The Southland Times SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1941. Colloquial Speech and Broadcasting

Southland Times, Issue 24533, 6 September 1941, Page 6

The Southland Times SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1941. Colloquial Speech and Broadcasting

MUCH that was said on Thursday by Mr Russell Wood, elocution adjudicator at the Wellington competitions, was undeniably true. The colloquial speech of commercial radio announcers deserves to be criticized. Even more objectionable is the misplaced heartiness of enunciation, a practice which seems to be based on the theory that emphasis must be wrung from every word, irrespective of its contextual value. It is unfortunate, however, that impurities of speech should be lumped together as “Americanisms.” Undoubtedly, a number of dubious terms have found their way across the Pacific, and most of them are here to stay. “Okay” is a meaningless substitute for “all fight” or a simple affirmative; but youth has accepted it, and age seems to find it bearable. Yet not all “Americanisms” are dubious. The American language is a vital growth; it is feeding a literature more vigorous and creative than any other of the present time. Moreover, a critical examination of the argot which has come from American cities during the past few years will show that a surprising amount of it is derived from Elizabethan English. “Sez thou,” now happily passing into oblivion, owed its oddity partly to its contrast with modern forms of speech; but it was very close to the “Sayest thou” which can be found in Shakespeare. It would be a pity to establish a prejudice against American words simply because some of them are undesirable. A growing language absorbs what it can from its immediate environment; but it cannot escape the inflow of verbal suggestions from the outside world. New Zealand has a surprisingly large slang vocabulary of its own, and many words have come from Australia —perhaps more than from America. The vitality of a language can be found partly in its capacity for - adaptation, which is obviously preferable to a sterile exclusiveness. A more serious criticism which can and should be made against the radio services—national as well as commercial —is the quality of the serials, their poverty of ideas and poor literary standards. Nevertheless there are certain difficulties which cannot be overcome by the broadcasting authorities. Radio serials are popular with listeners, and in the nature of things most of them must be imported from other countries. The National Broadcasting Service has built up its own production staff; but they can work only with the available materials, and New Zealand literature is not yet rich and strong enough to provide a large number of themes, ideas and character studies. Time should remove this deficiency, although it will be an extremely long time unless more encouragement is given to native-born writers. But in the intervening period the broadcasting services should do more than is now being done to protect, and even to improve, the literary taste of younger listeners. Both services are State institutions, and can therefore be expected to show a stronger sense of responsibility in the selection of programmes. A smattering of colloquialisms should cause no lasting damage; but the wide use of serials which are not much better, in emotional tone and literary standards, than the penny dreadfuls of 20 years ago is a more serious threat to a young and struggling culture.