. Do the distinctions between "conservative" and "liberal" mean anything any longer?

The tension between tradition and novelty in language is exactly the mirror of the tension between social conformity and revolution.

I enjoyed the "debate" very much, even though it wasn't much of one. I agreed with most of the comments from both sides of the motion without feeling that I was forced into logical inconsistencies. One observation: both the panelists and many of the commenters mentioned the importance of learning a second language as an aid to speaking better English.What was not mentioned is that learning English as a second language (as is my case) may also lead to certain advantages compared to native speakers. (Think of Joseph Conrad or Vladimir Nabokov, among many others.) Certain common errors in English are avoided because they clearly violate a prominent rule in one's own language. (I have no problem using apostrophes correctly, or distinguishing between "there" "their" and "they're.") The correct spelling of words is facilitated by typically having learned each one visually rather than aurally. (The reason perhaps why the winners of spelling-bee contests in the USA are typically hyphenated Americans--often Indian-Americans). And then, of course, the vocabulary of one's native language can help offer valuable etymological clues for the meaning of particular English words. (Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. For many years I misused the word "copious" because I erroneously assumed it was derived from the Greek "kopos", which means "toil" or "bother." And most embarrassingly, the Greek word "empathia" does not mean "empathy" but "hateful jealousy", akin to schadenfreude.) Well, if there was only an easy way of learning how to pronounce English words correctly, I'd have it made.

I really enjoyed this debate - it was vey entertaining. Although I liked the points made by each of the speakers - and their engaging styles - I did feel that Oliver's knowledge was outstanding and his impassioned delivery was delightfully infectious. Thank you for putting this up on RU-vid! It's certainly a viewing I will recommend to my colleagues.

I could listen to Oliver all day long !

Yeah I do hate when people use "them and I"/"them and me" incorrectly. Funnily enough it's often the 'smart' ones going to the extra effort but get it wrong :D

I clicked on this because of the glaring error in the title- glad to see it was intentional. I have a good friend who continually makes the same error - rather than "xyz happened to she and me", he says "her and I". After a few times correcting him, and explaining how to remember the correct usage, I finally gave up. We're still friends, but I still notice.

I particularly love the different dialects and accents of the British Isles. I find if I stay in Manchester, I can't help mimicking the accent without realising it after just a few days. I also find it fun to exaggerate my rural southwest farmer / pirate type accent sometimes. Even then South Hampshire is different to Wiltshire. Somerset and Devon is different. Bristolian is different again. Ryhming slang and certain Patois are quite fun. I find it Interesting how the language has been influenced by foreign languages and the origins of family and place names in the UK. I think it's important that eccentric use of the language should never be censored, but we should, endeavour at least, to obey correct grammar. Sloppy Email use, for example, often fails to convey the correct tone and even context. Often carrying an incorrect implication.