Blog

If you are looking for any business-writing course, UK specialists Emphasis can almost certainly help you.

Archive for the ‘Language abuse’ Category

Well, we know it’s big

Posted by Catie Holdridge

David Cameron has referred to it as his ‘mission’ and his ‘passion’, but it does seem that very few people are entirely sure what the ‘Big Society’ is actually all about.

This isn’t too surprising when even those well and truly behind the idea are not helping matters. Phillip Blond, director of the think tank ResPublica, and – according to the Telegraph – ‘a driving force behind David Cameron’s “Big Society” agenda’, has argued the case for the policy in the Independent. He guides the people thus:

‘Public sector mutualisation and budgetary takeover by citizens of the state is a crucial initial phase in endowing ordinary citizens with the power to ensure that the services they run are operated in a way that combines public interest with economic efficiency and localised employee ownership building in all the gains that this model delivers.’

Writing this convoluted and opaque will do very little to clarify the concept for the ‘ordinary citizens’ it claims to want to empower. In relation to this, one letter to the Independent quoted Nobel prize-winner Peter Medawar: ‘People who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief’. The writer then commented: ‘I don’t think Mr Blond is unskilled in writing.’

If Cameron and co. are to defend the ‘Big Society’ as more than (as some rumours have it) a slightly sinister cover for the cuts, they need to put away the thesaurus and use considerably fewer big words.

Rainy days and Mondays

Posted by Catie Holdridge

How many words can you use to say, ‘Rain all day’?

A wet start to the day with some heavier bursts of rain around. It is likely to stay wet for much of the day with further rain at times.

Nice work, BBC Weather.

Reform school?

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Declining standards of English are still a big concern, judging by the anticipated content of a government white paper due out today.

The reforms are expected to reverse much of what the Labour government brought in; such as the modular approach to examining, where pupils take a series of shorter exams spread out over two years rather than longer, more in-depth ones at the end of their studies.

Also set to return is marking pupils down – by up to five per cent – for poor use of punctuation and grammar in exams. Labour’s decision to scrap this system in 2003 has, according to education secretary Michael Gove, directly contributed to a drop in literacy skills.

‘Thousands of children – including some of our very brightest – leave school unable to compose a proper sentence, ignorant of basic grammar,’ he said. ‘The basic building blocks of English were demolished by those who should have been giving our children a solid foundation in learning.’

The move seems particularly timely, given the recent pattern which has seen celebrities practically lining up to declare the English language is more abused than that cat that was put in a bin. Emma Thompson took against slang at her old school; while Marks and Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose has stated that too many school leavers are ‘not fit for work’.

Actress Penelope Keith last week lent her (rather cultivated) voice to the cause, decrying – for one – the detrimental effect of social media like Twitter on English usage. She told the Sunday Telegraph that ‘there are a lot of people you can’t actually understand’, thanks to their overuse of ‘tweets, and twits and texts’.

A renewed focus on the importance of these ‘building blocks’ of language is almost certainly worth celebrating. But before we all send a Twit of triumph to Penelope, a question: is this reform likely to be enough, or is it more of a cursory nod in the right direction?

The slang debate

Posted by Catie Holdridge

When actress Emma Thompson warned teenagers against using slang on a recent visit to her former school, she probably didn’t expect to spark a debate. But spark one she did.

It was, apparently, the ‘likes’, ‘innits?’ and ‘it ain’ts’ she heard bouncing around the Camden School for Girls, Thompson’s alma mater, which drove her ‘insane’. She told the students: ‘Don’t do it because it makes you sound stupid and you’re not stupid.’

You’re missing the point, the opposing side promptly retorted. The kids are all right. It’s the moaning adults’ attitudes that need to change. ‘Complaints about the standard of English [...] have gone on for hundreds of years,’ points out Raphael Salkie, a professor of language studies at the University of Brighton. ‘There never was a golden age when everyone used English properly.’

And, while Salkie admits Thompson and her critiquing ilk are in highly esteemed company – John Milton, Jonathan Swift and George Orwell to name a few – they are merely ‘middle-aged grumps’ who are ‘wallowing in nostalgia’. But they are, he says, pining for a time that never really existed.

Yet even taking this into account, another of Thompson’s points bears repeating – one on the importance of understanding the context in which you speak: ‘There is a necessity to have two languages – one you use with your mates and the other that you need in any official capacity.’

Well, that’s a different point entirely, isn’t it? Not just slashing a big red line through any and all slang, but knowing when to use a different language. And that’s something we all do every day. It’s unlikely you use the exact same vocabulary at home as you do in a board meeting, or when out on the town.

To many, the word ‘slang’ might have only negative connotations. But David Crystal, former professor of linguistics at the University of Reading, merely defines it as, ‘informal, non-standard vocabulary’, or ‘the jargon of a special group’. So slang is not just a way for young’uns to separate themselves from their elders; it’s also a way for them to show unity with their peers. And, of course, it can do this for any age – or even any class.

Problems could perhaps arise if the speaker couldn’t understand the line between social contexts – and the vocabularies that should accompany different situations.

Interestingly, a study by the Cambridge Assessment Group in 2005 found that GCSE pupil’s literacy was dramatically higher than it had been ten years before, despite the fact that they used more slang. Students used a wider vocabulary, more accurate punctuation and more complex sentences; but they also used more colloquialisms, text message symbols and non-standard English, like double negatives. This was the case even among those receiving the highest grades.

Of course, the perception in the world beyond the classroom is often that using non-standard English is sloppy and a sign of poor literacy. While a teacher may award a high grade in spite of the use of slang and suchlike, it is likely someone using similar language in the workplace would do less well. Potential employers probably wouldn’t read beyond the first ‘gr8’ in a CV, and the rest of the content – however impressive – would be lost.

Cambridge Assessment Group ran another study on teenagers’ ability to recognise non-standard English in 2010. It found that although GCSE pupils’ rates of identifying and correcting non-standard English were ‘quite high’, fewer than six in ten of them recognised that ‘off of’ and ‘she was stood’ were grammatically incorrect. Perhaps more worryingly, almost three in ten didn’t flag up ‘should of’.

But do we expect this to be something they’ll grow out of? Or should we bring back more rigidly taught grammar lessons in school?

The great slang debate may never go away – perhaps because it is endlessly recycled: yesterday’s teens could well be tomorrow’s curmudgeons. Or, is this in fact more than ‘middle-aged’ moaning? What do you think?

Censorship? They’ve got an app for that

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Apple has been awarded a patent in the US for a device to filter out ‘inappropriate’ language from text messages (otherwise known as ‘sexting’, apparently). Essentially, it is a way for parents to monitor and manage the content of their children’s texting. After all – as the patent tells us – ‘children may send or receive messages (intentionally or not) with parentally objectionable language.’

Messages containing words deemed unsuitable will be deleted or won’t send until the offending words are replaced.

But is this really likely to work? Is there an algorithm out there that can keep up with language’s adaptability?

One of the joys of English is how well it lends itself to puns and innuendo. Slang has an ever-changing vocabulary. And texting itself has spawned a virtual language of its own – one that parents already probably struggle to keep up with.

Hopeful parents may find that they’re not so much laying down the law as laying down a challenge. ‘Those interested in “sexting” will probably find some clever workaround,’ says technology website TechCrunch. Without being indelicate, we can probably all think of some words with provocative double meanings that wouldn’t ‘immediately set off the censorship sensors.’

Now Apple have (intentionally or not) thrown down a gauntlet, is NE1 w8ing 2 C jst hw cre8iv da msgs R gonna B?

Advertising for accuracy

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Cadbury’s Dairy Milk wrappers will no longer bear the long-standing slogan, ‘a glass and a half of full-cream milk’. Instead the less-than-lyrical – but doubtless much more scientifically accurate – ‘the equivalent of 426ml of fresh liquid milk in every 227g of milk chocolate’ will appear in its place.

The makers have clearly picked up on the growing tide of bafflement and rage among the British public at the sheer incongruity of the statement. After all, how the heck did they get a whole glass and a half of milk into one of those little fun-size bars?  ‘The phrase didn’t make sense if the pack stated the bar weighs 49g or 230g,’ a spokesman rightly pointed out.

As yet, Cadbury’s bid for swear-on-a-Bible type honesty won’t actually affect their advertising campaigns. But could those be next?

And what could this mean for other well-known slogans?…

Thank Crunchie it’s Friday, though neither Crunchie nor Cadbury’s can take credit or responsibility for the natural passage of time.

Mr Kipling doesn’t technically make exceedingly good cakes because he is a fictitious, never-seen character created for marketing purposes.

In all honesty, there are times when I wouldn’t rather have a bowl of Coco Pops.

Utterly accurate or not, you can’t help but hope advertisers decide to stick to using a little bit of artistic licence. Because they’re worth it.

Passion, or something like it

Posted by Catie Holdridge

It probably won’t surprise you to find out that we’re pretty keen on the English language here at Emphasis. And we like to know that others are too.

Fortunately, evidence of this is easy to find: look no further than the comments section at the bottom of just about any online article about our language. Take this Guardian blog about the growing use of the phrase ‘right now’: what follows is a veritable hotbed of debate and rancorous ravings on some uses of English people just love to hate.

It seems many members of the public take deep and personal offence at everything from classic management speak (‘blue-sky thinking’, ‘window of opportunity’) to misplaced reflexive pronouns (‘yourself’ for ‘you’; ‘myself’ for ‘me’); from starting every sentence with ‘look’ to peppering them too generously with ‘like’. And a fight might yet break out between the haters of Americanisms and the haters of haters of Americanisms.

It may get pretty ugly sometimes, but they do say that the opposite of love is actually not hate, but indifference. And while passionate certainly isn’t a word to use lightly, it’s safe to say there are obviously some ticks and traits of our language that get people pretty hot and bothered. This can only mean that they care.

So show us you care too. Leave a comment here in our writing blog on any aspect of the language that raises your ire, your interest, or anything else.

To coin a word or drop a clanger, that is the question

Posted by Catie Holdridge

On misusing or fumbling a word, is it better to hold your hands up to it or to compare yourself to the world’s greatest playwright?

For Sarah Palin, apparently, the answer was easy. Her use of the entirely made up ‘refudiate’ was no error; indeed, inventing it was akin to something Shakespeare himself would have done (oh, when will the comparisons between those two end?). Last Sunday, in response to proposed plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero in New York, Palin begged ‘peaceful Muslims, please refudiate’ in a Tweet. While the message was later deleted, she eventually followed it up with one declaring, ‘Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!’

Of course, this ‘new word’, judged by those with dictionaries to be an accidental combination of ‘refute’ (meaning to prove to be false) and ‘repudiate’ (to reject as having no authority), still wouldn’t quite work in this context, if at all.

More appropriately, perhaps, Palin also aligned herself with George ‘Malaprop’ Bush, the ‘misunderestimated’ president who was ‘mindful not only of preserving executive powers for [him]self, but for predecessors as well.’

The English language always has and always will grow and change. But the question now is: should we all refudiate words entering the language out of sheer unwillingness to admit we got it wrong?

The campaign to ban the bull

Posted by Catie Holdridge

In our e-bulletin, we like to take a wild specimen of business-writing bull by the horns and tame it, so that it can be understood by all.

The Ban the bull campaign was inspired by our gobbledygook amnesty back in 2009, which brought us the following offending sentence.

And, despite the subject matter, there’s nothing natural about this sentence …

“In respect of a natural habitat, the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within, as the case may be, the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies or the territory of a Member State or the natural range of that habitat.”

This 72-word monster is more likely to leave you dizzy than well-informed about natural habitats, assuming you even make it to the end. Sentences that have to be re-read numerous times are only going to annoy your reader, and could well make them put your document aside – permanently.

This sentence has actually been doing the rounds – in several slightly modified forms – in assorted EC Directives and national regulations for over a decade. (It speaks to the dangers of repeatedly using cut-and-paste, that this example is perhaps the worst.) Where it was previously broken up into numbered points, these have now been crammed together, with additional phrases haphazardly piled onto the end.

So how might we re-build this into something more manageable?

Start plainly

Even bearing in mind that this is taken out of context, the opening is vague and unclear. In what sense is it ‘in respect of’? It would be best to make this obvious at the beginning, so the reader is prepared with a premise to add the rest of the information to as they go on.

After a little research, it seems this is probably defining an official way of deciding the conservation status of any natural habitat. Would the reader have known that?

This would be better: ‘The conservation status of a natural habitat can be measured by looking at …’

Punctuate

Avoid such overly long, opaque constructions, typical of the language of legislation. Even when lacking in individually mystifying jargon words – as this one mostly is – the sheer length of such sentences is a huge obstacle to clarity. Effective use of punctuation is vital for making meaning explicit, so use it wisely: an infinite number of commas won’t clarify a poorly put-together sentence.

Break it up

When you’re dealing with a list in your text – in this case, a list of factors – consider using bullet points. These instantly make the piece more accessible, because the reader is no longer faced with a block of text. They also help to make separate ideas more distinct.

Cut the filler

Phrases like ‘as the case may be’ sound rambling and wishy-washy. Better to actually state your case, and cut these out.

Keep it simple

Unless you’re sure every reader will understand a particular word, pick a more straightforward one.

So that would leave us with:

The conservation status of a natural habitat can be measured by looking at:
•    every influence, both environmental and human, that affects that habitat and the species within it
•    how these influences will affect that habitat’s long-term distribution, structure and function; and on the future survival of its typical species.
In this context, these definitions apply to the range of natural habitats within Member States of the European territory included in this Treaty.

Now, armed with this knowledge, we can all move forward into a world where business writing is safer for everyone.

If you ever spot any baffling business-speak, be it in a report, letter, email, flyer, website, or proposal, please join our campaign by sending it to us to unravel. Alternatively, just leave a comment here at our business writing blog.

‘S Dickens, innit

Posted by Catie Holdridge

He began by turning Shakespeare into txt spk. Now it’s Dickens for da yoof of today.

Martin Baum, a father from Bournemouth, has rewritten Dickens in ‘yoof-speak’ in order – he claims – to get children interested in reading. ‘Kids today have invented their own language,’ says Baum.  ‘And I use this language to try and engage them.’

Judge his alleged mission as you will, while you contemplate his opening to Da Tale of Two Turfs: ‘It was da best of times and, not being funny or nuffing, but it was da worst of times, to be honest …’