English is, undeniably, an evolving language – and that means that interpretations of what constitutes “good English” will vary dramatically. For primary commercial users of South African English (PR agencies, advertising agencies, publishers and journalists), developing a strategic approach to language use has become a complex undertaking.

To meet this challenge, it is useful to take a broad look at people who define the progression of the English language. There are two classic archetypes in modern English, and most important players in the evolution of the language, I believe, belong to one of the two archetypes:

1. The Nitpickers

2. The Adapters

The Nitpickers

As a proof reader and editor, I am most certainly a Nitpicker. As a Nitpicker I often wonder, when newspaper writers and headliners get it wrong, whether to ascribe the blunder to carelessness or worse.

For example, a striking recent example of bad headlining is that in the gardening column of a Cape newspaper a while ago.

The headline read, and subject of the article was, “Creating Your Own Compost”. Fair enough – but the unfortunate sub-headline went on to ask, “Do you know how to make your own manure?” Well, yes, I do. But some would say that anyone who doesn’t know the difference between compost and manure should not be let loose on newspaper headings.

The above could be attributed either to ignorance, or to a subeditor working to a hectic deadline, but a headline in the same paper a while later is, technically, close to criminally careless.

“Adding Chocolate Flavours to Fags causes an Furore” (my bold italics). An Furore indeed – and this in bold typeface, .5 centimetres high! Where was the sub that day?

To be fair, headline writers sometimes achieve a clever result (as opposed to simply constructing yet another bad pun). A headline that immediately caused my grammatical hackles to rise presented itself as: “Wither the Nats?” However, on reading the piece below, it became clear that the article dealt with the slow withering and ultimate demise of the National Party, and the play on wither was apt – even though I had to read well into the article for this to become clear.

The Adapters

I am a professional Nitpicker. I was taught the rules, and I obey them. Not all people (in fact, very few people) have an even basic understanding of classic English grammar. For Joe Public, bad grammar is a moot concept; what matters is that language is understood.

This is an important fact to bear in mind when considering popular language use, especially in the mass media and especially in our multicultural society. The media comprise highly fluid language environments – environments that deal on a daily basis with the rapid evolution of popular and colloquial English.

To illustrate:

My son tells me that presenters on YFM, the popular Gauteng based youth radio station, have cleverly skirted the rules governing swearing on air, by simply scrambling the structure of the two flagship swear-words of modern life. Thus, Fu-k becomes Kuff, and Sh-t becomes Ish. These words are now used frequently, by presenters on and listeners to the station (just as the more grammatically correct originals are in real life), and have in fact become a part of Gauteng's colloquial “youth-speak”.

For a media company working in the youth sector, getting the language context right – in other words, making sure you're not using words or phrases to convey the wrong meaning – is far more important than grammar. Indeed, grammar is almost (but not quite) irrelevant.

In the corporate sector, on the other hand, grammar is mission critical. In this environment, regardless of the nature of the communication (brochure, web site, intranet, advert, pay-off line etc.) language simply must be grammatically accurate.

Why?

Because you'll find a large majority of Nitpickers at upper management levels – people with degrees and multiple qualifications. And quite a few of this lot, like myself, will have at some stage studied grammar rules and will know how to apply them in a strictly technical sense. A misplaced comma, an unintentional mixed metaphor ... these things matter to, and make a significant impression upon, the people who drive BMWs.

Knowledge is Only Half the Battle

Between these two archetypes (the Nit-pickers and The Adapters) lies a massive web of interlocking scenarios, within which the English language operates on a daily basis. Indeed, the only really solid component within this web is the knowledge that every case of language use will be unique.

In this context, a technical understanding of language is only half the battle of modern commercial communication. The other half, the killer punch, so to speak, is application – the understanding of where, how and why to apply it.

Marry the two and you have an organisation that can talk to anyone.

And, ultimately, that's what modern language is all about.

Edited version of an article originally published in Media Toolbox.