In defence of language

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32628, 9 June 1971, Page 16

In defence of language

Sir, —Our university has found it convenient to abolish English I as a compulsory subject. If Professor Phillips had left it at that we should have been spared hundreds of words of desperate rationalisation. In this defence we find two examples of logical fallacy, namely, an argumentum ad hominem with respect to “two legal gentlemen” and a begging of the question with an assertion that the change will be a "reform.” We also find an interesting principle enunciated: that “compulsion is (not) likely to produce a love of literature.” Or for that matter, a love of any other subject, wholly or in part. Will the university press for the abolition of compulsory

English from its U.E. syllabus? Will university students be allowed to escape the dead hand of compulsion - by choosing only those parts of prescriptions which they like? As for the “ills of society,” one of these ills is verbal pollution, but who cares? Not the university.—Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. June 7, 1971. Sir,—You complain of “many” pupils with U.E. “indifferently skilled” in English. In 1969, 11,477-pupils left school with U.E. or higher qualifications. What is “many”? The bottom 3000? If so, shouldn’t you be talking about variable human abilities as well as English teaching quality? Again, how can you possibly know, statistically or generally, that “countless” stage I English students discover the joy of literature? The sentence in question strongly implies that school methods make literary "classics ... a bore” but that stage I lectures, etc., make them “a joy.” Rubbish. Nought out of 20, there. In your final paragraph you assume that literature is a major means to acquiring modern communication skills. Try proving it. Finally, give us your definition of "English.” The one you appear to use is old-fashioned and incomplete. It won’t accommodate current national course revisions for Forms 3 to 5. —Yours, etc., N. A. GRIFFITHS. June 8, 1971. Sir,—The simplest way of demanding competent use of our language is by refusal to accept work below a prescribed standard. Your leading article of June 4 points out that basic English should be taught before the university age. But because parents and school-teachers themselves must learn, it is essential that a standard be publicly upheld by our cultural leaders, among whom the university and you, sir, are numbered. For our written language the standard has been set for 360 years by the Authorised Version of the Bible, and by the great writers of simple biblical English. In the case of our spoken language it is wrong not to fight against an unthinking acceptance of those mutilations of stress and pronunciation that are daily cast before us. Another upholder of standards, as was Professor Arnold Wall for earlier generations, is needed to publish and broadcast regular authoritative criticism of bad English.—Yours, etc., ROBERT PINNEY. Peel Forest, June 7, 1971. Sir,—That neither a foreign language nor English is now a necessary study for the bachelor of arts degree is a sad thought, despite Professor Phillips’s lame and fairly illogical explanation to the effect that more "flexibility” will now be given to the choice of subjects. There are nine units in the degree and even allowing that two must be “advanced,” it should have been easy to offer four, five, or six subjects. Illiteracy (witness our newspaper columns and the utterances of our public men) is almost a fashion here, An illiterate B.A. would certainly be a monster. This dilution of the degree prescription is a sign of the times, but doubtless it will make the world safer for geography, psychology, and philosophy for norireaders. —Yours, etc., COSMETICS (STAGE II). June 8, 1971.