Interesting conversation on tele...

Whilst watching a daytime chat show, I found a particular topic of their conversation interesting. They were discussing an issue in the papers that said that Selfridges in Manchester has told their works they have to speak more ‘formal’ and reduce their Northern twang, by doing so they’ve banned words such as ‘hiya’ and ‘cheers’ to be replaced by words such as ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’.

There were two separate sides to the argument on the show. One side was in favour of Selfridges as they argued that when they are ‘up North’ they think the Northern accent is difficult to understand, therefore adapting a more formal style of English would be more understandable; especially with foreign visitors. Also, they said that as Selfridges is an up market shop, they should be allowed to pursue a formal representation to collide with their image. Similarly they said that informalities are increasing due to the influence of technology and America, and there is a time and place for informality but not in the workplace.

The other side of the argument said that the dialect used by employers doesn’t represent the strengths of their service, therefore the way they speak shouldn’t matter. Also they thought that a more standard formal accent is intimidating, (as if they would feel they are unworthy to enter the shop wearing dirty trainers.) Also they said that if the shop is based in Manchester than having employees speaking with a Manchester accent shows identity of the shop, and taking this away takes away the friendliness and familiarity of the shop.

In my opinion i agree with both views. I think that going into a shop in a different region I’d expect the staff to speak with an accent, as it does show identity and emphasises the difference from home. However accents are sometimes misunderstood or misinterpreted and reducing the regional ‘twang’ does make people easier to understand, especially in a more upper class shop.  :):)

Old-fashioned sexist adverts, hmm...

We looked at a variety of ‘Old-fashioned’ adverts, each displaying particular angles of sexism; towards women of course. The language used emphasises the weakness of women and the dependability on their husbands. The adverts put women into a bad perspective and almost make a reader feel sorry for them. They suggest that all women are like this and add even more to the stereotypical woman. For me, if I saw an advert with this particular style of humour, it would put me off buying the product, never mind selling it to me!

ACADEMY OF ENGLISH: who cares?

Discussing expert and personal views on the so called ‘controversy’.

By Catherine Crocker for 'The Times'



Logo for the Queen's English Society- the people that power our debate.



France, Italy and Spain get over 101 days of sun a year, compared to our 70. You don’t see complaints and debates on that, so why the huge fuss about the Academy of English?

It’s been 2 years since the Queen’s English Society website was launched: and nothing has been done about it. Surely this is enough information to prove that nobody is interested. There are already homemade gangs of ‘nit-pickers’ and ‘pedants’ who feel the need to display their disgust about the use of English, without scaring people off with a society!

I mean, this controversy provoked a best-selling book on punctuation. Is that really how sad our society is?

Arguments have been brought to our attention that the prevalence of English is making it more vulnerable to abuse than any other language. This suggests that one minute we complain that China and the US are overruling us, then the next, complaining our predominance is corrupting us. Somehow I can’t get my head around this. Texting is also an issue apparently. The use of ‘textese’ as it’s called, is causing disastrous effects on our literacy. Technological advances are inevitable in today’s age, its only logic that the use of language is going to change with this.

Where on the other hand we’re being told that words are the most important way to express thoughts, and if they are restricted it constrains free-thinkers. As well as the issue of, if we enforce a limit on the English we use, which English do we go back to - Shakespearean? Anglo-Saxon?  Each of these types of English has had an impact on the one we use today, so how do we choose which is the ‘proper’. Maybe ask the Anti-Queen’s English society, it seems they’ve had more input and support by readers and literary experts.

Jonathan Swift wrote a letter in 1712 expressing his desire for an academy of English. It shows the debate has been ongoing for nearly 300 years and we’ve had no progress. ‘Correct English’ was as hard to define then, as it is now. Isn’t it time these doctrinaires gave up? In 1985 ‘bad’ English was casually linked to crime by Lord Tebbit, that’s worse than the accent prejudices!

Jean Atchison talked about the 3 views on English language. The ‘crumbling castle’ view is the most prominent to me. It treats English like a beautiful preserved building with gargoyles and summits. However the view suggests that English was gradually assembles until it found a point of maximum magnificence in the past, but where’s this year English was at its perfection? John Simon said language should be treated like ‘parks, national forests, monuments, and public utilities ... available for properly respectful use but not for defacement or destruction.’ And that’s an expert.

In my opinion, the idea of an Academy of English sounds enticing for someone with an interest in English like myself. We can’t rely on the unreliable Microsoft to correct our mistakes all the time, and what we perceive as ‘proper’ English is important - even if we just know it but don’t use it. But when you look deeper into the possibilities and realities of our language, its difficult define ‘proper’, it’s difficult to make people listen, and most of all it’s difficult to enforce!

The first academy, the L'Académie française was set up in 1635, and the latest was the Reale Academia d'Italia in 1943. If the Academy of English is going to be set up, i think we’re a bit behind schedule.

Initial thoughts on Queen's English Society...

• Firstly I love the idea of an Academy of English to preserve our language.
• English is so widely used and well known; and the fact that other languages are protected but ours isn't doesn't seem right.
• I think the Academy of English is good because it promotes better use of English and caters for the common mistakes regarding grammar and punctuation.
• Many people are already 'Pedants' and 'nit-pickers' and emphasise the 'proper' way to write and speak English, so surely they should do something about it.
• We can't take advantage of technological advances and rely on the unreliable Microsoft to correct our language mistakes.

:):)