Wiston Papers

Formal, informal or  substandard English: Does it really matter?

I was watching a football game on ESPN last week, but finally had to turn off the volume because the two men calling the game were committing grammatical mistakes.

One announcer would say that “PLAYER X is six-foot-5-inches tall.”  The second broadcaster insisted on describing plays where one team lost yardage as “negative plays.”

So annoyed was I that I dashed off a message to the network.  The correct phrasing is “six-FEET-5 inches,” I informed the recipient of my note.  Furthermore, I explained, there is no such thing as either a positive or negative football play.  Just say that the team either made yardage or lost yardage or moved the fall forward or backward.

I did receive an acknowledgement from ESPN claiming that my comment would be forwarded to the appropriate persons.  I’m not holding my breath waiting, however, for improvement by those two sports journalists in the near future.

From a strict communication perspective, what the two broadcasters were saying was easily understood.  Whether they had used the correct word for describing height or refrained from an annoying cliché, their choice of words and phrasing was clear.

Why, then, do some of us insist that people who express themselves employ certain forms of English and avoid others?  We refer to levels of language as either formal, informal or substandard.  Each is capable of conveying information, ideas, opinions and emotions effectively.  Thus, if the goal is to be understood, then it makes virtually no difference how you express yourself.

Yet, we have assigned connotative values to these discrete levels of language.  Formal English denotes conformity to standards that have been agreed upon by grammarians, wordsmiths and other guardians of language who zealously attempt to enforce such standards.  Proper subject-verb agreement, correct use of the nominative and accusative cases, avoidance of split infinitives, order of syntax, and strict adherence to recognition and use of the subtle differences among synonyms are among the standards held most sacred. (FORMAL)

Informal English seems to be used by almost everybody in casual conversation and writing. Increasingly you will see and hear it in areas that once used formal language.  Broadcast newscasts and public lectures are a couple of examples. (INFORMAL)

Substandard English ain’t used by everyone, but sometimes  they and us talk like that.  But it don’t seem to hurt none.  Him and her can be understood real good. (SUBSTANDARD)

Does it matter which form of English we employ if all three are generally comprehensible?  Yes.  Despite the gradual spread of and change in usage, we still tend to make judgments about people based on how they communicate.  There are situations in which we expect persons to respect decorum in dress and speech.  A violation of these norms is viewed as disrespectful and an unacceptable affront.  Although these boundaries are eroding, they exist and society still expects that they be honored.

My letter to ESPN was a response to what I considered an abandonment of standards for broadcast journalism--a violation of a professional norm that I’ve spent my professional life trying to promote.

Some viewers use similar language and won’t be bothered.  Others won’t know the difference.  All of us clearly understood what the two sports broadcasters were saying.  Communication was not lost.

However, to use a possiblly abused cliché, I’m old school.  I like to hear professional broadcasters use correct language in a conversational way.  It satisfies the purist who demands allegiance to basic English rules, yet communicates comfortably and effectively.  It shows respect for social etiquette.

It can be done.  Unfortunately, it’s not done as frequently as I would like.

Steve Coon

September 17, 2012