(…) Precision of language is not considered a pre-requisite for discourse these days, it seems. Then there is the use of “like”, scattered liberally through every sentence: this hasn’t simply replaced a pause for breath, neither is an alternative to “um” or “er”, but is rather a way of maintaining a constant stream of verbiage, as if hesitation or an unfilled nano second would result in losing the attention of the listener.
It is, if you like, a piece of verbal punctuation and has now become universal in its application, across generations and demographics. In itself, it has developed into an essential component in the rhythm of contemporary speech, and is none the worse for that. I even find myself using it: it’s, like, a verbal tic that’s very difficult to get rid of. Those of us of a certain age may indeed lament the way in which language has developed, and regard the prevalence of “like” as an egregious example of sloppiness, and of the lack of articulacy in young people.
The actress Emma Thompson launched a one-woman campaign against the use of “like” and “innit” among teenagers, saying: “We have to reinvest, I think, in the idea of articulacy as a form of personal freedom and power”. Blimey, Emma. And I thought I was the pompous fuddy-duddy. Language experts are more forgiving of these modern-day developments, explaining that filler words in conversation have been around since Anglo-Saxon times. John Ayto, the author and lexicographer, said that “it [the use of ‘like’] is not a lazy use of language. We all use fillers because we can’t keep up highly-monitored, highly-grammatical language all the time. We all have to pause and think.” In other words, give the kids a break. More.
See: The Independent
Subscribe to the translation news daily digest here. See more translation news.
Comments about this article