Workplace diversity programmes have led to middle-class professionals speaking differently to how they did in the 1990s, a study has found.
However, individuals in working-class jobs that have had less influence from equality initiatives still talk in the same way now as they did in the mid-90s.
Linguistic experts have found that people working in middle-class jobs such as managerial roles, in politics or within the university sector have adopted more “resonance” in the way they speak since the advent of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) programmes around the turn of the Millennium.
Resonance is a feature of conversations where people imitate and adopt the words of others in their own language.
It is a well-established aspect of human conversations and more common in some cultures than others. It is also a trait often absent in how autistic people speak.
So, code switching.
It used to be possible to speak to everyone in RP. That was rather the point of RP, it was the reference version of the language that everyone understood even if not spoke.
Now that not everyone does learn RP it’s necessary to code switch into the mubled argot they do understand. This might not be an advance.
It happens in football too. When a player is rolling around on the ground the crowd now have to shout
“Get up you LGTBQIA+, gender neutral, non binary !”
That is why there is so much injuty time in matches now.
It’s more likely that white male managers are deliberately speaking more slowly and clearly nowadays in recognition of the quality and standard of education to be found in their colleagues and subordinates.
Which is undoubtedly a micro-aggression.
And triggering.
And (here it comes) WAYCISTTTTT!
Otto
I always assumed that was due to the trainer having to check whether ze was going into labour.
RP stands for Received Pronunciation and is about the sound of language and is / was otherwise called Oxford (sorry, BiS) English or BBC English. This though is about vocabulary so we should perhaps be talking instead about a register of the language used by HR folk, training bods, consultants and others who think that americanisms are “cool” and ambiguity is a safe place.
The trick with this new language is to juggle with imprecision so that the speaker thinks he is saying something when in all likelihood he isn’t.
Thanks for reaching out, guys.
’Workplace diversity programmes have led to middle-class professionals speaking differently to how they did in the 1990s…’
Has it led to them behaving differently, though?
I think TMB is on the right track. Speaking drivel in sub-American gets ever commoner. Advancements in learnings are significantly impactful.
Never mind sub-American drivel, where I live it’s either cod Jamaican patois or Australian rising inflections at the end of a sentence.
Annoyingly, I had to read the article to get the gist of it.
I’d suggest the entire concept of ‘resonance’ is bullshit, the survey and its conclusions are worthless fucking nonsense and that the useless twat quoted in the Telegraph ought to get a job as a street sweeper, so he might actually perform a useful function. I bet he’d cock it up, though.
When I worked for the large azure corporation I could easily slip into the kind of jargon necessary to communicate with management. As our host says, code switching. Not remarkable, not some portentous historical trend.
In my experience, code switching isn’t as useful as escalating the issue until you get to a white man who wants to solve the problem.
Workplace diversity programmes have led to middle-class professionals speaking differently to how they did in the 1990s, a study has found.
And journalists by the sound of it. I think most educated people would say differently from not differently to. You’re moving away, not moving towards.
Quite all right TMB, no offence. I speak an acquired RP. But I would have thought Oxford English – not the Oxfordshire agricultural – was a dialect of its own. The tendency to use words you have to go look up in a dictionary in the belief that being obscure & incomprehensible somehow aids communication.
‘Linguistic experts have found that people working in middle-class jobs such as managerial roles, in politics or within the university sector have adopted more “resonance” in the way they speak since the advent of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) programmes around the turn of the Millennium.’
I would have thought that speech patterns would be more affected by the relentless diet of multi-culti that we have been afflicted with over the past couple of decades. If Radio 4 presenters like Amol Rajan can adopt that weird back-of-the-throat patois after attending Downing College, then he can certainly infect other middle-class twits.
Sure, there’s a problem with this in that it’s not so marked in the working class, despite lots of roofers and builders speakin’ lite dat, innit doe bruv. But that’s probably because middle class jobs are more about communicating, pleasing others, and trying to get them to like you.
Was the study attributing this to EDI programmes carried out by someone who has a vested interest in there being more of such programmes?
bloke in spain said:
“I would have thought Oxford English – not the Oxfordshire agricultural – was a dialect of its own.”
Yes, depends what you’re talking about. The traditional Oxford (as in university) accent was more of a lazy drawl, in contrast to the more clipped and clear BBC English (I’ve read that Lord Reith tried to eradicate the Oxford drawl from the BBC).
Discussions of RP seem to mix up various different things (annoying, when it’s supposed to be a standard pronunciation), with a posher Oxford U-version and the more middle-class BBC version.
middle-class jobs such as managerial roles, in politics or within the university sector
Not a problem then. Can’t see them lasting much longer.
@Steve .
Damn. I wish I had the balls to say that to people.
‘middle-class professionals speaking differently to how they did in the 1990s’.
However common such constructions are becoming they still violate English grammar (and just about any grammar, in fact). ‘differently to’ must take a noun or a gerund – i.e. ‘differently to [something]’ e.g. ‘the way they did’. It’s really not hard.
Oh no, another tedious Strunk and White acolyte.
Lions.
Lions with flamethrowers.
I think what they really mean is the common man is pretty much as he has been for decades. Those higher up the food chain and those in jobs where they interact with the woke daily are now very careful in what they say and censor themselves to avoid losing their jobs.
It’s a short term thing and once these wokesters are put back in their place and HR are executed by the buckerload then we will all return to normal.
Seconded, BiG. English is a flexible living language. Why it’s become the dominant world communication tool. It’s possible to say things in all sorts of of ways with them still being comprehensible & unambiguous. Like “how they did in the 1990s” It’s a concept. So can be treated as complex noun. Not particularly good, but acceptable. I picked up on ‘”to” rather than “from” because the concept’s in the wrong direction. You wouldn’t say “identically from”, would you?
I don’t have any particular objections to Americanisms. I far prefer “meet with” as a verb because it differentiates from chance or first encounters. And sidewalk rather than pavement. Since the majority of pavements aren’t paved but carriageways often are. In fact I believe it actually started out as referring to the entirety of a made up street or plaza.
Out of interest, does anyone know of such a thing as a phonetic English dictionary that’s any good? Something that gets English into the Latin letter representations. I often find I’m having to teach people English, but written English is a helluva barrier. (It’s enough of a barrier to the English) And they don’t really need it. Just the spoken. But I do need scripts as a memory aid.
Obviously there are English classes here. But they tend to be teaching English towards an examination standard. It’s not what these people need or even have the dedication for. They just need a working spoken vocabulary of basic English in a hurry.
@FoS
Are you or were you a FoS?
“those in jobs where they interact with the woke daily are now very careful in what they say and censor themselves to avoid losing their jobs.”
And if they hadn’t started doing that, they wouldn’t have the problem.
Lord T said:
“ once these wokesters are put back in their place and HR are executed by the buckerload then we will all return to normal”
And when’s that going to happen? If we do manage it, we’re going to have a full-on battle against the State, with all its resources, and its supporters, and with most people who might agree with you staying quiet so they don’t get hurt. Do we really have the appetite to do it?
BiND – island hopping in the Baltic! Are you the first to do this?
with most people who might agree with you staying quiet so they don’t get hurt.
And ain’t that the story of the UK? And why you’re now finding yourselves were you are.
‘middle-class professionals speaking differently to how they did in the 1990s’.
OR
Since the 1990s middle-class professionals have come to speak differently.
By the by, why “middle-class professionals”? Are there enough upper-class professionals to notice? What about middle-class non-professionals: who dey?
@ bis
I, occasionally, stay quiet so that *my wife and children* don’t get hurt. I m not worried about them hurting me.
That has always been the bolshevik tactic.
When I was 5, the miners told their sons to beat me up in the school playground (eventually the boys chose to stop because I had earned their respect: someone organised a fight between the local farmer’s son* who was the “top dog” in the playground and myself which ended as a draw when the bell rang for lessons); when I was 7 more than 200 miles south-east the Sunday School teacher kept me back after*our* lessons finished so that I could escort my elder sister home so that she would not be attacked by yobs – who would attack a 10-year-old girl but not a 7-year-old boy who would hit (at least one of them) back.
Bevan’s class war was always like that, cowardly thugs.
Sorry, I cannot remember the phonetic dictionary that was around when I was younger. My family had just one dictionary that was used as an umpire in Scrabble.
* Isaac was at least as good as me and never (AFAIK) joined in a group fight.
@BiS
“…does anyone know of such a thing as a phonetic English dictionary that’s any good?”
I don’t know if BBC has a Pigin English style guide. I find just reading the site difficult, but if you sound out what is there, it becomes comprehensible.
TMB,
Rügen was our goal but we hadn’t set a date or booked anything. The only date that’s fixed is the ferry back in a couple of weeks but Frau BiND was getting nervous that with the holidays approaching we might find it difficult to find somewhere to stay that didn’t involve taking out a mortgage.
We’ve got a lovely Wohnmobil Stellplatz in Lauterbach for a few nights then we’ll head slowly back towards Lübeck, or maybe not. Now we’re here with time on our hands we might explore this end of Germany (our insurance doesn’t cover Poland), and do the Hansa cities another time. We’ll decide when we leave on Friday.
John77
Absolutely spot on – these people are literally satanic and the end does justify the means. Any part of your family is fair game. Certainly the recent activities of Hamas point to their complete disregard for civilized norms.
@BiG: a phonetic English dictionary
IMO for learners the most useful is the Cambridge Dictionary:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skilful
It offers the spoken word, its phonetic transcription and is quite good on UK . US English.
@BiND on Rügen
Indeed, it is I. I started out as a simple synecdoche, but, since no one could pronounce this
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/synecdoche
I changed to something a bit easier…
@BiS
I still think ‘differently to how ‘ is a barbarism. In my schooldays we never encountered such constructions.
I don’t agree with your point that, if language is comprehensible, grammar doesn’t count. In this case, using ‘the way’ (noun) instead of ‘how’ (adverb) is not difficult – it just has to be taught properly. There is, however, no hope for the young – they read so much ungrammatical drivel on social media that they soon think the drivel is acceptable.
@MG
Back in the 60s or early 70s I can remember they had this idea to start off teaching children phonetic versions of words for reading & writing. I presume it died the death. But it’s something like that I need. The two links FoS has provided are nothing like it.
I’m trying to deal with people have enough problems reading & writing in their own language. I have to correct them when they’ve used a B instead of a V because both have the same sound. And they will pronounce the english FALL as FAY because their LL has the Y sound. You can imagine the trouble they’d have with ENOUGH, THROUGH, BOUGH, DOUGH
Phonics works and they use it now. But that’s not quite what you want.
Mum used to teach English as a foreign language to illiterates (immigrants who might be in their 40s or 60s, never going to learn to read and write). I’ll see what I can get out of her next visit. Can’t promise anything, for her the night is closing in, bit by bit – sadly.
bis,
My completely bizarre view is that actually the Cyrillic script would better serve all European languages than the Latin and would eliminate the need for other constructed phonetic alphabets.
Squeezing English, French, (especially) Dutch, Italian, Spanish etc, into 26 or fewer (21 in the case of Italian) letters requires a lot of memorization of highly idiomatic sounds. Even having a letter C really screws up many of these languages. Try representing Dutch vowels and diphthongs in Latin and you end up with the current mess, and perhaps even Cyrillic would struggle. But for the most part, it would work.
BiG’s current self-imposed challenge is learning Japanese, because it’s there. And it has a beautifully conceived phonetic alphabet that works brilliantly for learners. But given the fact that Japanese has far fewer vocalized sounds than any European language, let alone all European languages considered together. it wouldn’t work for Europe.
So I am convinced, some form of Cyrillic is the future, comrades.
FoS,
Grammar counts but it doesn’t help to be prescriptive. German is far worse than English for this. There is a received form of the language taught to foreigners, which you will hear spoken in the few business meetings not conducted in English, and still enforced far more rigorously on the government propaganda channels than RP on the BBC. Even the Swiss variant of the latter remains comprehensible to the educated listener, though most Germans will confess to being totally lost in Zürich.
BiG City, an international, immigrant conurbation at the intersection of the high German plain and the Allemanics, in the state that provides the national “comedy” bumpkin accent, has itself three clearly distinct argots, by which the antient population (who speak a remarkably slowly-delivered language for what, in Germany, counts for a city) is distinguished from the arrivals (who speak a forriner-German somewhat proudly coloured by antient local vocabulary), and the youths (who speak the latter with selected grammatical foibles of the former, further notable for its limited use of pronouns). Woe betide (or you switch to English) if you cannot understand the lot, regardless of which form of the language you make yourself understood in.
All languages also have highly distinct written and spoken forms. Classical versus if you like. And most people, being semi-literate, will express themselves in the written word in their spoken manner.
Since this, written expression of a spoken form of the language, was also a major stylistic innovation of the literature that Messrs. Strunk and White grew up with and criticised, basically postcolonial and especially inter-war American novels, I conclude the pair are enormous self-serving hypocrites.
The usual prob with most proposed spelling reforms is that they’re far too thorough. (Forgive the joke.) On the other hand the common reformed American spellings (e.g. thru, donut, plow) are OK as far as they go but they don’t go remotely far enough.
In English at least you could get a huge improvement with just a modest number of changes: people will say “ah yes, the 80:20 rule” and they’d be pretty much right.
As for English accents I’m not too bothered with one exception. I loathe the English (and therefore Yank) pronunciation of Latin. I used to squirm whenever I was subjected to a Latin “grace” in a Cambridge college dining hall. I do hope nobody ever heard my sotto voce “for fuxache”. I must admit, however, there’s not much to be done about it and anyway it matters only to foreigners and Scots.
I ask Tim, as a member of a Roman Catholic family, which pronunciation of Latin did English priests use in RC churches before Latin masses were swept away? Similarly for Scottish priests?
I dare say that the answer to both is “whatever pronunciation they learned in their native Ireland”.
That’s easy, dearieme: “Pater noster qui es in caelis…” with a č at mass but not in the classroom.
I’m puzzled by the notion that there can be a phonetic dictionary restricted to the letters of the standard alphabet. You in Scotland arguably have an additional phoneme /χ / which those of us to the south lack and which is expressed in “loch” pronounced so as to differentiate itself from “lock”.
But the number of phonemes in English is fewer than the number of letters in the alphabet while the number of symbols in a phonetic system is far larger.
BiG said:
“the state that provides the national ‘comedy’ bumpkin accent”
That was the Pfalz when I lived in it – the Somerset of Germany. But there may be others.
You might be thinking of ITA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet
Thanks for the ITA, BiW. That was what I was thinking of. It’s something to work with.
I don’t need to use the whole thing because there’s not much difference between a lot of english consonant combinations with the spanish/portuguese. It’s the vowels. Like the way written english will use an unsounded E to modify the preceding vowel. A spanish speaker will see that E as é & pronounce it as é. So what I do is to leave off the E but underline the preceding vowel. Seems to work.
On Latin. Something I learnt at school. It occurred years later; why the hell didn’t they teach us in an italian accent? Romans didn’t speak like Anglo-Saxons. Languages aren’t created by linguists. They’re created by the people who speak them. They use sounds & combinations of sounds that naturally roll off the palate. Their palate.
It’s the same with Middle-English* -the poetry I enjoy reading. With a modern english pronunciation it doesn’t work. Try something like a Norfolk accent & it flows.
” I really do think it should be revived. It’s a wonderful language. And it’d totally fuck the Yanks.
@BiG Try representing Dutch vowels and diphthongs in Latin and you end up with the current mess
I gather we owe our spelling conventions to the Dutch printers who printed the first books.
“You in Scotland arguably have an additional phoneme /χ / which those of us to the south lack”. Good point. And also /r/.
If I understand your point, your č at mass is the modern Italian c.
Whereas in English Latin /c/ is soft so that Caesar = Seize ‘er. Whereas in Classical Latin Caesar = German Kaiser.