A common cry is "standards of English usage are falling". How far is this true?

Firstly why do people say this so often? It is usually because they care that their own usage is not the same as that used by younger people. They hear young people or broadcasters splitting infinitives or saying "loranorder" for "law and order" and interpret this change as a decline from their own high standards. In some ways this is commendable and is an acknowledgement of the effect of school teachers in the past, however it fails to take into account the notion of linguistic change. There is also a suggestion that there is an absolute right and wrong in language.

There is no doubt that language does change over time. It should adapt to changing circumstances and could effectively die out if it cannot adapt to new inventions, concepts and situations. A list of neologisms shows that new words are essential. But are new expressions or grammatical changes equally essential? Possibly not - yet they are signs of a thriving and adaptable language which is willing to accomodate change an be useful and personalised for a wide range of speakers.

Is all change acceptable? Probably not. There must be some fundamental rules which change either not at all or at least only in unusual and rare circumstances. If I say "peas garden" rather than "garden peas" I am using the French grammatical order of adjective after noun rather than the English of adjective preceding noun. You may understand me but it introduces an extra point of difficulty in comprehension.

If the aim of a speaker is for clarity the fewer points of difficulty there are (unusual vocabulary, non-standard grammar, non-standard accent, unclear articulation or pronunciation, cultural attitudes etc) the clearer will be the message. Yet introducing a small number of these may still enable the message to be understood.

A strong Glaswegian accent may be difficult for a Londoner to understand, and vice versa, but this can usually be overcome with practice until the ear becomes tuned to the unfamiliar pronunciation. Consistent omission of articles or verb endings may make it more difficult to understand accurately but some understanding will take place. To a large extent it is the willingness of the listener to adapt and try to understand which is the main factor in comprehension.

Does the splitting of an infinitive (to happily agree rather than to agree happily) or using a preposition at the end of a sentence (that's what I won't put up with rather than that's the sort of thing with which I shall not put up) make a significant difficulty in understanding? Probably not. In fact in some cases obeying that old rule is more unweildy than the modern form.

The complainant however may use this notion of change as a sign of decline. This is where the argument becomes emotive and moves away from the science of linguistics. When the "mispronunciation" of law and order as "loranorder" is given as a sign of cultural decay and decline we have to question the motives of the speaker.

It is worth looking at individual examples and dividing them into two categories acording to whether they seriously hamper understanding or whether they are "non standard" but do not hamper understanding.

1. Interviewer - interviewee: these are two different but related words and the distinction is probably worth keeping

2. Imply - infer: the distinction may be worth keeping, although common usage increasingly fails to appreciate the difference.

3. Splitting the infinitive: probably makes little difference in clarity or meaning; used only as a sign of careful or pedantic usage.

4. Who - whom: the distinction is probably not useful and is now sometimes an example of rather pedantic or self-conscious usage.

5. Multiple negatives - "I didn't have no tea" or "I can't get no satisfaction": although some argue that one negative contradicts another, this is applying a mathematical rule to English. It is standard practice in many dialects, including Cockney to use multiple negatives to reinforce negativity and is a feature of Chaucer. Nevertheless multiple negation is not a feature of standard English.

5. Pronunciation of "law and order" by elision: some claim that "there is no R in the word so it should not be pronounced." Yet RP is a non-rhotic accent, ie R is generally not pronounced in final position (snore, pour etc) only in primary position (red, roof) or median position (pouring, snoring). Apart from the artificial and awkward glottal caused by separating the words in "loranorder" the three words as a whole as a cliché do follow the usual pronunciation of R in median position. If the argument is that this is laziness then it is worth observing that very few people pronounce every consonant in all their words - and if they did they would sound unnatural and artificial.

This argument is a long standing one and not one which will easily be resolved. You should have your own informed and balanced opinion on it. Here are some points and quotations you could use:

1. Good English is accepted educated usage, unambiguous and clearly expressed.

2. English varies according to context - speaker, listener, date, circumstance etc - and what is accepted in one situation may not be accepted in another. Speakers routinely change pronunciation and vocabulary according to the formality of a situation.

3. Non-standard usage can be more convincing and is seen as more honest by some listeners.

4. The link between "change" and "decline" is an emotional, not a scientific one.

5. "Bad grammar is a sign of carelesness in the use of language, which denotes a lack of mental discipline in other areas." Marland

6. "The truth is that in usage there is no single standard of acceptability available to us; there are multiple standards. What may be adjudged "wrong" at one time may be widely accepted at another ... what may be urged as "correct" in one part of the English-speaking world may be wholly ignored in another." Marland

7. "My view always was that there is a "correct" language for the written word and a slightly different "correct" language for the spoken word."

8. "It is very important for the teacher to distinguish between sloppy usage, which should be corrected, and dialect forms. If the child is using dialect then he or she must be helped first to understand the social importance of the alternative forms in Standard English." Cox

9. "Many people look in dismay at what has been happening to our language in the very place where it evolved. They wonder what it is about our country and sociey that our language has become so impoverished , so sloppy and so limited - that we have arrived at such a dismal wasteland of banality, cliché and casual obscenity." Prince Charles