Vocabulary Today

[Undertow]

Just read this and thought it was interesting. Thought you folks might like to see it.

Does the average American student have less vocabulary today than in days gone by?

 

[Diamondback]

Heck, I had my high-school guidance counselor whining at Mom about "he intimidates the other kids--he uses too big of words..."

I so wanted to respond with something like, "Wow--in-tim-i-dates. Four syllables, I'm impressed. Hurt yourself doing that? Need some ice?"

This was one of those "not what you know, but who you know" institutions...

 

[gluegungeisha]

Heck, I had my high-school guidance counselor whining at Mom about "he intimidates the other kids--he uses too big of words..."

I so wanted to respond with something like, "Wow--in-tim-i-dates. Four syllables, I'm impressed. Hurt yourself doing that? Need some ice?"

This was one of those "not what you know, but who you know" institutions...

Hahaha, I had that "problem" in elementary school. I was made fun of a lot for having a very large vocabulary. I didn't have any social problems...I just read all the time.

 

[Dagwood]

Me disagree. Article wrong.

 

[Ed Bass]

Me disagree. Article wrong.

lol Now THAT'S funny!

 

[dhermann1]

BUT. . . . Kids do hear much worse English nowadays, syntax mangled by headlines and TV announcers and commercials. Teachers complain that the general ability of students to express themselves has been declining for years. Try reading schoolkids essays. Whether their vocabulary has dwindled or not, and I'll bet it has, the ability to communicate coherently has definitely gone down hill.
One cause which I've read about is the tendency in American primary education to focus a lot of attention on the above average kids, and simply throw the bottom 20% away. Europe and Japan (especially Japan, according to what I read years ago) concentrate more on making sure that ALL kids have a basic general level of competence established.
Garrison Keillor's line about all the children being above average has a lot of truth to it. Nobody wants to admit the existence of the moderately below average kids, let alone provide them with a soild basic education.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The worrying thing is that 90% of the above average, over-achieving, medical school-bound undergraduates are barely literate. I've just spent 6 years grading their essays between freshman and senior years, and even more worrying is the lack of improvement. University should not be the place for this kind of basic remedial education. I'm told that mathematics is in a similarly horrid state.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the teaching of English in American public high schools. There is no avoiding that fact. And, strangely, socio-economic factors appear to make little difference. But there is something seriously wrong when significant proportion (possibly even a majority) of undergraduates cannot construct a sentence well, let alone a paragraph or a coherent argument put forth in an essay. Text speak and text punctuation (i.e. none) abound.

I have no answers, only observations.

bk

 

[Mr. Lucky]

Oh. I thought it was a TEST.


Nevermind.

 

[jgilbert]

Is this not said of every generation? My mother was always telling to "never end a sentence with a preposition! And I still dont know the rules for that / there or who / whom. That and more is why I work in financelol

 

[Easy Money]

I just spent the summer in a Business and Professional Communicvation class and it amazed me the way college student speak when making a formal presentation. The sole purpose of the class was speaking and communication and if the last assignment was any indication these students are in serious trouble when they get out into the real world. They can hardly form a complete sentence speaking how could they possible write one.

 

[dhermann1]

The way you learn a language is first and foremost through HEARING it. A recent headline in the NY Times pointed out that these videos being used to improve babies' little brains actually leave them knowing LESS than babies who don't have the videos inflicted on them. To learn the language babies/children need to be exposed to it. In the 19th century, an evening's entertainment might be to have everyone sitting around doing their knitting or whatever, and one person reading aloud from a book, like maybe Dickens or Twain or Thackery. Real literature!
At parties people used to stand up and make little speeches. They orated right in their own homes! Check out the Christmas scene in the Noel Coward film "In Which We Serve". Everyone around the table has to get up and make a speech.
In our mechanized overworked society people don't interact together live and in person. Kids are left in mind destroying daycare. Parents never see their kids. Children never interact with anyone more than 2 or 3 years older or younger than they are. Like little cogs in a machine. It's not a good thing!
That which is used develops. That which is not wastes away.

 

[jamespowers]

BUT. . . . Kids do hear much worse English nowadays, syntax mangled by headlines and TV announcers and commercials. Teachers complain that the general ability of students to express themselves has been declining for years. Try reading schoolkids essays. Whether their vocabulary has dwindled or not, and I'll bet it has, the ability to communicate coherently has definitely gone down hill.
One cause which I've read about is the tendency in American primary education to focus a lot of attention on the above average kids, and simply throw the bottom 20% away. Europe and Japan (especially Japan, according to what I read years ago) concentrate more on making sure that ALL kids have a basic general level of competence established.
Garrison Keillor's line about all the children being above average has a lot of truth to it. Nobody wants to admit the existence of the moderately below average kids, let alone provide them with a soild basic education.

That is interesting because we experience that complete opposite in the public schools here.
They concentrate on the children at the bottom and neglect the children who are above average. In fact, the elementary school closet to me is a bi-lingual school instead of a regular "teach everyone to a higher standard school." The principal states that they teach to a lower level (standard) so that all can understand. This translates to very poor test scores and a school that is the worst in the community.
You know something is very wrong when the school within one block of where I live will never seen my child. I already have space reserved at the local parochial school to make sure he doesn't come home saying "samattachu" and "axke." :eusa_doh:
The reason children have a diminshed vocabulary is probably because they run words together and invent acronyms for things today that were written out before. Take BK--Burger King and KFC---Kentucky Fried Chicken as just two examples of a plethora of this junk.

Regards,

J

 

[Easy Money]

The way you learn a language is first and foremost through HEARING it. A recent headline in the NY Times pointed out that these videos being used to improve babies' little brains actually leave them knowing LESS than babies who don't have the videos inflicted on them. To learn the language babies/children need to be exposed to it. In the 19th century, an evening's entertainment might be to have everyone sitting around doing their knitting or whatever, and one person reading aloud from a book, like maybe Dickens or Twain or Thackery. Real literature!
At parties people used to stand up and make little speeches. They orated right in their own homes! Check out the Christmas scene in the Noel Coward film "In Which We Serve". Everyone around the table has to get up and make a speech.
In our mechanized overworked society people don't interact together live and in person. Kids are left in mind destroying daycare. Parents never see their kids. Children never interact with anyone more than 2 or 3 years older or younger than they are. Like little cogs in a machine. It's not a good thing!
That which is used develops. That which is not wastes away.

My brother in law will not allow my niece to watch anything on televison, videos, or television shows until she has reached two years old. I had not heard that prior to talking to him. I wanted to buy her something from Baby Einstein for her first birthday and my sister informed of the no watching television rule. Most of our society today gets all their information from thirty second sound bites they have nothing substantial to listen to. Heaven forbid a young person today read anything better than People magazine.

 

[KL15]

I know politics are banned, but please grant me a reprieve for this one. Public schools today it seems are more interested in indoctrinating kids into a certain ideology, than teaching.

 

[Undertow]

“Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.” – Winston Churchill lol

Keep in mind, some grammar is inherently wrong because it falls into “conversational” or colloquial language. Although it may be grammatically unacceptable, it’s more or less necessary for effective communication. Remember, communication does not rely solely on the sender, it also relies on the receiver. An effective communicator must keep this in mind when tailoring communication.

My job centers around college students, many of whom are a graduate level. I simply cannot relate the vast numbers who are unable to communicate. We’re talking chiropractors, dentists, professors, pharmacists, etc. They can’t seem to explain, in a few short sentences, what they need.

I believe articulation is more than just a vocabulary problem. I believe it quickly becomes a psychological condition. Thoughts?

 

[Samsa]

"At times it's been attributed to Gallup polls or even entomologists."

I wonder why people who study insects are seen as an authority on this topic.lol

 

[dhermann1]

There's an endless discussion to be had here. Another aspect is the politicization of education. When NYC went to locally elected school boards it almost destroyed the system. Local politics, whatever the setting, seems to bring out the crackpots and loonies. People who need to get attention by being loud and obnoxious. It just happens that school boards are usually very local. I think this contributes mightily to the problems of education. But education begins at home. Language skills are pretty much learned by the age of 5 or 6, so the kids that have it when they enter school already have a permanent advantage. Children have a window at about the age of 13 months when they learn to distinguish word sounds. It closes very quickly after that. If they're not being engaged mentally in that crucial age 1 to 3 period, nothing can make up for it. The brain is hard wired. This is why small childern need moms at home till age 3 or 4. It may not be politically correct, but there it is. And I recognize that there are huge numbers of single moms who are absolutely in no position to be at home, no matter how much they'd like to be. To me this is a good argument for very long maternity leaves, like one year.
Regarding the issue of public schools "dumbing down" the curriculum, yes, I understand what you're saying. What I'm suggesting is the "smartening up" of the expectations for the lower half.
I have a sneaking suspicion/theory that there are a lot of social worker/educational types with "Joan of Arc" complexes. They get their self esteem from being "indispensible" care givers to "needy" people. So it's psychologically in their interest to keep these "needy" folks as helpless and dependant as possible. They think they want to empower their charges, but they really don't.
I'm not arguing against people being do gooders, by any means. I support the helping professions. But I'm just saying that a lot of acting out goes on in the education and social work field.

 

[Undertow]

I don’t believe acronyms are necessarily the problem, just as I don’t believe abbreviations are a problem. Those tend to come and go in conversational English along annual trends. You know the LOL’s, OMG’s and WTF’s of our current language? Although annoying, don’t think we’re too unique in the use of acronyms.

The term OK is, in fact, an acronym that stands for “oll korrect” and was popularized in Boston newsprint circa 1893. It’s predecessor, OW or “oll wright” was not as popular. Other popular, and seemingly inane, acronyms included “KY” for “know yuse”, KG for “know go” and “NS” for “nuff said”. *

I think one difficulty in our current state of vocabulary affairs lies in what dhermann1 was saying. Our society, as a whole – rich and poor – simply no longer values proper grammar in routine daily use. Reading literature is no longer necessary, nor feasible, when the internet, which is full of words, is more prolific. It’s easier, and seemingly more entertaining, for a child or adolescent to hop on the www to read myspace or People.com FOR FREE than it is to head over to Barnes & Noble, become overwhelmed by choice, find a “good” book, spend time alone reading/understanding the literature over more than a few days and finally set the book down and feel satisfied.

Our society is ruled by convenience. It’s just not convenient to learn to speak. It’s faster to talk like everyone else. And if everyone else wants to be more accepted, more “hip” to our Pepsi Nation, they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator; the “cool” kids. When everyone slowly lowers themselves to appeal to the “cool” kids, we all become a herd of illiterates who crassly holler whatever crosses our enfeebled minds.

*info can be found at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_250.html

 

[towndrunk]

I suppose I will step up to the plate and defend Englisch properly. I spell it this way to illustrate our language's Teutonic origin and its subsequent evolution to modern English over the last several hundred years.

First allow me to state that I am not suggesting modern, or correct, English is somehow deficient in it's ability to serve our communication needs, but rather it is doing what all languages do over time. It evolves, continuously even. Grammar, as well as the vocabulary we hang on it, evolves slightly with each passing generation. Eventually, the drift becomes so disparate a new language emerges. Certainly several environmental forces such as war, massive immigration/emigration, social/cultural upheaval, changing rates of literacy, and affluence/poverty converge to affect language in varying degrees and at sundry times.

In the journal Language, Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan wrote an article: Drift and the Evolution of English Style: A History of Three Genres(1989).
The Abstract states their case sufficiently:
"The present study uses a multidimensional approach to trace the historical evolution of written genres of English. We briefly present a model of stylistic variation developed in our previous work, focusing on three empirically defined dimensions of linguistic variation that are associated with differences among 'literate' and 'oral' varieties: 'Informational versus Involved Production'; 'Elaborated versus Situation-Dependent Reference'; and 'Abstract versus Nonabstract Style'. We then show how fiction, essays, and letters have evolved over the last four centuries with respect to these dimensions. Although they have evolved at different rates and to different extents, we show that all three genres have undergone a general pattern of 'drift' towards more oral styles-more involved, less elaborated, and less abstract. We discuss several possible functional and attitudinal influences on the observed patterns of drift; these include the rise of popular literacy and mass schooling, the demands of scientific and expository purposes, and conscious aesthetic preferences. In so doing, we extend Sapir's notion of drift to include the evolution of genres and the influence of nonstructural underlying motivations."
the bold type is added.
if you don't believe me, or the experts, have a look for yourself. dust off that anthology of British literature and take a look at how language has changed over the last three or four hundred years.

Hopefully you're still with me. Drift. that's the important thing to remember here. It's completely natural for any language to drift in what is effectively an unlimited number of directions. the truth is that vocabulary is only one element in a given language. think of vocabulary as some sort of soft metal that you can melt and shape inside a mould. you will see very quickly that it is the mould that is the more fundamental component than the substance you are shaping. in language we call it syntax. lexical items(vocabulary) merely fill spaces of the basic sentence structure. syntax is not sacred however; syntactic change occurs continuously as well and has an even more profound effect on the physiognomy(outward appearance or characteristics) of a language.

English speakers are doing exactly what is natural for them to do. They own the language, the language doesn't own them.

 

[Undertow]

I won't argue with you towndrunk because I believe you're looking at this as apples to oranges. Our language is drifting because as long as we have a difference in culture, we will always have a difference in language, no matter how standardized the language.

However, I believe the argument discussed in the article, and my previous point posted, is that people are either losing vocabulary overall, or not. Or in other words, are people becoming less articulate?

It does not matter what words they use so much as how many they have at their disposal to use.

So one might argue we are shifting in language, thereby changing vocabulary, but are you trying to state that with the shift of vocabularly we are, in fact, simplifying our language to the point of fewer words overall?