I recall an interview of Bryan Garner, author of Garner’s Modern English Usage, where he mentioned the increasing use of empirical usage statistics to inform the construction of usage dictionaries, while trying to focus on “the durable parts” of what he considers to be “Standard Written English”.
While the usage statistics he used almost certainly weren’t derived from the sorts of generative models that are widely hyped today, it’s possible that other “machine learning” methods were used in the process. In any event, I do wonder how AI language models and realtime translation tools will impact the development of “standard” and “vernacular” forms of all languages over time.
Interestingly, digital technology (again, not necessarily AI) seems to have facilitated the inclusion of “Englishes” other than British and US in the latest edition of Garner’s text.
One outcome that, to my mind, would be detrimental would be the destruction of the line between formal and informal writing. Words and jargon from social media and messaging platforms already have become common in just about all forms of speech and writing (for example, the use of “curate” instead of “choose”). I strongly believe there are times and places for both types of vocabulary but one should not entirely supplant the other.
Exactly. The previously mentioned distinction between “gonna” and “going to” comes to mind. I have no doubt that in casual speaking, I occasionally will say the former instead of the latter, but unless I am deliberately writing in vernacular for effect, I cannot imagine writing “gonna” instead of “going to”.
Don’t even get me started on “should of” versus “should have”.
If language didn’t change over time, then we’d still be saying “thou hast”. Or we’d be speaking like Chaucer wrote.
People complaining about changes to language also never changes. For example, my mother-in-law is angered when people say “no problem” rather than “you’re welcome” (she will correct people who have just helped her with something). But if you think about it, what is it I am welcome to? It’s shorthand for you were welcome to the service I provided I suppose, but why isn’t “no problem” better - it was no problem to me to help you - than “you’re welcome”?
I’m not saying that we should accept “should of” or “ain’t” as proper, but it’s all of us together who decide. Maybe someday they will be accepted as proper formal language and the way we write and speak will seem strange and old-fashioned.
Languages are constantly evolving, not always for the better.
In a recent TV thriller, BSL (British Sign Language - hand sign language for the hearing impaired) was the subject of a film. In the film, a BSL using perpetrator was found out to be from Manchester, although he lied to the police that he was from south of England. The BSL interpreter in the film found this out and the perpetrator was convicted.
Here’s the amazing thing behind it (from Wikipedia)
BSL has many regional dialects. Certain signs used in Scotland, for example, are not understood in the south of England and vice versa. Some signs are so localised that they only appear in certain cities (such as the counting system in Manchester). Similarly, there are signs that eventually fall out of use or new word creations, similar to spoken languages.
In addition, British and American sign languages are only 30% congruent, but that is almost to be expected.
Dialects and accents in sign languages, who would have thought that. AI won’t cope with this for some time.
Should of gets posted by undereducated dimwits who have no clue about grammar and not even an inkling of how their language works, hence no filter (“does that even make sense?” or “can I even use a word like of in that way?”) kicks in before posting. Or perhaps they just don’t care to even proofread before broadcasting to the entire world.
But if they care so little about our language, why should I care about their feelings over the lack of attention I’ll offer them? I am aware in this country (I have no idea if it’s similar in the UK or AU/NZ) there has lately been this great push against “elites” and with it knowledge, expertise and education. And along with that came the grand celebration of amateurism and ignorance (and no, that started well before Trump, he’s just good at cheering it on). But I see no reason to subject myself to the lowered standards of uneducated masses celebrating their underachievement. Why should the educated and attentive submit to the uneducated and careless or even mimic their expression in some kind of misguided attempt at magnanimity? Why enable neglect? With all the great built-in tools we have on our computers and phones these days, there is really no excuse. Seriously, who is actually unable to use the macOS spell checker?
I will concede, they absolutely do have the freedom to plaster the internet with should of instead of should have or should’ve and, while we’re at it, even to excuse themselves with “language always evolves and I just evolved English for all of us because I can’t be bothered to get an education or a clue”. But by the same token I also have the freedom to recognize them for the uneducated hicks they are (and thus ignore them). And if that makes me elitist (for the left) or woke (for the right), so be it.
Of course, language is also highly contextual. I speak very differently to Cornell friends with PhDs than I do to highly skilled tradespeople who probably only have high school educations. Having grown up on a farm in a rural area, I can switch back and forth seamlessly, and I’ve found it extremely helpful on occasion.
Interestingly, I do insist on proper spelling and grammar in text messaging, regardless, but I don’t stress about it nearly as much when prompting AI chatbots. They simply don’t care, and it’s not worth my time to fix typos or punctuation when it will make no difference at all.
One of English’s great strengths is its mutability. So many amazing new words and concepts come in in so many ways. One generation’s informality is the next’s standard.
Or, to put it another way: FFS, LOL, Okay, boomers.
Not to sidetrack this thread too much, but that sweater reminded me of something I’ve been wondering.
When did it become acceptable to insult random strangers in public settings by putting impolite or vulgar stuff on your clothing? This sweater is perhaps just a poor attempt at irony, but I see even ‘regular’ people (or at least folks that appear to be regular people) walk around public places with stuff like **** YOU printed in huge font on their t-shirts.
You know? That’s true! Never thought about it this way. In the olden days you would see an R. Crumb T-shirt in certain quarters but that was rare. And then, of course, there were the glorious Japanese T-shirts and signs in bizarrely fun, sometimes scatological, English but the ubiquity of these insult clothes is new.
The Verge just published a good article on this topic that cites some of the current research.
As much as I’m personally more of a language purist than not, it is absolutely true that language is an evolving human construct, and the ways it changes necessarily involve the latest technologies. The printing press, radio, TV, and the Internet have all played a part in how we write and speak now, and it’s not surprising that AI will as well.
who have just helped her with something). But if you think about it, what is it I am welcome to? It’s shorthand for you were welcome to the service I provided I suppose, but why isn’t “no problem” better - it was no problem to me to help you - than “you’re welcome”?
