Language chasm widens
JONATHAN Nicholas (South China Morning Post, March 7) is being unfair in his criticism of American English. It's quite understandable in a country where standards of literacy are falling rapidly. A survey quoted in Harpers revealed that in 1991, 60 per cent of Americans did not buy (and one suspects did not read) a single book and the number of Americans not reading is on the increase.
Thus, the chasm between contemporary English English and American English widens, to the detriment of those trying to understand what it is that Americans are saying.
At the heart of the problem is one of the most significant idiosyncrasies of American culture - the compulsion to substitute effect for substance; hence crooners like Michael Bolton, fashion reporters who refer to ''fabrications'' rather than fabrics (sounds bigger and better, doesn't it?), people being ''obligated'' rather than obliged, things ''impacting'' (as in molars) rather than affecting, and so on.
Adaptation and growth of any language is fine if the result is to improve the effectiveness and pleasure of communication; alas this is not what is happening in the US.
Fortunately there is a safety net inherent in the English language itself. What makes it a more useful lingua franca is the fact that, unlike most other languages, it withstands all manner of abuse. The clumsiest of pidgin English generally manages to convey the intended meaning. Fool about with French grammar, Cantonese tones, Korean syntax, or Russian pronunciation, and disaster is not far off.
Soon, of course, America will have entirely its own language, although it's a shame that few people outside the country will have the vaguest idea what it is that Americans are trying to say.
DEREK HALL Tai Hang
