Language
Our editorial considers the question of bad language.
Written by Alison Prince
Thursday, 23 April 2009
1 view 
0 comments
Last week we were taken to task by two readers, one verbally and the other in writing, over our use of words that they found offensive. Naturally, our first response is a sincere regret that anyone should have experienced the chosen vocabulary as distasteful or worrying. Following from that has to be a more analytical consideration of which words are acceptable and which are not. Should we draw up an Index of forbidden words to act as a style guide in moments of indecision, and pin it on the office wall for all writers to consult? The idea is faintly risible, because the fact is that many people find the short, punchy words beloved of vulgar speech intrinsically funny. There are others, including our complainants, who regard them as offensive and not at all funny, and that view has to be taken into consideration.
Much depends on context. Language designed for use in formal situations must be correct and free of colloquial usage, and at its extremes in law courts and the older forms of ecclesiastical English, it can be hard to understand. In more casual circumstances, it loosens into an easier and more relaxed convention. Certainly, children need to learn when certain words are permissible and when they are not, but these category decisions vary considerably. In particular, vocabulary to describe bodily functions is dominated by the household attitude. Most toddlers find a great joy in the simple words, ‘poo’ and ‘wee’, both for the pleasure of their sound and the sense of power that children find if they sense that some people think the words are ‘not nice’. That same slightly unholy joy runs through all use of language commonly known as vulgar – but it is worth noting that in Latin, sermo vulgaris meant 'folk speech', or the language of the people. ‘Vulgar’ was not a term of disapproval but a blanket definition of the popular dialects of the Latin language that in the early Middle Ages diverged from each other and evolved into the Romance languages of today. Shakespeare was not averse to using the demotic of his time, and what now seem harmless archaisms were bawdy in his own day.
This is not to argue that children should grow up using language that repels other people, or that adults should be habitually verbally crude. Small vulgarities need to be well chosen and deliberately deployed. In the case of our giraffe last week, we felt that the words imputed to him fitted the gloomy humour inherent in the confirmation of Arran’s appalling road status, and many people chuckled in appreciation when they saw the front page. Despite this, we accept that a newspaper becomes a part of the household, no matter how briefly, during the short time it has been allowed in. It ought therefore to behave itself like a well-mannered guest, and if on this occasion it failed to do so, then we as its notional parents must and do apologise.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
1 view 0 commentsLast week we were taken to task by two readers, one verbally and the other in writing, over our use of words that they found offensive. Naturally, our first response is a sincere regret that anyone should have experienced the chosen vocabulary as distasteful or worrying. Following from that has to be a more analytical consideration of which words are acceptable and which are not. Should we draw up an Index of forbidden words to act as a style guide in moments of indecision, and pin it on the office wall for all writers to consult? The idea is faintly risible, because the fact is that many people find the short, punchy words beloved of vulgar speech intrinsically funny. There are others, including our complainants, who regard them as offensive and not at all funny, and that view has to be taken into consideration.
Much depends on context. Language designed for use in formal situations must be correct and free of colloquial usage, and at its extremes in law courts and the older forms of ecclesiastical English, it can be hard to understand. In more casual circumstances, it loosens into an easier and more relaxed convention. Certainly, children need to learn when certain words are permissible and when they are not, but these category decisions vary considerably. In particular, vocabulary to describe bodily functions is dominated by the household attitude. Most toddlers find a great joy in the simple words, ‘poo’ and ‘wee’, both for the pleasure of their sound and the sense of power that children find if they sense that some people think the words are ‘not nice’. That same slightly unholy joy runs through all use of language commonly known as vulgar – but it is worth noting that in Latin, sermo vulgaris meant 'folk speech', or the language of the people. ‘Vulgar’ was not a term of disapproval but a blanket definition of the popular dialects of the Latin language that in the early Middle Ages diverged from each other and evolved into the Romance languages of today. Shakespeare was not averse to using the demotic of his time, and what now seem harmless archaisms were bawdy in his own day.
This is not to argue that children should grow up using language that repels other people, or that adults should be habitually verbally crude. Small vulgarities need to be well chosen and deliberately deployed. In the case of our giraffe last week, we felt that the words imputed to him fitted the gloomy humour inherent in the confirmation of Arran’s appalling road status, and many people chuckled in appreciation when they saw the front page. Despite this, we accept that a newspaper becomes a part of the household, no matter how briefly, during the short time it has been allowed in. It ought therefore to behave itself like a well-mannered guest, and if on this occasion it failed to do so, then we as its notional parents must and do apologise.
To add your own comments, you must be a registered member of The Arran Voice.
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
Anna Kucharska has commented on
Contact us
About Us
Subscriptions
Advertising
Terms & Conditions
Accessibility
Stats
Comments on This Article
There are currently no comments on this article — why not be the first?