TEXT B

But if language habits do not represent classes, a social stratification in to something as bygone as “aristocracy” and “commons”, they do still of cour se s erve to identify social groups. This is something that seems fundamental in the use of language. As we see in relation to political and national movements, lang uage is used as a badge or a barrier depending on which way we look at it. The n ew boy at school feels out of it at first because he does not know the fight wor ds for things, and awe-inspiring pundits of six or seven look down on him for no t being aware that racksy means “dilapidated”, or hairy “out first ball”. Th e mi ner takes a certain pride in being “one up on the visitor or novice who calls t h e cage a “lift” or who thinks that men working in a warm seam are in their “u nde rpants” when anyone ought to know that the garments are called hoggers. The “i ns ider” is seldom displeased that his language distinguishes him from the “outsi der”.

Quite apart from specialized terms of this kind in groups, trades and profe ssions, there are all kinds of standards of correctness at which mast of us feel more or less obliged to aim, because we know that certain kinds of English invi te irritation or downright condemnation. On the other hand, we know that other k inds convey some kind of prestige and bear a welcome cachet.

In relation to the social aspects of language, it may well be suggested tha t English speakers fall into three categories: the assured, the anxious and the in different. At one end of this scale, we have the people who have “position” an d “status”, and who therefore do not feel they need worry much about their use o f English. Their education and occupation make them confident of speaking an uni mpeachable form of English: no fear of being criticized or corrected is likely t o cross their minds, and this gives their speech that characteristically unself c onscious and easy flow which is often envied.

At the other end of the scale, we have an equally imperturbable band, speak ing with a similar degree of careless ease, because even if they are aware that their English is condemned by others, they are supremely indifferent to the fact . The Mrs Mops of this world have active and efficient tongues in their heads, a nd if we happened not to like the/r ways of saying things, well, we “can lump i t ”. That is their attitude. Curiously enough, writers are inclined to represent t he speech of both these extreme parties with -in’ for ing. On the one hand, “w e’re goin’ huntin’, my dear sir”; on the other, “we’re goin’ racin’ , ma te.”

In between, according to this view, we have a far less fortunate group, th e anxious. These actively try to suppress what they believe to be bad English an d assiduously cultivate what they hope to be good English. They live their lives in some degree of nervousness over their grammar, their pronunciation, and thei r choice of words: sensitive, and fearful of betraying themselves. Keeping up wi th the Joneses is measured not only in houses, furniture, refrigerators, cars, a nd clothes, but also in speech.

And the misfortune of the “anxious” does not end with their inner anxiet y. Their lot is also the open or veiled contempt of the “assured” on one side of them and of the “indifferent” on the other

It is all too easy to raise an unworthy laugh at the anxious. The people t hus uncomfortably stilted on linguistic high heels so often form part of what is, in many ways, the most admirable section of any society: the ambitious, tense, inner-driven people, who are bent on“ going places and doing things”. The grea te r the pity, then, if a disproportionate amount of their energy goes into what Mr Sharpless called“ this shabby obsession” with variant forms of English— espe ci ally if the net result is(as so often)merely to sound affected and ridiculous. “ Here”, according to Bacon, “is the first distemper of learning, when men study w ords and not matter …. It seems to me that Pygmalion’ s frenzy is a good emble m …of this vanity: for words axe but the images of matter; and except they have l ife of reason and invention, to fall in love with them is to fall in love with a picture.”?