My literature review was intended to investigate previous works into the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and other forms of Internet media into English grammar and idiomatic spoken and written language. It was prompted by a thesis that the shift away from conventionally published written texts, printed on paper-based media (books, newspapers and magazines) were produced by professional writers and proofread by professional proofreaders, has led to a shift of not only content-related authority but linguistic authority. In essence the thesis was that due to the easy accessibility of a publishing medium: the Internet and CMC, a proliferation of seemingly authoritative texts are available on a plethora of subjects authored by experts (and non-experts) in their field. These texts, however weighty in terms of content authority are however, not always proofread and are certainly rarely authored by professional writers and so as a consequence can often exhibit poor grammar and linguistic style as well as common idiom mistakes. Can authority be transferred from the credibility of the content to the credibility of the grammar? Can poor linguistic role-models be created by such a mechanism? Can such errors be repeated and promulgated through the same medium they were received in? Orwell states in Politics and the English Language “... written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble” (para. 2).

Idiomatic errors are usually born through mishearings forming malapropisms which are then repeated in turn; a good example of a such an error which results in an incorrect idiom is ‘for all intents and purposes” which is repeated wrongly as “for all intensive purposes.” Orwell (1946) speaks of the “ugliness,” “staleness of imagery” and “lack of precision” with regard to certain “hackneyed” prosaic styles (para. 9). This is true also with the lazy over-reliance of idiomatic language, cliches and other pre-scripted platitudes. He adds “The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose...”

A recurring example of this is the hackneyed phrase so often trotted out by British police TV spokespeople following a death resulting from an accident or a homicide: “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the bereaved.”

The “thoughts and prayers” cliche is so overused and predictable that it is hardly possible to watch TV coverage following a tragedy involving loss of human life without this turning up in short order that people latch onto it straight away and miss the slightly more subtle confusion that follows. I decided to test this out on my Facebook friends, a great many of whom are atheist. The “thoughts and prayers” cliche was remarked upon immediately but the redundant and nonsensical “families of the bereaved” was missed by most. I wonder if Orwell himself could come up with so short and hackneyed a phrase that combined so perfectly ugliness, staleness of imagery, lack of precision, inadvertent nonsense, vagueness and sheer incompetence!


References

Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. Fifty Orwell Essays. Project Gutenberg of Australia. Retrieved from: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part42