HOME  |  ABOUT  |  ARCHIVES  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH

So there’s this woman, and she’s, like, talking to this baby squirrel…

In the newest City Journal, Clark Whelton, a former speechwriter for two mayors of New York City, writes despairingly about the state of American English.  Poor bastard.  Talk about standing out on the heath during an electrical storm and shaking your fist at the heavens!  The most you can expect is to catch cold. 

Here’s how he begins:  

I recently watched a television program in which a woman described a baby squirrel that she had found in her yard.  “And he was like, you know, ‘Helloooo, what are you looking at?’ and stuff, and I’m like, you know, ‘Can I, like, pick you up?,’ and he goes, like ‘Brrrp brrrp brrrp,’ and I’m like, you know, ‘Whoa, that is so wow!’” She rambled on, speaking in self-quotations, sound effects, and other vocabulary substitutes, punctuating her sentences with facial tics and lateral eye shifts.  All the while, however, she never said anything specific about her encounter with the squirrel. 

Really?  Can’t you picture the scene?  You can certainly hear the squirrel.  Are we looking for Edith Wharton here, or are we looking for a full-throated telling of the tale?  Storytelling works best when you play to your strengths, which for the woman on TV included “…self-quotations, sound effects, and other vocabulary substitutes…[ while] punctuating her sentences with facial tics and lateral eye shifts.”   Good for her. 

This is not to say that I would trivialize Whelton’s objections to the declining quality of spoken English.  I’m a former speechwriter myself, and I’ve spent 30 years helping raise three daughters to speak intelligibly and avoid saying like—the overuse of which, by the way, drives Clark Whelton nuts.  But he’s driven nuts by a lot of blips in the language, and these blips have something in common that should, perhaps, leaven his dismay. 

embedded by Embedded Video

 

He says he began to note “the devolution of coherent speech” back in the mid-1980s, when he would interview college students for internships in his office.  It was around then that interviewees began larding their sentences with you know and adding and stuff at the end.  And their answers to his questions, he noted, began to sound like more questions:  

I asked a candidate where she went to school.
“Columbia? She replied.  Or asked.
“And you’re majoring in…”
“English?”
 

But this was only the beginning.  Like “mutated from hip preposition into the verbal milfoil that still clogs spoken English today,” and then 

Double-clutching (“What I said was, I said…”) sprang into the arena.  Playbacks, in which a speaker re-creates past events by narrating both sides of a conversation (“So I’m like, ‘Want to, like, see a movie?’  And he goes, ‘No way.’  And I go…”), made their entrance.  

So what Whelton did was, he wrote to another gent with speechwriting credentials, William Safire of the New York Times, complaining that “Ambiguity, evasion, and body language, such as air quotes—using fingers as quotation marks to indicate clichés—were transforming college English into a coded sign language in which speakers worked hard to avoid saying anything definite.  I called it Vagueness.”  

And I’d call it really irritating—but that’s about it.  Whelton’s objections—and mine, when I’m feeling as resentful of change as a man of my years probably ought to feel—are not about the utility of this mode of speech, but rather the aesthetics.  The generations coming up behind us don’t follow the rules, and it offends our ears.  Whelton writes: 

At long last, it dawned on me:  Vagueness was not a campus fad or just another generational raid on proper locution.  It was a coup.  Linguistic rabble had stormed the grammar palace.  The principles of effective speech had gone up in flames. 

Image of the cover of "The Catcher in the Rye"

Another bad influence

Nah.  In truth, it’s exactly what he says it’s not:  “just another generational raid on proper locution.”  Old guys like us have been fighting rear-guard actions against these raids forever.  As a teenager, I used to send my father into fits by saying “far out,” “oh, wow,” and “right on.”  He hated the way my friends and I talked, in the same way—and probably for the same reasons—that he hated the length of our hair.  We all grew up.  I became a speechwriter and an editor and a regular law-abiding suburban dad.  Go figure. 

That’s how it is.  The young do it their way, and the older guys see barbarians at the gates.  When young, we worshipped creative types whom our parents found incoherent.  Try to figure out what Bob Dylan was saying half the time, or John Lennon when he wrote “Strawberry Fields.”  And here’s another bad influence:  J.D. Salinger!  Whelton is still seething over The Catcher in the Rye: 

All the way back in 1951, Holden Caulfield spoke proto-Vagueness (“I sort of landed on my side…my arm sort of hurt”), complete with double-clutching (“Finally, what I decided I’d do, I decided I’d…”) and demonstrative adjectives used as indefinite articles (“I felt sort of hungry so I went in this drugstore…”). 

The fact that the young talked this way was, of course, half the reason The Catcher in the Rye reached them by the tens of thousands.  This heartens me.  Holden Caulfield passed this way 60 years ago, and we’re, like, still here. 

The photo at the top is of Kevin Kline as King Lear, at the Public Theater in New York.

6 Responses to So there’s this woman, and she’s, like, talking to this baby squirrel…

  1. What started as ‘valley girl’ speak 25 years ago is now mainstream conversational syntax/inflection/word usage among the teens-40 something demographic. In my 30 year teaching Spanish and English in public high schools I witnessed these linguistic changes first hand. Students were not aware of the changes, not really. Issues arose when translating from English to Spanish. In my Spanish classes I would ask students to translate the following words: like, so, go, what, is, up, and ever. Then I would write something like the following on the board: “So I called him last night and he’s like where were you after the game? And I go nowhere. Then he’s like what’s up with that”? And I go what…ever.
    We discussed how the Spanish words which they translated could be used in translating this sentence. Believe it or not, after my song and dance about language and etomology, though I never used that word, students were lol. My point was the importance of knowing standard English when studying another language. I would give them 2 min. to talk with each other in English using what they thought was standard English. It was a difficult exercise. They laughed at how it sounded for THEM to use that language. Finally, they got it. They understood the importance of knowing standard English. And in many ways it helped them learn Spanish.
    Today’s use of ‘they/ their’ to refer to a singular antecedent is rampant in the press, visual media and conversational structure. No more ‘his or her’ or ‘it’. (Apple is doing everything they can to get their product to the market by spring.)
    Will the ‘King’s Speech’ have a greater impact on spoken language than English teachers?
    Thank-you for this blog. It really hit home with me.
    Tom

  2. Is that the voice of experience I hear? I sympathize entirely, Tom, and admire your dedication to saving some small portion of the English-speaking world from the depredations of time. But while you’re working on he/she/they, please work on lay-lie as well. That’s the one that grates on me!

  3. His/her/it, like, lay/lie, them (and how about: a ‘bunch’ of people?)… they ALL drive me bonkers. I’m afraid I do agree with Whelton on many points and loved reading Tom M’s comment.
    Oh … and I do think I know what the Beatles and Dylan were/are saying, even though I, like, speak and (I hope) write standard English, like.
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    • Funny you mention understanding Dylan. Whelton’s article has a great title…”What Happens in Vagueness, Stays in Vagueness.” Joan Baez wrote a great backward-looking lovesong about Dylan called “Diamonds and Rust.” In it she calls him, “You who’re so good with words, and at keeping things vague. Well, I could use some of that vagueness now, it’s all come back to clearly. Yes I loved you dearly . . . ” She knew what was going on, no?

  4. She most certainly did and I wonder if vagueness often isn’t much clearer than a straight forward ‘I love you’ or the like. We (if I may be so bold) poets/authors need vagueness to express our deepest feelings, non? Whelton turns rather ‘wrinkled grape’ when he gripes about vagueness. I wonder how old he is :) sort of…

  5. You’re right, as usual, Deborah. Sometimes the goal is not to describe or explain, but to evoke. And there you want to leave more room than usual for the reader to search inside herself to complete the picture. She’s going to do that anyway, even when you’re hoping she won’t . . . but this time you’re hoping she will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>