14 December 2014

Good English

It has become a commonplace to hear use of the phrases "I/he/she was sat ..." when what is meant is "I/he/she was sitting ...", and "I/he/she was stood ..." when what is meant is "I/he/she was standing ..." Until recently I had believed this confused construction to be restricted to the North East of England where the various regional dialects reshape standard English in ways that sound as though the speaker is poorly educated. However, repeated use by broadcasters on BBC Radio 4 demonstrates that its use is (now at least) widespread. I assume the construction to be an elision between respectively "I sat ..." and "I was sitting ...", and "I stood ..." and "I was standing ..." Both forms point to the past, the first using the past simple tense, the second using the past continuous tense. To be sat, is not to be sitting, but to be placed in a sitting position. Similarly, to be stood, is not to be standing, but to be placed in a standing position.

On seeing her child throwing stones at the ducks, the boy's mother promptly picked him up and returned him to his pushchair. In other words, the boy was sat in his pushchair by his mother.

The house-keeper claimed that she picked up the china dog, gave it a dust, and then stood it back on the mantle-piece. She suggested that someone else must have entered the room and moved the china dog from the mantle-piece to the table. However, according to the butler, as he entered the drawing room he saw the house-keeper stand the china dog on the table: "I am in no doubt that it was stood on the table by the house-keeper, and not by anyone else."

Does it really matter? Does it matter that the popular construction is not simply grammatically erroneous, but also guides the listener towards a semantic jumble and confusion? Most of the time, such sloppiness is of little consequence. Many people allow intonation to work hard to achieve the clarity that they failed to achieve with their grammar, and maybe even their choice of vocabulary. Many people use clichés and popular idioms to allow speech to run along familiar tramlines. Other parts of the sentence usually guide the listener back to the semantically correct meaning. And anyway, if the listener is unsure of the meaning, surely they can simply ask, can they not? Or the sloppy speaker can offer unsolicited corrections and amendments. "When I say parsnips, I mean Bishopsgate."

Consider the difference between the following two statements: "Whilst he continued to bellow at the top of his voice, I was unable to speak." "While he continued to bellow at the top of his voice, I was unable to speak." These two sentences do not mean the same thing. The first sentence contrasts that I was unable to speak with the fact that the other person was able to bellow. The second sentence infers that I was prevented from speaking because the other person was bellowing.I guess that some people have little interest in communicating at this level of detail. For them, a basic level of meaning may be sufficient: precision and accuracy would accord the communication with greater worth than it merited. On the other hand, there are people for whom precision and accuracy in communication are worth much.

It is impressive that the English language can be variously squeezed and stretched in these ways. The same language can be used to call for help in an emergency, and can wrestle with the most tortuous of philosophical conundrums. I am happy that the language can adapt according to need. I am okay with it changing according to fashion. However (and it is 'however', because acceptance of the development, or mutation, of a language over time is usually held in opposition to the conservative desire to preserve the language as it is), I also hold a candle for the preservation of a standard of communication that in its formality, including an acceptance that there is correct and incorrect usage, not only permits the making of fine distinctions, but also encourages semantic discrimination and aesthetic sensitivity.

No comments: