Lingual Relativity

[Arwon]

What you're discussing is the age old clash of descriptivism and prescriptivism. And, well, this, basically.

Louis Menand ("Thumbspeak", The New Yorker, 10/20/2008) aims a gibe at my profession:

"[P]rofessional linguists, almost universally, do not believe that any naturally occurring changes in the language can be bad."

As a representative of the species, I can testify that this is false. Rather, we believe that moral and aesthetic judgments about language should be based on facts, not on ignorant and solipsistic gut reactions.

Unfortunately, it's precisely ignorant and solipsistic gut reactions that tend to dominate discussions of English usage, and so linguists and other sensible people are forced to spend time trying to clear things up. This sometimes leads to the false impression that we have no stylistic opinions or grammatical judgments.

Let me decline to enlist on either side of this concocted War of the 'Scriptivists, and speak instead on behalf of a third group: the Rational People. We believe in making value judgements about language use: some writers are better than others, and even good writers sometimes make poor choices and outright mistakes. But we also believe in the value of facts, both about linguistic history and about current usage. We're unwilling to accept the assertions of self-appointed linguistic authorities about what is "right" and "wrong" in standard formal English, if these assertions conflict with the way that the best writers write. We understand that vernacular forms of English are not faulty or degenerate approximations to the formal standard — instead, they're just, well, vernacular. We're willing to accept, as Horace was, that new words and structures, and new uses of old words and structures, can be a valuable addition even to the most formal linguistic registers.

In a nutshell: we don't worship our own prejudices, and we're more curious than censorious.

There's a characteristic psychological dynamic here. People like Mr. Rose see a bit of writing or talk that irks them. They're not interested in analyzing the problematic usage, tracing its history, looking at its contemporary distribution and its relationship to other phenomenon, exploring the nature of their own reaction to it — no, they just want to make those people stop, dammit. And they want the rest of us to join them in howling at the miscreants. If we suggest a more temperate investigation, or dare to question whether a crime has been committed at all, they turn their wrath on us as well. In fact, our analytic detachment seems to annoy them even more than the object of their jihad does.

 

[gangleri2001]

Finally Perfection, Lucyduke and Arwon brought some common sense to this thread.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah they are the same language. Dialect is a totally different thing. They are different dialects.

[wiki]A language is a dialect with an army and navy[/wiki]

 

[Dachs]

What the carnal knowledge application is this poopity thread about?[/I]

I approve of this part of your post.

 

[Mise]

So is there a correct way of spelling things?

 

[Shekwan]

But regardless, each has a set of words and standard spellings that they don't share. Having to bridge those differences is inefficient. It's a good example of why a set dialect should have have a standard ruleset in order to facilliate efficient communication.

But the differences aren't that great. Color/Colour you still know what I'm talking about. Common sense bridges the differences.

[wiki]A language is a dialect with an army and navy[/wiki]

Interesting read, thanks.

 

[LucyDuke]

So is there a correct way of spelling things?

Some variant of "mostly".

 

[Mise]

Some variant of "mostly".

sorry, I don't folloW?

 

[Birdjaguar]

If your version of the language fails to communicate your message to your intended audience effectively, then you need to change it. When communicating to people of power and influence in your life, it is best to match their language expectations or you increase the risk of failure in your efforts.

If I were reviewing resumes and cover letters and one letter was written in "ghetto English", that applicant would be at a disadvantage in my selection process since I do not typically expect or seek out staff who cannot write in a more traditional style.

 

[Perfection]

I thought you were a rap producer, have you changed careers?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I thought you were a rap producer, have you changed careers?

It was a short lived career. My first group "Bad Rap" lived up to its name. In part though I have only myself to blame. I ran out of rhymes for "qutub" in what was to be the follow up to their TV appearance on an Albuquereque public access channel. "Sufi Wrap" was targeted at the dervish market and the video was going to have the group whirling in festive tortilla-like shrouds.

Anyway, I'm working on their comeback song in my spare time. It will feature verses for each of the stable element groups in the periodic table.

Its all about effective communication with your target audience, as I said above.

 

[LucyDuke]

No, you understand what you call ghetto English - at that level- perfectly well, it's not a matter of understanding. And using "ghetto English" doesn't indicate that one can't write in different flavors. People use their language differently for different purposes. The average person does not address a judge the same way he addresses his drinking buddy. Listen to peoples' telephone voices.

In the case of resumes, using the standard is part of conveying an image - just like not cursing in a courtroom, not wearing assless leather pants in a courtroom. Writing "well" and using the [wiki]prestige dialect[/wiki] is part and parcel of presenting oneself as a supersrsly professional. Avoiding the word ain't is just ironing your shirt. You're still dressed, you're still understood, it just conforms better to the image of success and respectability that employers usually want their employees to show. It's not about understanding, it's about appearance.

 

[Mise]

i still wanna know if things can be spelt incorrectlY

 

[Brighteye]

No, you understand what you call ghetto English - at that level- perfectly well, it's not a matter of understanding. ...Writing "well" and using the [wiki]prestige dialect[/wiki] is part and parcel of presenting oneself as a supersrsly professional.
You're still dressed, you're still understood, it just conforms better to the image of success and respectability that employers usually want their employees to show. It's not about understanding, it's about appearance.

I think that it's more about courtesy than appearance is. For every mistake in speech or writing that someone makes there's more of an effort for everyone else to understand it.
Understanding is not merely a binary switch: it takes time and effort, and if you habitually make people put more effort into understanding you, you need to be that much more worth understanding.
It's really very hard to be sure that one will always be communicating with those who use a certain dialect or are familiar enough with one's mistakes not to notice them, and that's why some people regard the use of standard English, whether it's arbitrary or not, as a good thing.
Every time I read a sentence with a 'mistake' in it, or a new word, I pause. It stops my line of thought and costs me time and effort. For many mistakes (and for some grammatical constructions, according to Steven Pinker) this effort is infinitessimal, but over a few hours it becomes frustrating and significant. Over the course of an employment contract it would be immensely annoying.

This is different from ironing one's shirt, which does not impede communication at all, nor cost co-workers, friends or customers any effort.

 

[LucyDuke]

i still wanna know if things can be spelt incorrectlY

Yes, they can.

I think that it's more about courtesy than appearance is. For every mistake in speech or writing that someone makes there's more of an effort for everyone else to understand it.
Understanding is not merely a binary switch: it takes time and effort, and if you habitually make people put more effort into understanding you, you need to be that much more worth understanding.
It's really very hard to be sure that one will always be communicating with those who use a certain dialect or are familiar enough with one's mistakes not to notice them, and that's why some people regard the use of standard English, whether it's arbitrary or not, as a good thing.
Every time I read a sentence with a 'mistake' in it, or a new word, I pause. It stops my line of thought and costs me time and effort. For many mistakes (and for some grammatical constructions, according to Steven Pinker) this effort is infinitessimal, but over a few hours it becomes frustrating and significant. Over the course of an employment contract it would be immensely annoying.

This is different from ironing one's shirt, which does not impede communication at all, nor cost co-workers, friends or customers any effort.

I'm not talking about mistakes particularly. Even though you and I will disagree on what constitutes a mistake, what I'm on about is just different standards. I see your point that ironing isn't a perfect comparison, but I do think it's more about appearance than courtesy. I think people are generally more concerned with looking good than they are with making things easier for others.

Wrinkly shirts distract some people too. Those people need to chill out, and so do people that fume over apostrophes.

 

[Mise]

Good! I'm glad at least some aspects of English are absolute and not subject to the whims of inner city youths, and their ghastly "txtspk"

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, you understand what you call ghetto English - at that level- perfectly well, it's not a matter of understanding. And using "ghetto English" doesn't indicate that one can't write in different flavors. People use their language differently for different purposes. The average person does not address a judge the same way he addresses his drinking buddy. Listen to peoples' telephone voices.

In the case of resumes, using the standard is part of conveying an image - just like not cursing in a courtroom, not wearing assless leather pants in a courtroom. Writing "well" and using the [wiki]prestige dialect[/wiki] is part and parcel of presenting oneself as a supersrsly professional. Avoiding the word ain't is just ironing your shirt. You're still dressed, you're still understood, it just conforms better to the image of success and respectability that employers usually want their employees to show. It's not about understanding, it's about appearance.

There are people who use "appearance" as the critical value in presenting themselves or selecting others. It is a bad practice. Part of the job of a great applicant is to break that mindset with a "presentation" that forces the reviewer to adopt a new set of standards for all applicants and thereby giving the great applicant the edge. You cannot do that if you cannot communicate effectively in a way the "receiver" understands

On the other side of the table, you need a clearly established set of minimum requirements to be effective at the job and the ability/willingness to provide applicants with a stage large enough for them to dance. Since so few hiring managers can do that, it is mostly up to the aplicant to "color outside the lines".

i still wanna know if things can be spelt incorrectlY

Like so many things in life, it depends. You have to figure out when it is appropriate and when it is not.

 

[Great Librarian]

Do you believe that all arrangements of letters are equally valid, and that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to use words, no "real" or "made-up" words, no "correct" or "incorrect" aspects of language?

Huh? I hope you know that you've asked 5 questions there. I also hope you know that they cannot be simply answered 'yes' or 'no' and that they are problematic in that they either contain incorrect presumptions, false dichotomies or contain too little information to answer properly.

Do you believe that all arrangements of letters are equally valid, ...

In what sense?

Does qfgtbvcd have any meaning to you? Can you identify a referent? No? Neither can I. I made it up. It doesn't point to any thing. Clearly, within the context of the English language (indeed within that of any language), a lexical item must have a referent and it must be understood by an interlocutor to have any meaning. So, any arrangement of letters that follows those two necessary rules is a word. It doesn't make any sense, though, to speak of 'validity', especially 'equal validity' when referring to arrangements of letters. They are either understood to mean something or they are not.

... and that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to use words ...

The subjective notion of 'right' and 'wrong' can be checked at the door, please; words are either understood to mean something or they are not. If they are not, then there is a problem of communication on the part of one party. If they are, then there is no problem with their use.

... no "real" or "made-up" words ...

All words are 'made-up'. That they are made up does not make them less 'real'. Words are simply symbols that are agreed upon to point to a referent.

... no "correct" or "incorrect" aspects of language?

Which aspects of language? Though, it hardly matters, because as long as something is understood, it cannot be, in any absolute sense, 'incorrect' as far as use goes.

Do you believe that the cultural context is important; for example, that it's okay for inner city youths to say "dis" and "dat", but more enlightened, intelligent, middle-class suburban Dads should say "this" and "that" instead?

No, and never mind you blatant presumptions about the education of middle-class suburban fathers or that of inner-city youth.

Do you believe that there is some magical, imaginary codex of sorts that lists what arrangements of letters are lingually "right" and lingually "wrong", with a brief description of how they would be used if they were used in a lingually "right" fascion, and that this list is objectively correct?

Again, huh? The way your brain works on language is from the set of rules, the grammar, of the language you are using. Spelling conventions are just that, conventions. There is no objectively correct way to spell something. Further, the only way to tell how a word should be used would be by learning it, usually through context, from other speakers of the language barring the use of a dictionary or other language resource.

(Why are you talking about magical, imaginary codices? I know it's a question, but if such a codex did exist it couldn't be either magical or imaginary. This is a clear example of the problems with your questions. These are actually informal fallacies, linguistic fallacies.)

Or do you believe that, if people are not aware of such a codex, or dismiss the validity of the codex (and it seems obvious that any attempt by humans to construct or derive a list of such divine inspiration would be inherently subjective), are justified in using words that are either not in the list, or are in the list but with an attached description that differs from the way in which they are using the word?

This hardly makes any sense. There is no objective codex of language use for people to appeal to and say, 'Aha! Got you there! Clearly, you must pronounce 'this' with a thistle and not a /d/. And, also, 'random' cannot be used to describe an event, occurrence or action that is coincidental and surprising. It doesn't just irritate me, it's in this handy codex of language use given to me by the Easter Bunny.'

There is only mutual comprehension. If it doesn't exist, then there is a communication problem. 'Recommending you revisit that linguistics class for first year university students.

 

[Great Librarian]

And I'm wondering where, for example, Grice's maxims of efficient communication fit in. Or the need for phonic clarity. In the only language I know, there are many words that sound too damn similar to each other.

Grice's maxims, while they are ostensibly handy, are not necessarily useful or necessary for cooperative communication. Taken at face value they are fine, but they cannot be universally applied to all discourse.

The assignment of sounds/spellings to meanings is ultimately arbitrary, but there are better and worse ways of making those assignments.

Erm... how? That's a wholly subjective statement. Certainly you're not appealing to some method of paring down language to its most essential and basic elements in an attempt for it to be as absolutely efficient as possible?

I can tell you where that leads when taken to its utmost extreme in one sound: /ɜ/

A bit problematic, don't you think?

I happen to agree that perhaps it would make communication smoother if we pared down redundancy and increased explicitness in language, but natural languages make a good enough effort on their own for look, we can communicate.

 

[Mise]

Huh? I hope you know that you've asked 5 questions there. I also hope you know that they cannot be simply answered 'yes' or 'no' and that they are problematic in that they either contain incorrect presumptions, false dichotomies or contain too little information to answer properly.

In what sense?

Does qfgtbvcd have any meaning to you? Can you identify a referent? No? Neither can I. I made it up. It doesn't point to any thing. Clearly, within the context of the English language (indeed within that of any language), a lexical item must have a referent and it must be understood by an interlocutor to have any meaning. So, any arrangement of letters that follows those two necessary rules is a word. It doesn't make any sense, though, to speak of 'validity', especially 'equal validity' when referring to arrangements of letters. They are either understood to mean something or they are not.

The subjective notion of 'right' and 'wrong' can be checked at the door, please; words are either understood to mean something or they are not. If they are not, then there is a problem of communication on the part of one party. If they are, then there is no problem with their use.

All words are 'made-up'. That they are made up does not make them less 'real'. Words are simply symbols that are agreed upon to point to a referent.

Which aspects of language? Though, it hardly matters, because as long as something is understood, it cannot be, in any absolute sense, 'incorrect' as far as use goes.

No, and never mind you blatant presumptions about the education of middle-class suburban fathers or that of inner-city youth.

Again, huh? The way your brain works on language is from the set of rules, the grammar, of the language you are using. Spelling conventions are just that, conventions. There is no objectively correct way to spell something. Further, the only way to tell how a word should be used would be by learning it, usually through context, from other speakers of the language barring the use of a dictionary or other language resource.

(Why are you talking about magical, imaginary codices? I know it's a question, but if such a codex did exist it couldn't be either magical or imaginary. This is a clear example of the problems with your questions. These are actually informal fallacies, linguistic fallacies.)

This hardly makes any sense. There is no objective codex of language use for people to appeal to and say, 'Aha! Got you there! Clearly, you must pronounce 'this' with a thistle and not a /d/. And, also, 'random' cannot be used to describe an event, occurrence or action that is coincidental and surprising. It doesn't just irritate me, it's in this handy codex of language use given to me by the Easter Bunny.'

There is only mutual comprehension. If it doesn't exist, then there is a communication problem. 'Recommending you revisit that linguistics class for first year university students.

So you're a lingual relativist then.