This term’s list of speakers has now been finalised, and despite a few rumours over the vac about a poor term, it turns out it’s not nearly as bad as some people feared (or hoped). The highlights are Rick Stein (chef) Katie Melua (singer, fit), Duffy (singer, not quite so fit), David Coulthard (F1 driver,

quiet) and Catharine Tate (comedian, not quiet enough), along with John Bercow (Speaker of the Commons, and for whom Stuart Cullen should be bloody grateful to a certain Cherwell hack), and the guy who wrote Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, and of course the standard run of minor politicians, journos and general publicity-seeking hangers-on. Some decent debates, too, on censorship, Obama, prostitution (for money, not votes, this time), all-women shortlists, the Empire, and Scotland. Good stuff, and it kicks off this Thursday with ‘This House would Withdraw from Afghanistan,’ the headline speaker of which is General Sir Richard Dannatt, who was the soldier who gave Gordon Brown so much trouble on the Today Programme. Termcards, apparently, to come on Wednesday.

Slightly less happily, it now appears that the Union’s Gategate saga will end up costing it north of £9000. Gategate, you might remember, was begun by the decision of the Union Bursar (who is a full-time Union employee, and not an elected student official) to install a new security system at the Union’s entrance, so that members would have to swipe their cards to gain access. She spoke to a security firm and asked them to build and install a system at the St Michael’s Street gate. She was so enormously busy doing all of this that it appears to have slipped her mind to inform either the President or Standing Committee. When they found out, there was predictable consternation, and the issue eventually went to a poll, in which Union members decided that they didn’t want a security system after all. This was after a hole had been dug in the gatepost, and the machines to fill it had been specially manufactured. So now there’s a big hole in the Union wall, (which some unidentified wag has labelled ‘Lindsay’s folly’), and a £9000 bill sitting on the President’s desk. And, of course, someone has to pay to have the hole filled in again. Folly indeed.

I arrived in England two weeks ago Saturday, leaving sunny California and traveling via a 3-week circuitous route through central Europe to Oxford. Though I go to school in California, I’m a native of the state of Ohio, whose state motto is “The Heart of it All,” perhaps equally due to its shape (vaguely heart-lik

e), and its embodiment of the virtues of Middle America.

However, I by no means consider my

self the

typical American, least of all when compared to European stereotypes of Americans: I do not talk, chew, or conduct international affairs in a loud and boisterous manner. Nor am I a devotee of the sport known here as “American football”. While I am perhaps the biggest fan of American action films you will ever meet, and I consider monster truck shows the gift of a benevolent God, aside from this my consumption of American popular culture is limited to pop songs played through the speakers of elevator (lift) cars.

While culturally speaking I may be able to “pass” as European (I was asked throughout my European travels if I was Italian, for some reason), people in the UK nevertheless seem to have no trouble identifying me as American. It still seems odd to me that the key to understanding why this is so lies behind the way I say my a’s and my r’s. Over the past two weeks, the way I speak has become synonymous with an identity, and the minute I open my mouth I can’t help but feel that by some, I am pegged as a Sarah Palin-loving, gun-toting cowboy. These phonetic differences are of particular interest to me as a student of linguistics.

Thinking about this cultural-linguistic synonymy, and the differences between our two Englishes, made me curious about how it all developed, and I did a bit of research. While today, these dialect differences are remarkable oddities and linguistic curiosities, they once were quite important in the very creation of national identity. Arguments over the pollution of British English, on the one hand, and the iconoclastic creation of a uniquely American language, on the other, occupied a good part of 18th and 19th century intellectual life. Our two languages did start as the same language, after all, as early as Roanoke and Jamestown. But over the course of its evolution in a new place, with new ideas and new contacts, the American English of the end of the 18th century had begun to look quite different.

One figure in the debate over American English whom I find particularly fascinating is Daniel Webster. For this man, observing, discussing, and in a sense even creating American English was tantamount to creating America. As he remarked in his unprecedented 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, “It is not only important, but in a degree necessary, that the people of this country should have anAmerican Dictionary of the English Language… Language is the expression of ideas; and if the people of one country can not preserve an identity of ideas, they can not retain an identity of language.”

It should be noted that unlike linguists today, Webster was a prescriptivist-instead of speaking of how language is (a descriptivist outlook, the one most commonly taken in modern dictionaries), he spoke of how it ought to be. He was a chronicler with an agenda. To this end, beyond producing his dictionary, he also produced a spelling book and a grammar compendium meant for school instruction. His preface to this book is a strongly-worded diatribe against British English:

“Europe is grown old in folly, corruption and tyranny…. For America in her infancy to adopt the present maxims of the old world, would be to stamp the wrinkles of decrepid age upon the bloom of youth and to plant the seeds of decay in a vigorous constitution.”

He likewise wrote in 1817, following the War of 1812 (in a letter to John Pickering, more on him in a bit): “I trust the time will come, when the English will be convinced that the intellectual faculties of their descendants have not degenerated in America; and that we can contend with them in letters, with as much success, as upon the ocean.” He was not exaggerating when he went on to predict that American English and British English would one day be as mutually incomprehensible as Swedish and German.

More than an ideologue, Webster actually significantly altered the way we spell and pronounce English in America. It is no exaggeration to say that the majority of American-British spelling differences are the result of his advocacy in his spelling book, and his influence on pronunciation is likewise great. Thanks to Webster, American English has honor and color; fiber, center, theater; defense, offense, ax, plow, and story. While he also advocated dropping the e at the end of such words as determineand changing speak to speek, these changes were less popular. Such spelling reform was also attempted by Benjamin Franklin, who even sought to produce new characters for writing American English.

Not everyone was so enthusiastic. Many in Britain, as well as many in America itself, likewise prescriptively objected to what they saw as the degradation of the mother tongue. John Pickering was an American who nevertheless subscribed to this line of thought. He compiled the first dictionary of Americanisms in 1816, entitled A Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases which have been supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of America. Unlike Webster, his purpose in publishing this dictionary was not to celebrate but to condemn: he sought to purify the language of England from foreign influence.

Purists such as Pickering objected to almost any disagreeable English phrase by calling it an Americanism. Samuel Coleridge objected to “that vile and barbarous word, ‘talented’,” adding, “Most of these pieces of slang come from America,” without realizing that “talented” was not from America at all. Similarly with Mencken, who incorrect

ly objected to the non-American word “scientist” as an “ignoble Americanism”. Perhaps the best manifestation of this anti-American purism comes from Basil De Selincourt, who exlaimed “Only when we hear English on the lips of Americans do we fear for its integrity.”

Reaction against the purists was equally vehement: Brander Matthews, in his Americanisms and Briticisms, wrote: “any American who chances to note the force and the fervor and the frequency of the objurgations against American spelling in the columns of the Saturday Review…may find himself wondering as to the date of the papal bull which declared the infallibility of contemporary British orthography, and as to the place at which it was made an article of faith.”

Regardless of whether American English is a polluted or a purified form, the English of America in many ways represents the English of an earlier England-some have argued that in the case of colonies, one finds a sort of arrested linguistic development. While this has been disproved to an extent, phenomena such as the flat a of “class” and the rhotic r of “car” were originally quite prevalent in certain parts of England as well. The purists were thus to some extent greatly misguided.

The debate over these matters has largely cooled. I have come across several articles recently bemoaning the encroachment of American English upon the English of Britain. Similarly with the claim I heard that American English is the English of children’s television. But these are largely the exception – the two sides of the pond seem to have reconciled their linguistic differences… to an extent at least. I’ve personally got to work on not using my fake British accent in public, and I’ve met multiple British people now who insist on communicating with me in a southern drawl…

(I’d like to thank Albert C.Baugh and Thomas Cable for their A History of the English Language)

Anyone who has watched more than a few fleeting moments of Arsenal’s games this season will notice that Theo Walcott has been, well, rubbish. If his confidence isn’t sky high he appears to forget the importance of changing direction, repeatedly running straight at his full back. That’s if he bothers running at them at all; too often he simply hoofs in a weak cross at Arsenal’s lightweight front men, rather than using that blistering pace to get to the byline or fashion something for himself.

Fortunately for Mr Capello England actually has a rather impressive cohort of wingers. With Gerrard likely to be playing on the left there is little chance that any more than four of the following will make it, and for England’s sake, one can only hope that young Theo doesn’t make the cut ahead of one of them. So, here is a comprehensive list of English wingers who should actually be in competition for a place:

1.Aaron Lennon – Somebody should take Theo Walcott, sit him down in front of television, and force him to watch clips from this man’s season. Lennon has been the shining star of a really quite exciting Tottenham team. Lightning fast and with a devastating drop of the shoulder Lennon has been terrorising left backs all season. Just ask Erik Edman or Sylvinho how hard it is to catch him. Should be an absolute shoe-in to start.

2.David Beckham – Ageing yes, but as his bright start for Milan has shown there is still life yet in one of England’s finest servants. What better alternative to Lennon’s pace and youth than Beckham’s experience and crossing? Beckham can still be a vital option, especially for late set pieces, and of course, penalties. May be his last chance to win something with England, a chance he thoroughly deserves.

3.James Milner – Fabio’s new favourite, and indeed every managers’ dream. By no means the most talented player on this list, but his phenomenal work-rate and new-found versatility should guarantee him a place in the squad at least.

4.Joe Cole – It speaks volumes for the regard with which the above players are held that a man of Cole’s talent may not make the cut. Aside from Rooney, Cole remains the most inventive player in the England set-up. Will be tricky to fit him into the England plan, but Cole’s sheer ability should squeeze him in.

5.Ashley Young – For some reason Capello just doesn’t quite fancy Young. He is quick, a fantastic dribbler, and almost certainly the best crosser of a ball in the league, but has never been able to force himself into the forefront with England. If he is to make it he’ll have to sustain the form he so often finds only in bursts.

6.Stewart Downing – Finally getting some minutes for Villa, and certainly impressing. Quite why O’Neill has been playing him on the left rather than Young is mystifying, but he remains the only genuine left-footed option. And it is quite a special left foot

7.Jobi McAnuff – Well, this one is rather in jest, but his spellbinding run against Liverpool was no fluke. His performances in both the original tie and the replay were full of menace and confidence. What they showed was exactly what Walcott is currently missing. Each time McAnuff got possession he attacked his full back, and actually believed he would beat him. If only Walcott believed in himself as much as MacAnuff he would rocket back up this list.

England’s strength on the flanks should certainly preclude Walcott’s presence at the tournament, but one can only worry that it won’t. That hat-trick against Croatia still manages to sustain him, but unless he sharpens up his form for Arsenal he should only head to South Africa as a spectator.

It’s very nearly a year since Barack Obama’s inauguration as the 44th President of the United States. Besides Haiti, the big story this week in the US is that his approval rating is now worse than that of any other President a year in to his term except Eisenhower. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, his approval/disapproval score was 45% to 45%. Gallup has him 49-44. To put this into perspective, at his inauguration Obama had a 70-12 rating. The drop off to now is pronounced.

This almost unprecedented decline will form the basis of the commentary over the next few days into how Obama’s first year has gone. That’s not entirely fair. Firstly, his approval was still at 70% in May. Secondly, to focus too hard on the numbers would be a far too narrow approach in judging this President’s first year, and might lead to the wrong conclusion. The famous Lincoln meme, “you can’t please all of the people all of the time”, points to a trend often seen in political approval — the more you do, the more people you upset. And the Obama administration has done a great deal this last year, much of it unglamorous and a great deal of it politically inexpedient. The stimulus is thought by most economists to have been a great help in stabilising the crashing economy, but that hasn’t made people any less wary of the enormous volume of tax dollars spent in the process. Sonia Sotomayor was a well-qualified, historic pick for the Supreme Court, but that didn’t stop the right raising hell in some quarters. The incremental nature of the healthcare reform pursued to date has angered both left and right, and the continued engagement in Afghanistan remains a source of considerable angst.

Much of this is natural to the process of governing — tough decisions are by their nature sources of division. It is significant, though, given what we thought we knew about both Obama and his political machine at the start of his term, that the disconnect has become so distinct. The campaign had shown Obama to be a communicator unmatched by his peers. His political operation was quite possibly the most adept of any presidential campaign of the modern era. But in the government, on policy, the message is often cluttered, unclear. The public does not, it seems, associate Obama with political success, even while, compared with his predecessors, Obama’s first year has been a strong one. Partly this is the product of a gap between expectations and what has transpired; partly it is a simple failure of communication — a failure to provide adequate counterweight to the criticisms directed at the President, or to tout his achievements loudly enough.

The problem is bigger for the Democrats than for Obama himself. There are three years left before his next election, but the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate is up for reelection this November. Even in a good showing, the Democrats can likely expect to lose the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (who looks set to bomb in Nevada despite a very significant fundraising advantage), in addition to three or four other Senators — enough to lose their filibuster-proof majority. And if the current political climate progresses, legions of House Democrats will suddenly find their safe seats back in play.

As gains in the economy begin to be felt more widely, the national mood will change. But a sustained effort by the administration to recapture the support of the country is needed or the President’s popularity will continue to slip. In year one, they’ve been good at ‘doing’ but bad at ‘selling’. That will have to change or year two will be a rough ride.