Article

by Laurence A.J. Bacon

A long time ago, the French recognized that their language was effectively under attack by ignorance, variations in interpretation, lack of grammatical rules and structure and the need for a universally accepted dictionary.

This led to the inauguration in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu of the Académie Française, which soon afterwards was given royal assent and protection and has been similarly protected by heads of state since then. The first edition of the dictionary promoted by the Académie was published in 1694, and this has been followed by a number of updated editions, the latest of which is a work in progress. In recent times, however, the most important attacks on the language have come from other languages, particularly English. Each of these countries, in their colonial eras, used their military dominance to extend the geographic spread of their respective language by displacing the native language of the countries which they invaded. This tactic yielded mixed results. Today, the standard of English spoken in Scotland and Ireland is reputed to be better than in England. However, the paucity of standards in the use of the English language in America led to a divergence of spelling and acceptance of such banalities as double negatives, mixed metaphors and split infinitives. Unfortunately, it has not changed sufficiently to regard it as a language distinct from English.

American dominance

The commercial pre-eminence of America, its aggressive foreign investment policy, the Hollywood TV and film industry and the near monopoly control of software by American companies has meant, in recent decades, that the American language is extending its influence more than any other language. It is ironic that the language most under attack is the native English language, but the Académie Française recognizes (note the inconsistent Americanism) that the French language is also under attack. In fact, if there is one person more responsible than any other for the destruction of indigenous languages worldwide, it is probably Bill Gates. The universal default installation of Microsoft's version of the English language in its software, including its flawed dictionary, grammar, punctuation and syntax imposes its version of English, often without notice on the user. Unfortunately many people accept this version as correct, which adds further to confusion in the use of language.

The British do not seem to have learned the lesson of the French approach to protection of the language. On the contrary, the British government decision to permit a laissez-faire approach to grammar, spelling, etc., about four decades ago has led to a steady decline in the standard of English there.

Poetic licence

You come home to your beautiful young wife after a long day at the office. Upon entering, you notice that the children are not at home, Barry White music is playing in the background and the air is filled with perfume. Your wife beckons to you to come upstairs. Not a word has been spoken, but it is very clear to you that your wife is communicating an unmistakeable message - the dinner has been burnt again.

This demonstrates that there are a number of ways in which we communicate, but language both written and spoken is predominant. It can be used equally to convey clear or mixed messages and there are appropriate times for both. The stock in trade of comedians would be severely depleted without the double entendre, but we would be in fear of our lives if such mixed interpretations were used by air traffic controllers.

It used to be that the distinction between poetry or artistic expression and prose was clear and understood. In the French language, for example, the spoken word can differ from language used in song in terms of pronunciation as a mark of the fact that it follows different rules. In this context, I fully support poetic licence, but it has no place in prose, where clarity of expression should be paramount. The popular music industry has done much since the 1960s to break the natural barrier between the two. It would appear, with a few exceptions, that prerequisites required of pop singers include a lack of diction, an inability to pronounce consonants and a complete disregard for syntax and grammar. Unfortunately, this decline in standards has been emulated in the vernacular by a younger generation with little realization of the damage done to the language.

Are you politically correct?

If nobody is prepared to take a stand against misuse of language, decline is inevitable. Another notable misuse of language is typical of politicians lacking the backbone to speak out against it for fear of losing votes. Examples in my own country include the recently coined term "non-nationals" used to describe the many foreign immigrants now living in Ireland and intending to mean that they are not Irish. The correct term is foreign nationals "Non-nationals" if used correctly means persons lacking a nationality. A national charity recently had to withdraw the word "crib" from an advertisement, because it was determined to have Christian connotations and therefore was politically incorrect. This is nonsense. In America, one refers to Christmas holidays as "Holidays" and deliberately omits the Christian significance. In the Muslim world, one would not refer to the Id holidays as "Holidays", as if to deny the religious significance, for fear of not being "politically correct". Each country and culture has a right to its own diversity.

Unruly rules

Whilst appropriate for comedians to employ deliberately mixed messages, a large proportion of society relies on unequivocal statements, rules or laws. Typical examples of people whose careers are directly dependent on such would include teachers, judges, engineers, scientists, chemists, medical doctors and, I should add, document checkers.

Rules or laws which may be interpreted in a variety of ways can lead to chaos, if the intent was to be unequivocal. The language chosen to promulgate these rules will usually determine its relative success or failure.

One such example is the UCP. Where language used in the UCP is clearly out of step with the daily use of the language, this can only lead to confusion. In common use "singular" means singular and "plural" means plural, but not so with the current UCP. Another example of a poor choice of language is found in UCP 600 sub-article 19 (a) (ii), which states: [must appear to] "indicate that the goods have been dispatched, taken in charge or shipped on board at the place stated in the credit, by:

- pre-printed wording, or

- a stamp or notation indicating the date on which the goods have been dispatched, taken in charge or shipped on board..."

The use of the word "or" after the words "pre-printed wording" imposes a condition that the document may not contain both pre-printed wording and a stamp or notation. However, this is contrary to the intent of this article, and this confusion could have easily been avoided by the correct use of "and/or", as often used in previous versions of the UCP.

None so blind ...

It is not enough that the meaning of words or phrases used in the UCP have an unequivocal meaning. Their use must also be consistent. Both the UCP 600 Drafting Group and the full Banking Commission failed in this respect. A vote was taken to decide if phrases like "on its face" should be included or not in the revision of the UCP. The Banking Commission voted overwhelmingly in favour of its complete exclusion. In this context, to fully include it or to fully exclude it would demonstrate consistency. However, when the subsequent draft was proffered for consideration by the Banking Commission, it included one such phrase in what is now sub-article 14 (a). This should not have been accepted for two reasons - it was inconsistent with the previous vote of the Banking Commission, and its inclusion in one article but not others was intrinsically inconsistent.

The novel approach of articles 2 and 3 is laudable in facilitating clarity of meaning to a number of words used in the rules. However, one will not find a definition of "transhipment" there, because the Banking Commission has decided, contrary to every other definition of the word, that its definition is completely dependent on the mode/s of transport used.

An official response

The need for a British institution along the lines of the Académie Française is long overdue. I would also advocate legislation banning software for sale in a country unless that software had as its default language the language of that country, or where more than one language is in use, the option of setting that language. In this context, the English language would not be acceptable in America and the American language would not be acceptable in the United Kingdom.

Finally, if you feel that any part of this article is flawed in grammar, syntax, spelling, etc., please do complain to me. I do not claim to be a linguistics expert and I welcome opportunities to improve my knowledge.

Laurence A.J. Bacon's email is lb@exportbureaux.com