Lost For Words: The Use and Abuse of the English Language - John Humphrys

[Lulu]

From empty cliche to meaningless jargon, dangling participle to sentences without verbs, the English language is reeling. It is under attack from all sides. Politicians dupe us with deliberately evasive language. Bosses worry about impacting the bottom line while they think out of the box. Academics talk obscure mumbo jumbo. Journalists and broadcasters, who should know better, lazily collaborate. John Humphrys wittily and powerfully exposes the depths to which our beautiful language has sunk and offers many examples of the most common atrocities. He also dispenses some sensible guidance on how to use simple, clear and honest language. Above all, he shows us how to be on the alert for the widespread abuse - especially by politicians - and the power of the English language.

<iframe width="120" height="268" scrolling="no" frameborder=0 src="http://rcm-uk.amazon.co.uk/e/cm?t=bookgrouponli-21&l=st1&search=humphrys%20lost%20words&mode=books-uk&p=8&o=2&f=ifr&bg1=C6EFF7&lc1=082984&lt1=_blank"> <table border='0' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='120' height='268'><tr><td><A HREF='http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/redirect-home/bookgrouponli-21' target=_blank><img src="http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/G/02/associates/recommends/default_120x268.gif" width=120 height=268 border="0" access=regular></a></td></tr></table></iframe>

[jfp]

Perhaps in common with quite a lot of people, I have had mixed feelings about John Humphrys for some time now. Beyond Words, his second attempt to save the soul of the English language, has just contributed to lessening my admiration for his loudly proclaimed integrity, while at the same time increasing the irritation provoked by his self-righteousness.

Humphrys made a number of valid points in his previous tome on the uses and abuses of English, Lost For Words: his observations about "entrepreneurial nurses" and "partnership concerns" (in the area of road safety) drew attention to ways in which language is often manipulative or vacuous, and sometimes both at the same time. But he also vastly overstated his case, and at the same time displayed a lack of overall understanding of English grammar, even at its simplest, by claiming, for example, that a sentence such as:
For the second time in six months, a prisoner at Durham jail has died afer hanging himself in his cell.
was a sentence which had "go[ne] wrong". Whereas our common sense makes it clear to us that, the second time, it could only have been a second prisoner. (Presumably, on that count, Humphrys would condemn people who go up to the bar with an empty beer-glass and ask for "the same again, please" - they should know better, he would doubtless say, than to think that they can drink the same pint of beer twice...)

Beyond Words is really nothing more than a pint-sized spin-off from the first volume (100 pages shorter, and smaller pages at that). One of its most noticeable features is its total lack of organisation and logic (and, not surprisingly, of an index - and a table of contents announcing chapters with such titles as "Making Sense of Making Sense", or "Now Isn't Soon Enough", is as good as useless). Humphrys' approach is nothing if not anecdotal, and the lack of logical progression from one paragraph to another, let alone from one chapter to another, is astonishing. Or even from one sentence to another... Take, for example, the following two sentences in Chapter Six:
Some people find the formality of the hourly news bulletins, beautifully read by the likes of Harriet Cass and Charlotte Green, too sharp a contrast with the informality of the programmes in which they sit. But I suppose the biggest change has been in the way programmes are trailed and promoted on television. Even the most casual reader cannot help noticing immediately that the second sentence constitutes the most astonishing non sequitur. (Not to mention that formality, strictly speaking, forms or makes a contrast with informality, rather than actually being a contrast, which is what Humphrys' syntax appears to imply. And not to mention the scarcely complimentary use, as far as Harriet Cass and Charlotte Green are concerned, of the distinctly pejorative phrase "the likes of"... Not to mention, either, the slightly curious notion of news bulletins "sitting in" programmes...)

Then there is the astonishing reference to the joint interview given to the Sun newspaper by Tony and Cherie Blair (the one in which Cherie Blair reportedly said "Oh, come on, Tony, strip off", followed by the former Prime Minister admitting to being able to "do it more" than five times a night - "depending on how I feel").
But the most astonishing thing here is the subsequent conversation, reported by Humphrys on page 152, between himself and Blair at a gents' urinal:
'I've just been reading about you,' I said.
'Oh yeah... That stuff in The Sun, eh?'
The wise response was probably a smile. Instead I said: 'Yes... and if it was halfway true I'm surprised you can stand quite so close to the urinal.'
Humphrys goes on to admit to the foolishness of his remark. But he gives no indication about how his bizarre equation of sexual prowess with being able to make comfortable use of a BBC urinal has anything whatsoever to do with the English language... For the simple reason that his remarks about the Blairs' interview are merely moralistic, referring to the actual subjects which public figures should and should not raise in interviews, and not to the language in which their comments are expressed (which, after all, is supposed to be the subject of Humphrys' book).

Almost the worst thing (but see below) is when he just gets things totally wrong. He mistakenly points out, on page 220, that "just desserts" is increasingly often misspelt as "just deserts".

Except that "just deserts" is actually the correct spelling. "Deserts" quite logically has the single "s" of the verb "deserve", even if the pronunciation is the same as that of "desserts" (as in "puddings") rather than that of "deserts" (as in Sahara and Gobi).
One thereby assumes that Humphrys himself persists in using the "old" spelling, and writes "just desserts". No cheese and biscuits for him, apparently.

But the very worst thing of all is his having the nerve to take issue with the views on language-change of so eminent and competent a linguist as Professor David Crystal. Although he refrains from being too outspoken here, Humphrys makes it clear that he finds Professor Crystal rather too progressive, not to say lax, in some of his views:
Professor Crystal seems to believe that so long as we are intelligible we can be as cavalier as we like with the rules and conventions of language. Characteristically, Humphrys gives no precise references to anything Professor Crystal has said or written: his "seems to believe" makes it fairly obvious that Humphrys is not really sure about what he is talking about. And his comments do not in any way correspond to my own recent impressions after reading David Crystal.

And the fact remains that Professor Crystal, quite probably the leading expert today in the field of the English language both present and past, is able to put his ideas forward, as in a masterly book such as the recent The Stories of English (review here (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=3728)), both persuasively and coherently. For the simple reason that he is consummately brilliant not only in his knowledge but also in his own use of the language. Unlike John Humphrys, he would never write:
And it's not as if Mr Rose is one of those executives who seems to be incapable of speaking a language we all understand.
- since he would know that correct grammar requires: "one of those executives who seem to be..."

John Humphrys, for all his qualities as a journalist, is, in the area of language and linguistics, nothing more than an opinionated hack.

*/*****

[Hazel]

lessening my admiration for his loudly proclaimed integrity, while at the same time increasing the irritation provoked by his self-righteousness.I read Lost for Words a couple of years ago and the above pretty much sums up how I felt about it.


And the fact remains that Professor Crystal, quite probably the leading expert today in the field of the English language both present and past, is able to put his ideas forward, as in a masterly book such as the recent The Stories of English, both persuasively and coherently. The main difference between the two, for me, is that Crystal embraces linguistic change and actually seems to feed off new usage.

[David]

Well, I'm a fan of Humphrys the journalist (as has been thrashed out elsewhere! ;) ), however, I've never read his books on language for much the reason you suggest, jfp - it's clear he's an interested amateur with one foot stuck a little too firmly in the past and no clear sense of the evolutionary properties of language. To imagine it can all be stuck in aspic is a bit naive and actually shows no understanding of what's happened with language historically, which is surprising for someone who seems reasonably well read and so has a sense of the degree to which language today has moved on from centuries ago.

I think these sorts of opinion pieces are absolutely fine as an article in a Sunday paper, where you may well expect something that could be a bit off the wall and idiosyncratic, but a book is too much.

The 'just desserts' example is staggering. I wonder if he's responded to that? It's also alarming it wasn't picked up in the editing process, but then I suppose we all know that's fallen somewhat by the wayside in publishing houses of late.

No, he should stick to Today.