Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 34 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 2605 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Brits place blame on emojis for ruining English language

Lisa Miles
An article on the E&T Magazine website states that a study has found that most British adults believe the English language is in decline, with many believing that emojis should take some of the blame.


Personally, I think the English language constantly 'evolves' over time....


I remember the furore when texting became the norm and many people started using 'text speak' in their everyday communitication. However, over the past few years, with autocorrect and predictive text becoming much more sophisticated, it's actually much harder and more time consuming to type 'text speak' into your phone nowadays.


There will always be those that aren't able to spell as well as others, and emojis will always have an appropriate place in communication, but I don't think we need to worry too much about the decline of the English language...


Or do we? wink
  • 0
    In response to the earlier post, please don't get me started on apostrophes! I'm a really pedantic old git when it comes to the unnecessary apostrophe, they're one of my pet hate's...


    And it really gets on my nerves when there should be an apostrophe and its missing...


    I need a coffee!
  • 0
    Emojis are fine - at least the obvious ones are, like the smileys and the laughing faces - even the amusing poo has its uses - they add an extra dimension to a message that can't be conveyed by word alone. Would you rather get a reply saying "That's funny" or the crying-with-laughter emoji?


    As it happens, by a strange coincidence I was discussing emojis with my cousin this very morning (ironically, by text, with lots of emojis) and there are loads of them now that neither of us have a Scooby about (I know...)


    We couldn't decide what one of them was. Suggestions ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous before we finally gave in and googled it.


    A rice cracker. Seriously? Who could possibly need an emoji of a rice cracker? Yes, use them by all means, but there has to come a point where emojis alone aren't sufficient and we need to resort to words



  • 0
    For those, like me, who do enjoy using emoji, check out our new emoji offering!  ?


    We had a software update earlier this week and the supplier has updated to a new emoji pack...  ?
  • 0
    I have been having a think about this.


    The older generation communicated using letters and obtained information from books and newspapers, which required the skills and ability to read and write. A now middle aged generation grew up in a world where telephones and televisions were commonplace which reduced the necessity to be able to read and write, so consequently, standards of literacy fell. The younger generation have grown up in the social media era which has acted as a driving force to revive the skills and ability to read and write, often with unpredictable and questionable consequences like text speak. Teachers have not always been able to effectively keep up with the social media era and its impact on reading and writing as their mindset is often stuck in the television / telephone or pen and ink eras. Kids nowadays would rather communicate with each other by sending messages on WhatsApp or posting comments on Facebook rather than by talking. Should schools now start teaching kids the art of conversation and telephone calls because they are dying skills like personal letter writing in the 1970s and 80s?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I like emojis. I think in an informal setting they can really enhance the message. They act as intensifiers and can remove ambiguity.


    I'm a bit torn on the matter of "correct" English. I find myself extremely annoyed by people who like, say "like", like every five words or something like that.


    I also utterly despise the misuse of "literally". If you are "literally dying for a cup of tea" then I admire the lengths you would go to for tea, but I doubt it'll come to that. And if you are "literally on fire" then I suggest contacting the emergency services instead of tweeting about it wink


    That said, it's demonstrably true that language has always evolved, so we should expect it to continue to do so. I suppose if you understood it then it's valid. Anyone who's ever read Hubert Selby Jr will sympathise - his grammar is horrible but his story telling is magnificent and you just find yourself not caring.
  • 0
    I didn't realise either Lisa,

     

    "A pint of Stella please mate". Falstaff (Henry IV, part 1: Act III, Scene iii).


    We owe the Bard much!


    Cheers


    David


     


  • 0
    While we're on the subject of Shakespeare, I didn't realise just how many everyday phrases can be attributed to his works! surprise


  • 0

    Alasdair Anderson:

    I agree with you both that the language is dynamic.However for centuries there was a brake put on the change by the continued use of Elizabethan/Jacobean English through the use of the King James Bible in churches and the study of Shakespeare in schools (both of which I am old enough to have experienced in church/school). However with the use of modern translations of the bible and the move away from studying Shakespeare, the language is evolving faster now than previously so the change is becoming noticeable within an individuals lifetime.

    If you really want to know how quickly language can change, try comparing English from the time of the Norman Conquest (e.g. the Domesday Book, about 1086 I think) to English from Chaucer such as the Canterbury Tales (about 1385) and they appear to be two different languages (and are considered as such, being Old English or Anglo Saxon for the former and Middle English for the latter), even though they are only three hundred years apart. As a comparison, go back three hundred years from today and you can read the language with little difficulty. Try Robinson Crusoe, published 299 years ago next week!


    Apologies - just checked and the Domesday book was Latin. Try Beowulf, published about 50 years earlier.....


    Alasdair




    Chaucer's Middle English was representative of English at the time in comparison to the highfalutin style of Shakespeare's plays which the common folk at the time would have had more difficulty comprehending than most kids of today. Shakespeare may well have pushed the pen but I don't believe he thought up the plays although he could have written the poems which are in a completely different style.


    English is a Germanic Romance hybrid language but before the Norman Conquest it was pure Germanic. Although English is officially a west Germanic language it is technically a north Germanic language as a result of Viking influence. It's closest living relative (factoring out dialects) is Norwegian.


    American English is actually closer to British English of the 18th century than modern British English is as a result of changes which took place in Britain during the early 19th century.  


  • 0
    Saw this in New Scientist last week and Tom Gauld has put it on his Twitter feed. It changes from week-to-week but I'll email Tom Gauld and see if it possible to post the cartoon here.


    It is classic!


    B/R, David

    https://twitter.com/tomgauld?lang=en




  • 0
    George Bernard Shaw called them "uncouth bacilli"

    'cheeky'

Community Rules & Guidelines