When Sven Jerring passed away in 1979, he had been broadcasting for more than 55 years. He was the first true announcer; the first radio reporter. For decades, almost all important public events were broadcast to the Swedish public by Sven Jerring.The main object of this study has been to study Sven Jerring's broadcasting language over a period of some forty years in three different types of programme, thus to establish whether his use of language changed during that time, and whether differences exist with regard to the type of programme. Does his language progress from a more literary style to one of a more colloquial nature? The answer to this question was sought through the study of such aspects of usage that have traditionally been regarded as denoting a literary usage, and also through the study of usage in which a conflict exists between regional usage and Standard Swedish.The study of Jerring's language has been undertaken in the light of his own statements concerning language and the correctness of language. In an introductory chapter, his broadcasting language has been set against the general view of language in broadcasting circles.The study material consists of recordings taken from three types of programme that comprises elements of Jerring's repertoire over a long period: Barnens brevlåda (Bb) [Children's Letterbox], a programme in which Jerring reads from children's letters and in which children sing and perform; Vasaloppet (Vip) [The Vasa Race], a well-known cross-country skiing race held every year in Sweden; and football commentaries (Fo).The language used by the first radio announcers was correct and formally irreproachable. The announcer's pronunciation was regarded as being of great importance. Special haüäprov, voice tests, were employed as a means of ensuring that candidates for the job adhered to the accepted standard. New announcers seem not to have received any language councelling, whereas guest speakers did. The use of a script was the rule in all types of programme. Jerring was regarded highly by his colleagues for the painstaking preparatory work that he always did. The majority of his colleagues maintained that Jerring used key-words and occasional notes. His ability to improvise without losing the thread was stressed.In his statements concerning language, Jerring consistantly rejected vulgar forms, incorrect usage, and careless language usage.At first, Jerring used two pronunciation forms for the pronoun honom 'him': hânnâm (pronounced 3honom* with two short vowels) and honåm (pronounced 'huntom' with one long and one short vowel). The latter pronunciation does not appear in the material after 1944.The much-discussed subject pronouns de, di (pronounced 'dee*) and dom 'they' caused much trouble in broadcasting, the pronunciation dom being much questioned, despite the strong trend in colloquial usage to move from de to dom. Jerring was, during his entire career, a consistant di-user. The pronunciation of the object pronouns dem and dom 'them' both appear in his broadcasts from the 30's and 40's, whereupon dom becomes the only pronunciation.Jerring used to a surprisingly high degree the -es form of the present tense passive instead om the -s form. It is possible to discern a tendency in Jerring towards a gradual swing towards the -s form. Jerring often omitted the auxiliary verb ha 'have' in subordinate clauses. In the later material, the use of ha as auxiliary verb in subordinate clauses increases in the programme types Bb and Vip. Fo differs from Bb and Vip in the high frequency of incorrectly-constructed sentences (FelM). The incorrectness of these cases of FelM consists of the omission of the subject, which constitutes a natural economy with words in the style of commentary. Bb and Vip have a higher frequency of interjection macro-syntagms (IMS) and vocative macro-syntagms (TMS) than Fo.In conclusion, it may be stated that Sven J erring's broadcasting language did in some respects alter; the shift being towards a more informal and everyday usage. / digitalisering@umu

The purpose of this study is to explore the possibilities that the highly popular ChatGPT utility might have on education, and more specifically, how it could impact language development in the Swedish EFL classroom. This will be attained through a qualitative method and through multiple observations in real-life situations with students from upper secondary school. Additionally, for a more profound analysis this will then be combined with follow-up interviews with two educating teachers. The observations presented mixed results with some students displaying positive feelings towards ChatGPT while others reacted negatively to its extensive replies to simple inquiries. This proved to be valuable empirical data for this study's analysis. Therefore, this study has concluded that ChatGPT as a didactic tool, should be used in a controlled situation, and explained thoroughly with a specific intentional purpose. In other words, ChatGPT could be used in different teaching situations to enforce students' abilities or to ease the cognitive burden that many students experience when writing texts, as can be explained by cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988, p. 277). If the messages from the text-generator are clear, informative, personal, and concise it could be used to aid students in their writing process. However, the different complications that arise with the use of ChatGPT including a negative effect on student self-esteem must be considered.