The Enduring Relevance of Know Your English, How Language Columns Illuminate Culture, History, and Modern Communication

The Enduring Relevance of Know Your English, How Language Columns Illuminate Culture, History, and Modern Communication

In the digital age, where language is often condensed into emojis, acronyms, and 280-character thoughts, the quiet charm of a newspaper language advice column feels like a relic from a gentler time. Yet, as evidenced by a classic 1999 installment of S. Upendran’s “Know Your English” from The Hindu, these columns are far more than quaint grammatical guides. They are cultural capsules, historical repositories, and practical manuals for navigating the nuanced waters of human communication. Revisiting this particular column—which deftly handles the colloquial “ain’t,” the origin of “beating about the bush,” and the distinction between “fare” and “price”—offers a springboard into a broader discussion on the current affairs of language, the politics of dialect, the ethics of etymology, and the economics of terminology in today’s globalized world.

The Politics of “Ain’t”: Dialect, Prejudice, and Linguistic Inclusion

Upendran’s opening answer on “ain’t” is a masterclass in sociolinguistic sensitivity, a relevance that has only intensified in the quarter-century since its publication. He correctly identifies its status as a non-standard contraction common in various British and American dialects, notably within African American Vernacular English (AAVE). His advice—acceptable informally but frowned upon formally, and best avoided in writing—reflects the prescriptive linguistic norms of the late 20th century.

Today, this discussion sits at the heart of a significant current affair in linguistics and social justice: the fight for dialectal equality. The statement he quotes, “Ain’t ain’t a word, cos it ain’t in the dictionary!” represents the very attitude now being widely challenged. Modern lexicography includes “ain’t” with clear usage labels, acknowledging its existence and prevalence. More importantly, the recognition of AAVE and other dialects as rule-governed, sophisticated linguistic systems, rather than “slang” or “broken English,” has gained considerable academic and social traction.

The current affair here is the ongoing debate in educational and professional spheres. Should students be penalized for using their home dialect in academic writing, or should they be taught “code-switching”—the ability to move between dialects as appropriate? High-profile cases and academic studies continue to examine how linguistic prejudice reinforces class and racial biases. The caution against “ain’t” in a 1999 formal context is, in 2024, part of a larger conversation about which “formal contexts” are gatekept and why. In an era valuing authenticity and diversity, the blanket stigmatization of dialectal features is increasingly seen as an exclusionary practice. Upendran’s nuanced “it depends” is more pertinent than ever, urging not just grammatical correctness but communicative awareness and cultural respect.

“Beat About the Bush”: Etymology in an Era of Ethical Reckoning

The second query leads to a vivid, if grim, historical origin story for “to beat about the bush,” linked to the cruel practice of “batfowling.” This explanation does more than satisfy curiosity; it connects language directly to material history and human behavior. The metaphor arises from a literal, violent act—servants beating peripheral bushes to flush birds to their death in the central, lit area.

This touches on a contemporary current affair: the ethical re-evaluation of language with violent, oppressive, or exclusionary origins. Just as institutions are scrutinizing historical figures and practices, there is a parallel movement to examine the etymology of common phrases. Terms rooted in colonialism, sexism, or ableism are being identified and often replaced. While “beating about the bush” is unlikely to be retired (its origin is largely obscure to most users), the column’s explanation reminds us that language is fossilized history.

The phrase’s core meaning—avoiding the main point—is supremely relevant in today’s political and corporate communication. Spin doctoring, political hedging, and corporate jargon are all sophisticated forms of “beating about the bush.” In an age of misinformation and deepfakes, the ability to cut through circumlocution and demand directness is a critical skill. The column’s examples (“Stop beating about the bush. Tell me how much money you need”) are timeless, but the stakes are higher when applied to climate change reports, political accountability, or algorithmic transparency. The quest for clear, unambiguous language is not just a stylistic preference but a democratic necessity.

“Fare” vs. “Price”: The Linguistic Landscape of the Modern Economy

The final distinction between “fare” and “price” seems straightforward: a fare is a price paid for a journey. Yet, this simple differentiation unravels into a fascinating current affair when applied to the 21st-century “experience economy” and digital marketplace.

Upendran’s examples—train fares, taxi fares—belong to a tangible world of physical transit. Today, the concept of a “fare” has dramatically expanded. We talk about “ride-sharing fares” (dynamic, algorithmically determined), “subscription fares” (for streaming or software access), and even “data roaming fares.” The line between a “fare” (for conveyance) and a “price” (for a product) blurs when you purchase a “virtual ticket” to an online concert. Are you paying a fare to be conveyed into the digital venue, or a price for the experiential product?

Furthermore, the column mentions the annual rise in train fares. This remains a hot-button economic and political issue globally, from the debates over national rail subsidies in the UK to the protests over fuel and transport costs in nations worldwide. The “fare” is not just a linguistic unit; it is a measure of accessibility, public service, and social equity. The “Uberization” of services has also transformed “fares” from fixed rates to surge-priced commodities, introducing new volatility into personal economics.

The word “price,” meanwhile, has taken on metaphorical weights. We speak of the “human price” of conflict, the “environmental price” of development, and the “psychological price” of social media use. The column’s concrete example of a car’s price tag now coexists with discussions about the true cost (a related but distinct term) of ownership, including carbon footprint and ethical supply chains. Understanding the precise use of “price” versus “cost” versus “fare” is crucial for financial literacy and critical consumption in a complex global market.

The Column as a Microcosm: Why Language Advice Endures

The enduring appeal and utility of columns like “Know Your English” lie in their bridging of three realms: the prescriptive (rules), the descriptive (actual use), and the historical (origins). In a world of rapid linguistic change driven by technology and globalization, such guides provide anchors. They validate curiosity about why we speak the way we do.

Current affairs constantly inject new life into these old questions. The debate over “ain’t” intersects with identity politics. The history of “beat about the bush” resonates with calls for transparency. The fare/price distinction is fundamental to navigating the digital and gig economies. Language is not a static artifact but a living, breathing organism that shapes and is shaped by society.

As we communicate across borders and cultures with unprecedented frequency, the nuances explained in this 1999 column become tools for clearer, more empathetic, and more effective interaction. They remind us that every word has a history, every usage a context, and every linguistic choice a potential impact. In fostering this awareness, “Know Your English” and its successors do more than teach English; they teach us about the world we articulate into being.

Q&A: Exploring the Themes Further

1. Q: The column states that many native speakers “frown on” those who use “ain’t.” How has the perception of non-standard dialects like AAVE changed since 1999, and what are the arguments for their greater acceptance in formal settings?

A: Since 1999, there has been a significant shift in the perception of non-standard dialects, driven by sociolinguistic research and social justice movements. Academics have firmly established dialects like AAVE as coherent linguistic systems with their own grammar, syntax, and rules, not as “incorrect” English. The argument for greater acceptance, particularly in educational settings, is rooted in equity and efficacy. Penalizing students for using their home dialect can create a barrier to learning, implicitly devaluing their identity and community. The “code-switching” approach—teaching Standard American or British English as an additional, context-specific dialect for professional or academic success—is seen as more inclusive than outright stigmatization. In creative and cultural spheres, AAVE’s influence is dominant, from music to social media. The core argument is that linguistic diversity should be acknowledged and respected, with “correctness” being defined by communicative effectiveness and appropriateness rather than by a single, monolithic standard.

2. Q: The origin of “beat about the bush” is linked to a violent historical practice (batfowling). Should we reconsider using idioms with such dark origins, similar to how we reconsider statues or commemorations of controversial historical figures?

A: This is an active debate within linguistic circles. However, most idioms undergo “semantic bleaching,” where the original, literal meaning becomes completely detached from the metaphorical use. For most English speakers, “beat about the bush” conjures no image of bird-killing; it is a dead metaphor. The primary criterion for continuing or retiring a phrase is typically its current perceived offensiveness and its connection to ongoing harm. Idioms rooted in direct, contemporary oppression (e.g., racial or gender-based slurs) are rightly being retired. Phrases like “beat about the bush,” “rule of thumb,” or “raining cats and dogs” have origins lost to general awareness and don’t perpetuate active harm in the same way. The focus is often more on phrases that directly demean groups of people in the present. The value in knowing the etymology, as the column provides, is historical awareness, not necessarily a mandate to purge the language.

3. Q: How has the concept of a “fare” evolved with the rise of the gig and digital economies, beyond the traditional examples of buses or taxis?

A: The concept of a “fare” has expanded from a charge for physical conveyance to include charges for experiential or digital access. In the gig economy, we have dynamic “delivery fares” (for food, groceries) and “task fares” (for handyman services), where the payment is for the service of bringing something to you or performing a mobile task. Digitally, we might pay a “fare” to access a proprietary network or platform—though “fee” or “subscription” is more common. The most significant evolution is the move from fixed fares to algorithmically determined, surge-priced ones, as seen with Uber and Lyft. This transforms the “fare” from a predictable public utility cost to a variable market price, deeply influenced by immediate supply, demand, and location data. The core idea of payment for a journey or service rendered remains, but the contexts have multiplied and become more complex.

4. Q: The column is from 1999. What major forces have influenced the English language since then that a modern “Know Your English” column would have to address?

A: A modern column would need a whole new lexicon of topics:

• The Digital and Social Media Revolution: Explaining terms like “phishing,” “ghosting,” “DM,” “TL;DR,” “doomscrolling,” and the grammatical nuances of text-speak.

• The Pandemic Lexicon: Words like “social distancing,” “lockdown,” “quarantine,” “Zoom fatigue,” and “new normal” entering common parlance.

• Inclusive Language: Guidelines on gender-neutral pronouns (they/them), alternatives to gendered terms (chairperson, humanity), and person-first language.

• The Business Jargon Ecosystem: Decoding terms like “synergy,” “deep dive,” “circle back,” “pivot,” and “bandwidth” (in a non-technical sense).

• Global English Variations: Acknowledging the legitimacy of Indian English, Singaporean English, or Nigerian English usages that may differ from British or American standards.

5. Q: Beyond just defining words, what is the broader societal value of columns and resources dedicated to explaining language quirks and origins?

A: Their value is multifaceted:

• Democratizing Knowledge: They make the often-elitist field of linguistics accessible to the general public, fostering a shared curiosity about a fundamental human tool.

• Promoting Clear Communication: By clarifying distinctions (like fare/price), they reduce ambiguity, which is vital for everything from legal contracts to personal relationships.

• Fostering Critical Thinking: Understanding etymology, like that of “beat about the bush,” encourages people to see language not as a given, but as a constructed system with a history tied to power, culture, and economics.

• Building Cultural and Historical Awareness: Language is a repository of culture. Exploring it reveals how people lived, thought, and interacted in the past.

• Encouraging Inclusivity: Modern discussions about dialect and inclusive terminology, sparked by such columns, can make public discourse and professional environments more welcoming to diverse groups. In essence, they don’t just teach language; they teach through language, fostering a more thoughtful, articulate, and connected society.