Man, I saw the most depressing ad, today... (But not for the reasons you'd think.)

[Prometheus]

So, you're telling me you've looked at all of these "general situations" in English for the past few decades or so and counted every mistake made, then came up with a ratio comparing the number of mistakes to the number of situations each year (or some other period of time)?

Stan might not have, but I have been vaguely keeping track of the state of it in the UK, myself. When I said "I despair at things like this, I really do...", I meant that as a lifelong thing! :lol: (For reference, I'm in my late 20s.)


I've actively despaired at it since I was around five years old, as it was something to challenge myself to keep an eye on (I also spotted errors in books, and in the work that teachers were giving us - it caused some hassle once when a teacher whose spelling was poor marked me down for spelling things correctly, and that was at a *good* school). It's definitely always been around! That said, it's also definitely gotten noticeably worse particularly over the last decade or so, that I can see, and this has (not surprisingly) coincided with the rise of accepting txtspk in formal exams, and the general attitude of "It's ok, as long as we know what you mean..." with no correction or criticism given.


The sorts of standards I was referring to in the parent post would have prevented you from even getting hired for such jobs in times gone by as you would have, basically, been considered unfit to represent the company with such sloppy work, and thus these things were never seen in national television and print advertising aimed at mass audiences until very, very recently. I would not be at all surprised if this now occurs because there is quite literally little other choice - it's often estimated that ~20% of British adults are illiterate (humourously, it's also stated that innumeracy rates are believed to be similar, but firm figures seem to be harder to find...), which appears to be a conservative estimate - so these agencies probably have to employ the best that they can get.

 

[iprice]

The advert that gets to me the most is the follow on milk advert -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XPno21o2vE


- that states "if you choose to move on" from breastfeeding/feeding breast milk.


What do you mean IF? Surely it should be WHEN?


Bitty, anyone?

 

[Blue Protoman]

Hm, I thought we had it bad in America. Earlier this year, we wrote our college essays in English 12. Afterwards, we peer-reviewed them. The two or three I got were horrendous. And I still chuckle thinking back to this assignment I had a few weeks ago.


We're not seeing great speakers, either. In the presentations I speak of in the above blog post, most of my classmates just read off their (poorly-written and poorly-decorated) slides rather than even pretend to be interesting. Some people didn't even include pictures of the person they were talking about! One of the best presentations was by a foreign exchange student whose first language wasn't even English. (If you're curious, my presentation, as well as that of someone in a different section, was also very well-received.)


If people used Tumblr or similar for, you know, blogging (as opposed to reblogging), we'd see better writers around.

 

[DaMummy]

The advert that gets to me the most is the follow on milk advert -


- that states "if you choose to move on" from breastfeeding/feeding breast milk.


What do you mean IF? Surely it should be WHEN?


Bitty, anyone?

not all women are able to provide healthy breast milk. breast milk formula is a huge market, and a very expensive one i might add. The More You Know!

 

[MarioPandio]

The 'less you show' to Nestle?

 

[Tom`]

That said, it's also definitely gotten noticeably worse particularly over the last decade or so, that I can see, and this has (not surprisingly) coincided with the rise of accepting txtspk in formal exams, and the general attitude of "It's ok, as long as we know what you mean..." with no correction or criticism given.

That story appears to be somewhat apocryphal (and I would hesitate before using the Daily Fail as a citation anyway) according to this article (et al). Also, I would note that that the article was originally published in 2003, and makes some rather misleading claims.


You would think that there would be more evidence if things had declined that substantially in the last decade, but there really isn't.

 

[Prometheus]

^ I also speak from personal observation (the link was just to provide a report from elsewhere on the same phenomenon). Sadly, the "It's fine to write completely illegibly as long as we know what you mean" attitude (which does extend to accepting txtspk) is very much around, and has been for years...

 

[diligentcircle]

Sadly, the "It's fine to write completely illegibly as long as we know what you mean" attitude (which does extend to accepting txtspk) is very much around, and has been for years...

That's not a possible attitude. "Illegible" means that it's impossible to read due to something like poor handwriting. If that's the case, you can't know what is meant.

 

[Prometheus]

Sadly, the "It's fine to write completely illegibly as long as we know what you mean" attitude (which does extend to accepting txtspk) is very much around, and has been for years...

That's not a possible attitude. "Illegible" means that it's impossible to read due to something like poor handwriting. If that's the case, you can't know what is meant.

Illegible means the opposite of legible. The definition of legible is "Capable of being read or deciphered, especially with ease, as writing or printing; easily readable.", or "Capable of being discerned or distinguished: Anger was legible in his looks and behavior.". Illegible does not exclusively mean bad handwriting. It means that something is difficult to decipher.


What I described is a possible attitude, and one that does indeed exist. I described in one sentence, an attitude that people take.


Regardless of these previously-unspoken (and not-needing-to-be-spoken) facts making it possible to understand my original wording, let me re-word what I said: A prevalent attitude in British education goes that "It's fine to write in an impossible-to-comprehend fashion, as long as the teachers can understand what you mean.".


Perhaps you may be well-served by directing your evidently meticulous manner to learning to understand colloquial speech, and to learning some tact.

 

[diligentcircle]

Regardless of these previously-unspoken (and not-needing-to-be-spoken) facts making it possible to understand my original wording, let me re-word what I said: A prevalent attitude in British education goes that "It's fine to write in an impossible-to-comprehend fashion, as long as the teachers can understand what you mean.".

That makes just as little sense. If it's impossible to comprehend, how can the teacher understand it?


Let me be serious for a moment: you seem to be under this impression that the U.K. in particular is facing this massive incorrectness epidemic. I don't see that being the case. The article you link to, in particular, doesn't suggest to me that this "attitude" you're talking about is on a "rise". It suggests to me that either a few teachers are being silly, or some technicality makes it acceptable to use this "text speak" slang/shorthand/whatever you call it, requiring teachers to accept it as correct. I don't know which it is, but I don't really care, because I'm very confident that this really means nothing. The "worst" case scenario is everyone adopting these as normal, which would simply mean it would become standard (British) English. Frankly, I doubt that will happen; before long, these students will discover that people are having a difficult time understanding them, and they will revert to standard English.


Actually, looking back, I noticed that the article you linked to is nearly 6 years old. So where's this trend, then? If it was something significant, it should be all over the Internet by now. I ain't seeing it.

 

[Prometheus]

Let me be serious for a moment: you seem to be under this impression that the U.K. in particular is facing this massive incorrectness epidemic.

No, no I am not.


I just despair at the obvious results of an education system that's known by people who live here to have some massive problems. That is all.

 

[iprice]

not all women are able to provide healthy breast milk. breast milk formula is a huge market,

But the advert is speaking specifically to those women who ARE breastfeeding - did you not see the vid?

 

[diligentcircle]

I just despair at the obvious results of an education system that's known by people who live here to have some massive problems. That is all.

OK. What results? Like I said, that article was six years ago, and I'm not seeing any results from it. Blaming a little bad English (mistakes) in ads on "text speak" (which is a sort of shorthand in a way) being accepted on papers in school seems a stretch, don't you think?


What you're really doing is looking at some things that have bad English, then looking at something completely unrelated that you don't like from the education system some time ago and blaming that. It seems to me that both of the English mistakes in ads that have been mentioned are the result of one simple fact: humans are fallible and make mistakes occasionally. Even with an extreme reviewing and editing process, some errors are liable to get through eventually.

 

[WizardStan]

The "worst" case scenario is everyone adopting these as normal, which would simply mean it would become standard (British) English. Frankly, I doubt that will happen; before long, these students will discover that people are having a difficult time understanding them, and they will revert to standard English.

That's not how language evolution works, it's how branching dialects are formed. "Reverting" means that they started out with proper language skills and then started using these txtisms for whatever reason, and they can simply go back at any time. Many of them started out this way, they went from poor language skills as children, where everything is spelled exactly how it sounds and grammar only sometimes matters, to txting and being encouraged that it's ok.


If simply discovering that others have difficulty understanding was enough to completely revert, Bawston wouldn't be doing roofing on a ruff or pahking their cahs, and there'd be a lot more 'o's in their drinking wooter. In the US, it was seriously proposed that the language should be simplified so that words were spelled how they sounded. The measure was tossed out, but that it was seriously debated makes me shake my head.


No, the "worst case" is not that they "revert" to more acceptable language because many of them HAVE no other language to revert to. The worst case scenario is a split in classes forming a solid language barrier.

 

[Prometheus]

OK. What results? Like I said, that article was six years ago, and I'm not seeing any results from it. Blaming a little bad English (mistakes) in ads on "text speak" (which is a sort of shorthand in a way) being accepted on papers in school seems a stretch, don't you think?

Not at all.


The people who have gone through this broken system of education, never knowing how to communicate properly, are now the ones being hired to write these ads, and the mistakes, which they are being paid money not to make, are being shown to very wide audiences. Guess where they learned (or didn't learn, as the case may be) to communicate in that fashion?

What you're really doing is looking at some things that have bad English, then looking at something completely unrelated that you don't like from the education system some time ago and blaming that. It seems to me that both of the English mistakes in ads that have been mentioned are the result of one simple fact: humans are fallible and make mistakes occasionally. Even with an extreme reviewing and editing process, some errors are liable to get through eventually.

What you're doing is making assumptions because you appear to think that you know everything.


These are not "occasional" mistakes - they do very much appear to have risen in tandem with falling standards in British education. You appear to think that I'm arguing that humans are infallible and do not make mistakes occasionally, but that is not the case - what I'm saying is that it's a bit sad that people who are being paid large sums to write copy in a professional capacity, are making themselves look foolish by frequently writing poorly in a VERY public fashion. There's a big difference.


I strongly suggest that you read the book "It's Your Time You're Wasting - A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell", by the pseudonymous teacher, Frank Chalk, and its Kindle-only follow-up "Education: My Part in Its Downfall" (or even just have a look through his blog archives ), as well as the myriad of comments and reviews relating to them. The first book was revised last year just prior to the release of the follow-up, and it's well worth the purchase (that goes for all of you - although, be warned, it's equal parts hilarious and depressing).


Some apologists claim that the book is skewed because of the sort of schools it covers, but the same sort of things occur in "good" schools, as well, mainly because schools here are now ranked by largely-massaged "league tables", where the results are derived solely from pupils being instructed how to pass tests.


Additionally, I must apologise, as I missed something on the previous page which warranted a response;

Seriously, how is making a small mistake in a stupid diaper commercial that no one cares about worse (especially on the scale of plane crash vs. buggy crash) than making a very similar small mistake in one of the greatest games of all time, which clearly has a lot of hard work behind it?

Because the nappy advertisement almost certainly reached a much wider audience in the few broadcasts before it was pulled off the air due to the glaring screen-filling typo, "PROFFESIONAL", than Super Metroid ever did. Moreover, the market for child-rearing goods is MUCH bigger than the number of people who ever bought, played, or heard of Super Metroid.


I'm afraid you've been affected by the Internet Echo Chamber Effect, here. Super Metroid was not a big seller compared to other games of the same era (1.42 million is not bad by any means, but it was thoroughly dwarfed by Donkey Kong Country which was released a month or two later and which sold 9.30 million, or even the then-highly-experimental Star Fox from the previous year which sold a bit over 4 million). Being a good game unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it will reach a particularly wide audience, as it is in Super Metroid's case. It's highly likely that far less people have ever played or ever even heard of Super Metroid, than saw the ad with the glaring typo that was broadcast via a mainstream medium.

 

[diligentcircle]

What you're doing is making assumptions because you appear to think that you know everything.

That's funny, because that's what I tend to see in you when you talk about two things and act like they must be related because of your personal experience assumptions.

I'm afraid you've been affected by the Internet Echo Chamber Effect, here. Super Metroid was not a big seller compared to other games of the same era (1.42 million is not bad by any means, but it was thoroughly dwarfed by Donkey Kong Country which was released a month or two later and which sold 9.30 million, or even the then-highly-experimental Star Fox from the previous year which sold a bit over 4 million). Being a good game unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it will reach a particularly wide audience, as it is in Super Metroid's case. It's highly likely that far less people have ever played or ever even heard of Super Metroid, than saw the ad with the glaring typo that was broadcast via a mainstream medium.

Just because more people end up seeing it doesn't mean more attention will be given to it. I can't tell you how much attention I gave to my "Bowser" game, but it's much more obscure than Super Metroid ever was. I can't begin to tell you how silly it sounds to me when you say that making a mistake in Super Metroid is more forgivable because less people saw it when it was released, whereas because (apparently) EVERYONE saw this diaper commercial, it makes the mistake over NINE THOUSAND times worse.

 

[Prometheus]

What you're doing is making assumptions because you appear to think that you know everything.

That's funny, because that's what I tend to see in you when you talk about two things and act like they must be related because of your personal experience assumptions.

I'm afraid you've been affected by the Internet Echo Chamber Effect, here. Super Metroid was not a big seller compared to other games of the same era (1.42 million is not bad by any means, but it was thoroughly dwarfed by Donkey Kong Country which was released a month or two later and which sold 9.30 million, or even the then-highly-experimental Star Fox from the previous year which sold a bit over 4 million). Being a good game unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it will reach a particularly wide audience, as it is in Super Metroid's case. It's highly likely that far less people have ever played or ever even heard of Super Metroid, than saw the ad with the glaring typo that was broadcast via a mainstream medium.

Just because more people end up seeing it doesn't mean more attention will be given to it. I can't tell you how much attention I gave to my "Bowser" game, but it's much more obscure than Super Metroid ever was. I can't begin to tell you how silly it sounds to me when you say that making a mistake in Super Metroid is more forgivable because less people saw it when it was released, whereas because (apparently) EVERYONE saw this diaper commercial, it makes the mistake over NINE THOUSAND times worse.

A wise man once told me that it's sometimes best to walk away and just let people be wrong. That is what I'm going to do here.


I shall, however, reiterate that you seriously should consider directing your meticulous nature to learning some tact.

 

[WizardStan]

I can't begin to tell you how silly it sounds to me when you say that making a mistake in Super Metroid is more forgivable because less people saw it when it was released, whereas because (apparently) EVERYONE saw this diaper commercial, it makes the mistake over NINE THOUSAND times worse.

Then you are still missing the point. It isn't worse because of the number of people that did or did not see it, it is worse because of the number and type of people that they intended to see it. Super Metroid and other video games of the era were meant for kids, kids that didn't care too much about grammar and spelling, kids that made up only a small portion of the total population: the editing didn't need to be perfect, why pay more money to make perfect something that experience tells you your audience won't really care about?. Advertisements for diapers (or nappies) were broadcast to a far wider audience targeting adults that are expected to have solid language skills. There's an expectation that the audience these advertisements are attempting to reach should care more about proper language skills than the video game children of the 80s and therefore the editors need to be more careful. And yet they don't: over the past 20 years, as video gamers have grown up, the language in them have become more mature and less prone to error in writing and translation, while real world mistakes found in newspapers and TV advertisements has increased. With the invention of the electronic spelling and grammar checks, there should be a universal decline in mistakes. That is what makes the mistake today so much worse than a video game from 20 years ago: the audience is larger and older and therefore should care more, and we have tools that should have eliminated them; instead we find the opposite, an increase in mistakes and an audience that cares less.

 

[diligentcircle]

I shall, however, reiterate that you seriously should consider directing your meticulous nature to learning some tact.

I didn't notice you saying that before. Did I say something wrong?

instead we find the opposite, an increase in mistakes and an audience that cares less.

That's what you conclude based on your personal observations. But is this conclusion correct? The problem I have with it is it's incredibly easy to find a few examples of just about anything and then jump to the conclusion that it is the norm or on the rise. For example, I could point to some violent crimes where the criminals in question like violent video games, say the Columbine shooting, and claim that violent crime has been on the rise because of violent video games. It's just too baseless of a conclusion to make.

 

[WizardStan]

That's what you conclude based on your personal observations.

1) It isn't just personal observation, it's also the anecdotes and studies of university professors. Now, to be fair, there are numerous counter claims on the subject, the studies referenced are hardly concrete, but it's more than just "personal observation": there seems to be a fairly consistent remark across several schools that students coming out of high school are averaging worse on grammar tests than they used to even just 10 years ago, even if the studies can't agree on why that is.


2) Exactly what conclusion have I reached that you disagree with? I am saying that good grammar is on the decline in real world usage and explain why I consider that a worse thing than the poor grammar that you cite from a video game of 20 years ago. I then note that poor grammar in video games has been on the decline (something I will admit has no study to back it up and if genuinely questioned will drop because it is only secondary to my original thesis, used as emphasis) and provide probable cause for this decline: that video games are reaching a wider, more mature audience.