The ManicaPost
Morris Mtisi
THE following questions motivated the authorship of this article: “Is Media helping to make Languages more formal and correct or corrupting them?” Is there even any language policy in broadcasting or it is free-for-all where presenters use any language concoctions without any sense of accuracy or coherence? How much responsibility does the Media have to insulate Languages from insane metamorphosis?
As an old-time passionate teacher of languages, particularly English, and long-time ‘‘student’’ of Linguistics, an expert of sorts in this area, I have sadly observed a gradual disappearance of formal language, whether indigenous or English. Both Shona and English in Zimbabwe have slowly but surely changed from formal to informal in the process losing respect and sophistication. What does this mean?
This means both Shona and English have slowly lost linguistic lustre. Zimbabwean speakers and writers of these two languages, I am not sure of Ndebele, have carelessly resorted to informal language or street lingo that does not use accurate and coherent vocabulary.
Zimbabweans have preferred to use what they call modern language (of course on serious thought you wonder what is modern about it!). The truth of the matter is that this so-called modern language is less accurate and less sophisticated in vocabulary. The language is informal, casual, and conversational. Some of it, if not most of it, is now not only colloquial. It is sheer unacceptable slang.
In case you did not know! Slang is informal, made-up language that is found in a particular place at a particular time. It is simply unacceptable in formal writing except in direct speech where it is perfect to portray a particular character and personality. Each generation it has been noted, formulates its own brand of slang, and these words and expressions are often ‘‘passing nonsense.’’ Slang is a fascination and admiration of those who use it, and usually these are young boys and girls or immature young adults, who use it to promote what they call a ‘‘hip’’ or ‘‘cool’’ image. It is often an attraction by teenagers, then copied by peers and is often later accepted into colloquial, spoken language. And please note . . . only spoken! That is only how far the tolerance of slang goes.
The use of slang is often undignified though it may be ‘‘cool’’ and humorous . . . perhaps even very expressive.
It is unfortunate that even young boys and girls in school in Zimbabwe today fail to draw a line between formal and informal language, whether in English or Shona. They love the fashionable ‘‘nonsense’’ so much that they do not care how colloquial or informal (slangish) it is. In fact, the more un-understood it is, the sweeter it is for them. They are always ready to learn what every ‘‘nonsense’’ word or expression means; so long as it is ‘‘cool’’, they say.
These youngsters have literally stolen the stage with their ‘‘rubbish’’ and are running fast away from conventional English or Shona.
It is funny how people still blame the colonisers today for this language drought or madness. Young Zimbabweans especially those specialising in colloquial and slang English do not strangle the Queen’s language alone. Even the Shona has suffered this language diarrhoea. They have basically created a new language . . . a new concoction so powerful that even the formality of English or Shona examination language is seriously threatened.
Everyone talks about “waiziya?’’ ‘‘mahwani’’ ‘‘pakaipa’’ ‘‘iri bhoo’’ ‘‘zvakadhakwa’’ ‘‘momz’’ ‘‘gulez’’ “makhulwani’’ ‘‘chap’’ with some of these words stranger than others. You wonder why people talk about ‘‘mahwani’’ instead of ‘‘ma-two’’ or ‘‘mathree’’. It is simply not sensible and will never be sensible. ‘‘Pakaipa?’’ ‘‘Papi pakaipa?’’ And why? You cannot and will never tie this word to one strict meaning. It is used anyhow and anywhere to mean anything.
They have become too lazy to spell even Shona words. ‘‘Ndirikuda’’ has been shortened to ‘‘ndikuda’’, ‘‘ndinoda’’ to ‘‘ndoda.’’ And they write and speak like this every day. Surely this has nothing to do with colonialism and imperialism. The white people in America or England have nothing to do with this crazy verbal famine.
The saddest is the question, ‘‘How much are radio and television’’ helping to protect the respect and formal sophistication of language? Or have they become, knowingly or unknowingly, the conduit of language drought and adulteration? Do radio and television presenters have an idea how much they are contributing to this language erosion, whether it is English or Shona?
Take a good listen to these young boys and girls, who call themselves celebrities presenting their programmes in English or Shona? Are they aware of the damage they are doing to school children whom they love so much to interact with in their studios and on air through the social platform and studio phone lines?
Is there a conscious thought and consideration about how important language is for students and for general nurturing of character and personality? Is language not one of the strongest, if not the strongest (from dress), determinants of character, personality and morality?
We all know children love listening to radio and watching television. The teenager is literally addicted. And every day, every hour, every minute and second they are bombarded by colloquial language and slang and are literally incarcerated in the prisons of radio and television presenters who like everyone else in society are buried in the cemetery of trash language. Most of this language is not only colloquial or slang, but also often-times embarrassing, grammatically inaccurate and incoherent.
If school going youths listen to radio, watch television and are glued to social media more than they do to their teachers, what does this mean to their learning? What impact does this have on their language? How many of them are old enough and intelligent enough to discriminate between fine language and media trash?
And presenters argue, “Is it our job to teach students and pupils how to speak pure, correct, formal English or Shona as their teachers want it (that is if the teachers are not already using DJ language to teach)?”
The above presenters’ argument is very reasonable. They are not class teachers. Radio and television are different platforms of communication. This is a different job altogether. They are not civil servants! They are celebrities. And many of them want to believe they are celebrities, even if there is nothing to celebrate! One of their key result areas is entertainment. And since when did entertainment demand acknowledged rules of grammar and linguistic formality, accuracy, respect and sophistication? ‘‘Do you want us to be in discord with society . . . with fashion . . . with trendy lifestyles? We are not teachers . . . hell nonsense!’’ They will argue. All of them, especially the younger they are, well at least most of them, speak outer-space language versions of Rastafarianised colloquialism and slang . . . to blow your mind! If you are not careful you can only pick one or two words you are familiar with . . . all . . . at supersonic speed. Its radio craze! On radio? On television?
Every single argument these self-made celebrities make is sensible . . . and powerful . . . very powerful. Radio is about having fun. . . Enjoyment and entertainment. It is a cheap Hollywood of their mind where young men and women make names and live at the end of the rainbow or above the moon. Understood. But the question is “How safe is Media today for school children . . . with all the liberalism in language and personal conduct . . . influence . . . pursuit of fame and material glory? How safe is this territory in building language, manners and direction in life?”
Is it only radio and television under the microscope? Certainly not! Even the print media has also slowly degenerated into a literary abyss that has seen reporters and columnists addicted to highly questionable standards of writing. The journalists stick to house journalistic rules and regulations and ethics but the language has gone to the dogs, that is not an exaggeration, with many of the writers arguing, “This is journalese . . . not classroom composition or essay writing!
While a lot of newspapers try hard to stick to the perfection of journalistic veterans of all time . . . the likes of the inimitable Geoff Nyarotas and Leo Hatugaris, the Wilf Mbangas and Willie Musarurwas, Tommy Sithole, Henry Muradzikwa, Ndaba Nyoni and Mark Chavhunduka . . . most of these deceased or retired, most of what appears in most newspapers today is a sad imitation of these old-time scribes.
The failure to express ideas accurately and coherently . . . failure to choose the correct word an apt expression . . . in a figure of speech, denotative or connotative inflexion, has become common place and heavily compromised the qualities of most newspapers.
It is my frank and open submission that the Media must be exemplary in the way it protects and nurtures the formality of Languages. If it instead becomes an accomplice in the adulteration of languages, whether it is Shona, English or Ndebele, it works against the education system instead of complementing it.
There are many programmes on radio and television I have heard discussing the tragedy of poor pass rate, the newspapers carrying serious critiques of the poor performance of students in schools. How much of a solution or accomplice is the Media itself from the point of view of language? Food For Thought! This is Part 1 of a brave and forthright ‘‘dissertation’’. Do not miss Part 2 of it next Friday.
