Don Watson on the slow death of the English Language

[Darklord Rooke]

People were rocking with laughter; some were in tears. Deadpan, Don Watson waited. One audience member said later it was the funniest dinner of academic deans he had ever attended. But Watson was not joking. He was reading from a university mission statement and other material on its website.

"To provide outcome-related research and consultancy services that address real-world issues" - shrieks of laughter. The university's "approach to quality management is underpinned by a strong commitment to continuous improvement and a whole-of-organisation framework" - uproar in the room.

The university in question was RMIT but it could have been any of them. Go to your website and read the language, Watson urged guests at a recent Deans of Education dinner. That made people laugh even more. They worked at universities; they knew what he was talking about. Some of them probably even wrote this stuff. It was a surreal moment. 

But to Watson the joke has a sting. It is funny and it is awful. A terrible thing is happening to the language, he believes, and at the end of the day, in a globalised world, it is not a positive communications outcome. In other words, there is a pox upon our public speech.

His new book – Death Sentence, the Decay of Public Language, charts how "managerial language" has infiltrated the English of politics, business, bureaucracy, education and the arts. The book is about the rise of core strategies and key performance indicators, and the death of clarity and irony and funny old things called verbs. It is about a new language that Watson calls sludge and clag and gruel. Those three blunt words speak to the book's larger intention. Death Sentence is also a manifesto, the first shots, Watson hopes, in a campaign everyone can join to bring the language back to life.

"Language is what gives me greatest pleasure," he says. "I can't laugh without it." Yet in the depleted new language "you can't tell a joke".

"It's incapable of carrying an emotion. It is the language equivalent of the assembly line. It turns human processes into mechanical ones."

Is this new? Dictators and lawyers and priests have long used arcane speech to maintain authority. But something else is happening, Watson says - and that is the way everyone is busting to speak like a middle manager.

Even football is infected, he laments. Players must be accountable, stick to the game plan, provide flexibility on the forward line, going forwards. "What we are losing is language expressing character or imagination, which interests one human being in another, and from which the game's spirit springs."

But why has this language emerged? It is a hard question and the slender book - which Watson sees as an opening of the argument rather than the last word, does not entirely answer it.

One influence is "the pursuit of business models in places that were never businesses".

"Universities that once valued and defended culture have swallowed the creed whole. Libraries, galleries and museums, banks and welfare agencies now parrot it. The public sector spouts it as loudly as the private does."

Nevertheless, Watson also partially sympathises. He thinks that because modern business and politics force people to make difficult decisions quickly they prefer not to be too precise - they may have to retract them later. When journalists want instant answers to complex matters, important-sounding waffle might feel like the safest way to go.

Critically, says Watson, the new language is infected by marketing, and so "there's a kind of overclaiming in it". At times, it "sounds like nothing so much as communist doctrine". It is a fine line, he suggests, between continuous improvement going forward and "the 77th tractor brigade salutes the glorious victories of the five-year plan".

That does not necessarily mean Watson sees a new totalitarianism on the way. One subtlety of Death Sentence is the way Watson wrestles with the weight of his subject. An ugly word is not a crime against humanity, he writes. Perhaps it is even all for the best. Perhaps public language is decaying because in the West the grand narratives of struggle and war are dying, and is that not to the good? Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, after all, followed a hideous civil war.

That might be what worries Watson most - the loss of sensation and sympathy that the new speech creates. A corporation "downsizes" its staff, an army achieves "attrition" of the enemy. People are losing their jobs or their lives.

"Such wisdom as we have we express in language, and in language we also seek it," he writes. He quotes George Orwell, who was on to this problem 60 years ago. "Language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

The faith of Death Sentence is a sentence of two words: Language matters. Bear in mind, Watson writes, "that if we deface the War Memorial or rampage through St Paul's with a sledgehammer we will be locked up as criminals or lunatics . . . Yet every day we vandalise the language, which is the foundation, the frame, the joinery of the culture, if not its greatest glory, and there is no penalty and no way to impose one. We can only be indignant. And we should resist."

I still blame youngsters for the deterioration of the English language, but Watson does make a compelling case  . His book, 'Worst Words' has just been released, it's his new collection of managerial gibberish.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Rooke

[OriginalRen]

I read this article a couple of times, but am still confused what he actually thinks the issue with the English language is. He states how it's "ugly and inaccurate," but I'm not really sure what the major issue is. Does he hate our verb choice? How we treat formality? A little bit confused.

[Zakamutt]

My take would be that he dislikes distancing language and vague language, as it allows people to be more, well, distant and vague about important matters. The only real novel angle vs. Politics and the English Language (my apologies for not reading it again, so I might misremember somewhat) might be his statement that things that should not be businesses are being run as businesses. He considers such language to be on the rise, spreading to fields it had not been seen in before.

[Darklord Rooke]

Yeah, Zaka's pretty much got it. Basically Don is saying the inaccuracies or imprecision of the new jargon leads to language often being vague when it should be clear, its repetition in scenarios it doesn’t wholly fit sacrificing varity for a sameness that fails to convey subtleties in situations, that it fails to actually say things at times, that it fails to paint a clear image, that there is no soul in the language, there’s no emotion in the language, that at times it’s goal is to confuse and obfuscate intentionally and people seeking to imitate will also learn language that does nothing but confuse and obfuscate.

A very basic example would be the warning levels for a natural disaster, so in Australia the highest level of fire alert would be an ‘emergency warning’ which is incredibly vague and non-descriptive. An ‘emergency warning’ could mean many different things requiring slightly different responses. And when news outlets repeat these warnings, they'll mostly parrot these official labels. On the other hand, ‘get out, run for your life you're about to burn alive’ is much more to the point and gets the message across in a clear manner. 

[OriginalRen]

My take would be that he dislikes distancing language and vague language, as it allows people to be more, well, distant and vague about important matters. The only real novel angle vs. Politics and the English Language (my apologies for not reading it again, so I might misremember somewhat) might be his statement that things that should not be businesses are being run as businesses. He considers such language to be on the rise, spreading to fields it had not been seen in before.

Yeah, Zaka's pretty much got it. Basically Don is saying the inaccuracies or imprecision of the new jargon leads to language often being vague when it should be clear, its repetition in scenarios it doesn’t wholly fit sacrificing varity for a sameness that fails to convey subtleties in situations, that it fails to actually say things at times, that it fails to paint a clear image, that there is no soul in the language, there’s no emotion in the language, that at times it’s goal is to confuse and obfuscate intentionally and people seeking to imitate will also learn language that does nothing but confuse and obfuscate.

A very basic example would be the warning levels for a natural disaster, so in Australia the highest level of fire alert would be an ‘emergency warning’ which is incredibly vague and non-descriptive. An ‘emergency warning’ could mean many different things requiring slightly different responses. And when news outlets repeat these warnings, they'll mostly parrot these official labels. On the other hand, ‘get out, run for your life you're about to burn alive’ is much more to the point and gets the message across in a clear manner. 

So basically, beating around the bush instead of being direct?

[Darklord Rooke]

 So basically, beating around the bush instead of being direct?

That’s certainly part of it. It’s also people increasingly not being ABLE to say what they mean due to imitating words people use in public life. ‘Committed’ is one, people often say they are ‘committed’ without actually realising it means very little. ‘Committed’ can actually mean a hundred different things. If a girl asks you to commit to a relationship, does that mean just remembering all the important dates or a situation where you attempt to live under the same roof? Maybe it just means being there to talk when she needs it, who knows. Who can tell. It’s a mystery, but I assume she would think she’s being very clear even though she ain’t. It’s a word politicians use all the time because they want to be INTENTIONALLY vague, though.

And it’s also people using the same words over and over again. He describes ‘variety’ as one of the strengths of the English language and yet we use the same words and phrases again and again. Jeremy Clarkson has the same problem, actually (and before anybody complains about his character, he may be a bigot but he’s also a wordsmith):

My point this morning is that English is indeed a very hard language to master.

It’s full of nuances and subtleties that take a lifetime to understand. 

So why, then, is official Britain so monochromatic? Why do the police close roads because of an ‘incident’? Why is every fight, from a pub brawl to a fully fledged riot, a ‘disturbance’? And why is the shipping forecast so bland? Why instead of ‘stormy’ don’t they say the sea’s ‘a frothing maelstrom of terror and hopelessness’?

And most important of all, why can’t doctors be a bit more elaborate with their choice of words when describing the condition of a patient?

Last week, for instance, we heard about a young chap who had been using his mobile phone on the third storey of an office block when the lift doors opened. Without looking, he stepped through the gap only to find the lift wasn’t actually there.

In the resultant fall he broke his back in two places, punctured a lung and snapped several ribs. But even so, doctors later described his condition as ‘comfortable’.

Now look. Someone lying on a squidgy daybed under the whispery shade of a Caribbean palm tree is ‘comfortable’. Someone lying in an NHS hospital with a broken back and a shattered rib poking through one of his lungs just isn’t.

‘Crumpled’ would have been better. As would ‘miserable’, ‘broken’, or ‘cross’. They could even have said: ‘Well, he won’t be playing on his Wii console for a while.’ Even my Russian friend could have come up with something better than ‘comfortable’.

[OriginalRen]

 So basically, beating around the bush instead of being direct?

That’s certainly part of it. It’s also people increasingly not being ABLE to say what they mean due to imitating words people use in public life. ‘Committed’ is one, people often say they are ‘committed’ without actually realising it means very little. ‘Committed’ can actually mean a hundred different things. If a girl asks you to commit to a relationship, does that mean just remembering all the important dates or a situation where you attempt to live under the same roof? Maybe it just means being there to talk when she needs it, who knows. Who can tell. It’s a mystery, but I assume she would think she’s being very clear even though she ain’t. It’s a word politicians use all the time because they want to be INTENTIONALLY vague, though.

And it’s also people using the same words over and over again. He describes ‘variety’ as one of the strengths of the English language and yet we use the same words and phrases again and again. Jeremy Clarkson has the same problem, actually (and before anybody complains about his character, he may be a bigot but he’s also a wordsmith):

My point this morning is that English is indeed a very hard language to master.

It’s full of nuances and subtleties that take a lifetime to understand. 

So why, then, is official Britain so monochromatic? Why do the police close roads because of an ‘incident’? Why is every fight, from a pub brawl to a fully fledged riot, a ‘disturbance’? And why is the shipping forecast so bland? Why instead of ‘stormy’ don’t they say the sea’s ‘a frothing maelstrom of terror and hopelessness’?

And most important of all, why can’t doctors be a bit more elaborate with their choice of words when describing the condition of a patient?

Last week, for instance, we heard about a young chap who had been using his mobile phone on the third storey of an office block when the lift doors opened. Without looking, he stepped through the gap only to find the lift wasn’t actually there.

In the resultant fall he broke his back in two places, punctured a lung and snapped several ribs. But even so, doctors later described his condition as ‘comfortable’.

Now look. Someone lying on a squidgy daybed under the whispery shade of a Caribbean palm tree is ‘comfortable’. Someone lying in an NHS hospital with a broken back and a shattered rib poking through one of his lungs just isn’t.

‘Crumpled’ would have been better. As would ‘miserable’, ‘broken’, or ‘cross’. They could even have said: ‘Well, he won’t be playing on his Wii console for a while.’ Even my Russian friend could have come up with something better than ‘comfortable’.

In regards to your "committed" example, I agree with you in that regard but I also disagree that it really is a problem English speakers are facing. I don't think the language is becoming "worse" because we do things like that. Take Japanese for example. It's a language that is very repetitious, but because of that, I don't think it means Japanese is getting worse. A lot of people's word choice comes down to context. The words you chose here (committed and comfortable) can be confusing to some people, but as a native English speaker I can easily tell what the person means based on context, which is really what mastering any language is all about. If I can't understand something based on context, I should ask. I feel that clarification is the real issue people have when it comes to language. We live in an age where we assume things all the time, and I feel simply clarifying something is the best way to fix it. I also feel we do this with certain things because using those kinds of words in certain writing environments attracts the attention of readers/listeners. If I use a word that people will be confused about, it will make them wonder what it is I am talking about, and therefore be more interested in figuring it out.

As for your other point regarding using the same words over and over again, I am guilty of that myself. In my Hoshizora review I did it all the time and hated myself for it, but that's just something I need to fix. When I write something, I have a lot of trouble remembering what words I use and end up reading what I write out loud in hopes I can catch those mistakes.

[InvictusCobra]

I'm just an illiterate and common person, but isn't that natural progression of language? Some terms get used, others are forgotten, and new ones are born. Maybe now some people perceive this as a threat, but that's just life and language taking it's course. For example, my German professor told us last week that even though Genitiv still exists, the people who use it are either high brow members of society or old people, and that Genitiv users are a dying breed. I don't know what to make of it, just that it's life. Some things stay, others go.

As for mastery of the English language, I agree that it is quite the colossal endeavour. I used to think I was very knowledgeable due to having completed Cambridge's Certificate of Proficiency in English and being the smartest student when it came to English classes in general. However, as I was writing my Hanachirasu review and now that I've had a few ideas for a literary narrative percolating in my head for a few months, I notice that I am a mere student who is far from being a posh and cultured speaker who can write good English.

Edited November 2, 2015 by InvictusCobra

[OriginalRen]

I'm just an illiterate and common person, but isn't that natural progression of language? Some terms get used, others are forgotten, and new ones are born. Maybe now some people perceive this as a threat, but that's just life and language taking it's course. For example, my German professor told us last week that even though Genitiv still exists, the people who use it are either high brow members of society or old people, and that Genitiv users are a dying breed. I don't know what to make of it, just that it's life. Some things stay, others go.

As for mastery of the English language, I agree that it is quite a colossal effort. I used to think I was very knowledgeable due to having completed Cambridge's Certificate of Proficiency in English and being the smartest student when it came to English classes in general. However, as I was writing my Hanachirasu review and now that I've had a few ideas for a literary narrative percolating in my head for a few months now, I notice that I am a mere student who is far from being a posh and cultured speaker who can write good English.

Don't feel bad, I actually suck at English writing. I've had to write in so many other languages throughout college career (French, Italian, German, etc.) that I have forgotten how to form proper thesis statements in argumentative essays.

[Lewycool]

 

Keep these types of threads coming. I've got plenty of time to express the supreme rulers. 

[Down]

Spoken language is a direct reflection of the groups of people in which it is spoken. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that, that's just the way languages work. That's also why I don't really agree with Rooke on the topic of youngsters ruining the language. But anyway.

There's a reason why we talk about a "bureaucratization" of society. The problem is this managerial bullshit cancer, the effects on language, although extremely irritating, are just consequences of that. Basically we should get rid of the whole package and maybe we'll start to have discourses that make some god damn sense again.

[Decay]

edit: WOW, this is the wrong thread. I don't do that very often.

Here, look, I'll salvage this and actually post a response! When I first saw the thread title I thought this actually was going to be yet another ineffectual whine at how the youth is ruining the English language with slang and memes. But instead it's about corporations ruining the language. I can get behind that. I've been seeing that kind of language creep into journalism and other areas and I've gotten pretty frustrated at it. It makes it more difficult to understand what anyone is actually thinking. I'm sure I'm guilty of this to an extent as well. It's not anything I consciously try to avoid doing.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Decay

[Darbury]

I haven't read Don Watson's book, so I'll give this a conditional "meh" with a future option to post the "Old Man Yells at Cloud" image.

English is fine. Every generation thinks the new guard is taking a great big ol' dump on the Queen's English and ruining everything that makes it wonderful. Every generation is wrong. English ebbs and flows, just as it was meant to. The jargon of the Industrial Revolution gave rise to the Romantics. The standardization of post-WW2 American discourse gave rise to the Beats. Each time, the language was enriched.

And guess what? The English of today still lets you be as precise as you choose to be. The words are all still there. You get to use them, free of charge.

Watson's point seems to be more about public discourse, which is a much different beast. That's a cultural issue. Right now, we're going through this phase where we're getting used to the idea of instant accountability, the thought that anything we say might end up disseminated and dissected in a matter of minutes. (THANK YOU, INTERWEBS!) We hedge our bets publicly because it's in our best interest to. We eschew precision for a certain bland flexibility because that gives us the best chance to manage our own meaning.

As for private speech, I think that's probably as colorful as ever, if not more so. (THANK YOU, INTERWEBS!)

[Darklord Rooke]

I'm just an illiterate and common person, but isn't that natural progression of language? Some terms get used, others are forgotten, and new ones are born.

Orwell discusses this in his essay, which is required reading for everybody interested in the language. It's old, but still relevant, and of course full of insight and genius. An excerpt:

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of fly-blown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not ‘un-’ formation out of existence[1] to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defense of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.

To begin with, it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting-up of a “standard-English” which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one’s meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a “good prose style.” On the other hand it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender them...

...but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot,Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin where it belongs.

[1] One can cure oneself of the not ‘un-’ formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/ 

[Darbury]

Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists.

The best part of this is that both expressions are still alive and well. 

[Darklord Rooke]

 The best part of this is that both expressions are still alive and well. 

They must have come back. Resilient little blighters

But few people care enough about language to make any sort of significant push-back against how it's used.  If it's not organisations intentionally being bland, being misleading, or using many words to say nothing at all, it's the twitter generation communicating in grunts, giggles, and pelvic thrusts. You can't win. Ladidah nobody reads these struck out lines anyway so I can say whatever I want ahahaha.

[Zakamutt]

 

If it's not organisations intentionally being bland, being misleading, or using many words to say nothing at all, it's the twitter generation communicating in grunts, giggles, and pelvic thrusts. You can't win. Ladidah nobody reads these struck out lines anyway so I can say whatever I want ahahaha.

Twitter is also p. good practice in wording yourself snappily, something I'm sure you'd approve of. Seriously you old grumps smh

[Darbury]

 Twitter is also p. good practice in wording yourself snappily, something I'm sure you'd approve of. Seriously you old grumps smh

Seriously. Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain would both be on Twitter 24/7.

[Abyssal Monkey]

 

And most important of all, why can’t doctors be a bit more elaborate with their choice of words when describing the condition of a patient?

Last week, for instance, we heard about a young chap who had been using his mobile phone on the third storey of an office block when the lift doors opened. Without looking, he stepped through the gap only to find the lift wasn’t actually there.

In the resultant fall he broke his back in two places, punctured a lung and snapped several ribs. But even so, doctors later described his condition as ‘comfortable’.

Now look. Someone lying on a squidgy daybed under the whispery shade of a Caribbean palm tree is ‘comfortable’. Someone lying in an NHS hospital with a broken back and a shattered rib poking through one of his lungs just isn’t.

‘Crumpled’ would have been better. As would ‘miserable’, ‘broken’, or ‘cross’. They could even have said: ‘Well, he won’t be playing on his Wii console for a while.’ Even my Russian friend could have come up with something better than ‘comfortable’.

I died.  A doctor commenting on the state of a patient.  Seems like he is ranting over nothing.  The dumbass who walked out of the lift without looking probably was comfortable in his hospital bed comparatively to what people would make it out to be.  When you hear someone has quite a few broken bones and a punctured lung, that seems pretty bad, but if the guy was alright and recovering, I would say that that is 'comfortable'.  Does he want the doctor to make a bad joke about how the guy's bones turned to dust and his insides became jelly?  What then, he would get slandered for some thing or other, and then sued by patient's family.  The doctor took the right out by making a safe comment, and this so called English enthusiast is railing him for it. Frankly it seems like he is just bitching about the evolution of vernacular.

He does make a nice point about being vague, but I think the fashion he was pointing at was wrong.  People now use indirect clauses and other vague terms way too much, to the point where everyday I always ask for clarification of what exactly they meant. 

As for using business language? I do it all the time, its mainly how I interact with anyone not on the internet. If I have anything at stake, I'm going to make damn well sure the other guy can't fuck me over.

TL;DR Angry old people.

[Salurian]

Don't get me started on how cultural values like a low context culture vs. a high context culture influences everything about how people interact via language.  Don't do it... don't... gah.  Alright.

Because now I'm thinking about it.  And I may as well use something I learned when I was writing my thesis...

Americans, by our very nature, have a low context culture.  The most likely reason for this is because of the very mixed nature of our population.  When you have a lot of different cultures in the same place, you cannot always rely on people to infer exactly what you mean.  Which inevitably means that, when dealing with these other cultures, you have to explain exactly what you mean.  Ever notice that when someone has some crazy over the top scientific/technical explanation, there's always someone who asks for it in 'plain English'?  That's the kind of explanation I'm talking about.

How to explain it... You know how inside jokes work, right?  Well, inside jokes are high context.  If you are talking with two people, one who is in on the joke and one who never heard of the joke, only the one who's on the inside joke is going to laugh.  The other guy's just going to be confused.  So you explain the joke... but it's not necessarily as funny, because you had to explain it.  But at least that person understands the joke now. 

Complicated English means only those who can 'translate' those concepts understand.

You use simple English and everyone understands.  So people use simpler English to get their point across, and then people claim that the language is being 'dumbed down'.

Now, you think that's bad, you start dealing with high context cultures and the translations of their language... like Japanese.  Japan is a high-context culture.  They have a very unmixed population, with the residents of Japan pretty overwhelmingly being... well, Japanese.  So they can get away without all of those additional explanations and just infer them instead.  If you go up to the Japanese Help Thread (for translators) in the Fan Translation boards, you'll very soon note that the translators are always asking for the context of the conversation.  This is because in Japanese a series of kanji can mean one thing in one context, but can mean something else entirely in a different context.

Fun times.

Personally, I'm just going to ignore anyone who claims that the English language is dying, dumber, or whatever.  Languages change over time.  It's what they do.  Let it change.

And then when I'm old, I'll sit out on my lawn and yell at kids and their slang I don't understand.

Darn whippersnappers.