Lingual Relativity

[Great Librarian]

So you're a lingual relativist then.

First, as it's important to understanding what the heck you mean, you are referring to linguistic relativism, right? As in, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? If you are (and it does seem that you are), then no, I am not, except in the most loose sense. It's a dated term that fails to fully take the critical, rational approach (read: scientific) to linguistics more currently espoused. It's somewhat of a false dichotomy to set-up some kind of hard line between relativistic and deterministic linguistics and likewise between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics and ask people to stand to either side. All linguistic research is necessarily descriptive and no one subscribes to a nearly hundred year old, not-quite-right hypothesis of language use. There are some aspects of both parts of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that are correct, but certainly neither one nor the other is universally true, especially considering modern work in the various fields of linguistics. It's actually quite indicative of an ignorance of linguistics to set up these dichotomies and to set people neatly within one side. Frankly, you're wrong; don't presume to label me (or anyone else) with your ignorant use of a largely rejected hypothesis.

 

[LucyDuke]

Mise isn't talking about Sapir-Whorf at all. You're making this way more complicated than it is. Relax.

 

[Great Librarian]

Mise isn't talking about Sapir-Whorf at all. You're making this way more complicated than it is. Relax.

I am relaxed. Of course, that was all predicated on the 'if'. So, if he's not talking about Sapir-Whorf what does he mean by 'lingual relativity'? I've never even heard the term or what he's describing so put.

However, he does appear to be describing some hacked up linguistic relativism and descriptivism and he does appear not to know what he's talking about. Whatever.

Anyhow, having reviewed a greater portion of the thread, I agree with what you've written. Sorry to be such a verbose echo. I suppose that's that.

 

[Mise]

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

I'm not asking whether it's appropriate, just whether it's possible. For example, I would say that in certain situations, it's inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly, and in others it's not inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly. In both cases, however, the word is spelt incorrectly. ("dis" is an incorrect spelling of "this" regardless of the context.)

If you agree with that, then surely you must agree that there is a correct and incorrect way of spelling things?

My question, then, is where that is decided (or dictated or prescribed or described, however you want to call it)?

There is only mutual comprehension. If it doesn't exist, then there is a communication problem.

Am I correct in assuming that the spirit of you views can be summed up in this sentence? (Since you agree with what Lucy's said, and she's said basically the same thing, I'm further encouraged to assume this.)

 

[azzaman333]

Anyone who uses the phrase "your mom" or any variation of, should be killed for being terminally stupid.

 

[Mise]

Anyone who uses the phrase "your mom" or any variation of, should be killed for being terminally stupid.

Well now you're just asking for it...

 

[azzaman333]

Well now you're just asking for it...

Just trying to figure out whether I need to add more people to my ignore list.

 

[Great Librarian]

Am I correct in assuming that the spirit of you views can be summed up in this sentence? (Since you agree with what Lucy's said, and she's said basically the same thing, I'm further encouraged to assume this.)

Oh, assume whatever you want.

 

[Mise]

In that case I'll assume there's no disagreement.

 

[LucyDuke]

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".

Ah - you used a better word than I did. Presentation.

The most effective presentation is not always the most effective communication. Verbosity is an impediment to clear communication, but it's commonly seen as a boon to presentation, because it gives an illusion of education.

I'm kind of straying here, but to get back to the resume thing, I really don't think it is about understanding. Not in most cases, anyway. That ghetto talk can be a lot more eloquent and communicative than the clean-cut English full of school words*, but it doesn't matter how understandable something is if no one will give it a fair shake.

*One of Jazz's "thug" friends complained that - I can't remember whether it was Will or Carlton - used a "school word" on an episode of Fresh Prince. It's the perfect term for what I'm talking about.

I'm not asking whether it's appropriate, just whether it's possible. For example, I would say that in certain situations, it's inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly, and in others it's not inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly. In both cases, however, the word is spelt incorrectly. ("dis" is an incorrect spelling of "this" regardless of the context.)

If you agree with that, then surely you must agree that there is a correct and incorrect way of spelling things?

My question, then, is where that is decided (or dictated or prescribed or described, however you want to call it)?

"Dis" is a correct spelling of "dis", though! (Do y'all read Mark Twain over in Britainland?) Does that slight difference of pronunciation really make it a new word with a different set of correct spellings? I don't think so. "Dis" is a correct spelling of "this" if "this" is pronounced "dis" and we're writing dialog.

There are incorrect spellings. I think there can be spectra of correct spellings.

It's decided by us. We decided tonite and donut weren't totally wrong, because we were familiar with them and understood them and sometimes we liked them better than to-night and doughnut. We don't all agree on every detail, but as long as we understand each other, everything's working just fine.

There's no central authority. We all own shares. Don't mind the French, we've always known they're silly.

 

[Great Librarian]

In that case I'll assume there's no disagreement.

One would think deadpan would be overtly apparent to you being British.

LucyDuke, lovely job.

 

[Mise]

Before I start, sorry for breaking your post up like this...

(Do y'all read Mark Twain over in Britainland?)

Mark Twain spells incorrectly for literary effect.

"Dis" is a correct spelling of "dis", though! ... Does that slight difference of pronunciation really make it a new word with a different set of correct spellings? I don't think so. "Dis" is a correct spelling of "this" if "this" is pronounced "dis" and we're writing dialog.

I don't know if you noticed, but you just contradicted yourself. You say that "dis" is a correct spelling of "dis", yet "dis" isn't a word with its own set of correct spellings (that is, "dis" doesn't have a correct spelling).

That notwithstanding, you go on to say that "dis" is the correct spelling of "this" if we're writing a certain dialogue -- isn't it simpler to say that "dis" is an incorrect spelling of "this", but the accent/dialogue/however you wish to call it demands an incorrect spelling? Isn't it easier to say that, if an author writes "dis", he is merely reflecting the incorrect spelling of his subject matter?

(That is, isn't it easier to say that it's acceptable to say "dis", even though it's an incorrect spelling.)

There are incorrect spellings. I think there can be spectra of correct spellings.

It's decided by us. We decided tonite and donut weren't totally wrong, because we were familiar with them and understood them and sometimes we liked them better than to-night and doughnut. We don't all agree on every detail, but as long as we understand each other, everything's working just fine.

There's no central authority. We all own shares. Don't mind the French, we've always known they're silly.

I don't know what you mean by "it's decided by us". Do we vote on it? I'm not being facetious, but I never decided that "tonite" or "donut" weren't totally wrong. I think they're incorrect spellings. Am I wrong? Am I right? How do we decide?

One would think deadpan would be overtly apparent to you being British.

Guess it doesn't work both ways eh?

 

[Great Librarian]

(That is, isn't it easier to say that it's acceptable to say "dis", even though it's an incorrect spelling.)

Umm... no. Spelling is a mere convention. The letters that represent the sounds we make when we say words are just that, conventional representations. Something can be spelled correctly or incorrectly only in regard to its context or intended audience and even then I would advise that in the face of comprehension spelling is of little importance unless it makes comprehension problematic.

To illustrate my point about the rather arbitrary assignment of phonetic value to the letters in the English alphabet, I'll direct you to several pronunciations of the word 'stock'.

/stæk/
/stɑːk/
/stɒk/

Note that the first version has quite a nasal vowel, noticeably American (particularly in the Great Lakes region) and when pronounced is indistinguishable from the word 'stack' (in fact, they are represented identically in the IPA for that pronunciation), the first iteration is common to Britain and Commonwealth countries and the latter is a slight variation that would make the word rather indistinguishable from 'stalk'. Yet, these different pronunciations are all spelled 'stock' in English only because of the convention of a standard spelling. It is easily noticed that the only reason a standard spelling would be adopted would be to aid in the communicability of the written word. If something is misspelled, but comprehensible, it is only a deviation from a standard, not some absolute rule of spelling and it no more makes the word incorrect than if 'this' is pronounced /ðɪs/ or /dɪs/ or if thirty is pronounced /ðɜrti/, /θɛərti/ or /tɜrti/.

It should be noted that a standard written form of English was established only relatively recently and that some extant languages still have no standard nor even a written word at all.

I don't know what you mean by "it's decided by us". Do we vote on it? I'm not being facetious, but I never decided that "tonite" or "donut" weren't totally wrong. I think they're incorrect spellings. Am I wrong? Am I right? How do we decide?

You are wrong. They are not incorrect. In fact, that is how some people spell them and you seem to be able to understand them. By the act of recognizing the word you have admitted that you understand it. You really must stop using the terms 'correct' and 'incorrect', unless you are going to qualify in what way you mean the words to be incorrect.

Also, since you are a participant in language, you are an arbiter of what is admitted into the language you use and what is not. It is largely a democratic process (perhaps the most so) because it is the supra-majority of the speakers of a dialect or (regional) variant who will decide how to speak or how to write.

Guess it doesn't work both ways eh?

Mhmm.

 

[Mise]

Can you give me an example of a word that's spelt incorectly?

 

[LucyDuke]

Mark Twain spells incorrectly for literary effect.

I don't know if you noticed, but you just contradicted yourself. You say that "dis" is a correct spelling of "dis", yet "dis" isn't a word with its own set of correct spellings (that is, "dis" doesn't have a correct spelling).

That notwithstanding, you go on to say that "dis" is the correct spelling of "this" if we're writing a certain dialogue -- isn't it simpler to say that "dis" is an incorrect spelling of "this", but the accent/dialogue/however you wish to call it demands an incorrect spelling? Isn't it easier to say that, if an author writes "dis", he is merely reflecting the incorrect spelling of his subject matter?

(That is, isn't it easier to say that it's acceptable to say "dis", even though it's an incorrect spelling.)

I don't know what you mean by "it's decided by us". Do we vote on it? I'm not being facetious, but I never decided that "tonite" or "donut" weren't totally wrong. I think they're incorrect spellings. Am I wrong? Am I right? How do we decide?

Mark Twain spells phonetically when he's writing dialog, that's all. He doesn't spell words strangely just for the hell of it.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Cobalt is a shade of cobalt, cobalt is a shade of blue. Cobalt can refer to a blue by itself, you don't need to specify the parent for each instance.

It wouldn't be simpler because it's not the case! If a particular spelling is "demanded" by something, how can it possibly be an incorrect spelling? It's the one we need! Also, in the case of dialog, an author doesn't have a spelling irregularity as a reference, he's just writing what he hears. It's not as though someone spells the words they speak.

We decide by what words we choose to use. In 1960, interrobang wasn't a word. You're helping it into the dictionary. (That's where we keep all the ones we've been in agreement on for a long time. ) If only four people are writing "lafter", we're going to ignore them, but if it catches on, it becomes more and more acceptable, more and more "correct", as we acknowledge it. I refuse to contribute to the acceptance of donut and tonite, but it doesn't matter, they're spreading. I think they're gross. But I don't get to decide what words other people use, or how they spell them. We decide by what we use, and we determine by looking at what's used. I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than this. It's not clear-cut, it's just a matter of general consensus.

EDIT: Also, there's your example. Lafter. For that thing the guy is doing.

 

[Abaddon]

Errmm. I'm too stupid to really want to understand this. Sorry

 

[Mise]

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Cobalt is a shade of cobalt, cobalt is a shade of blue. Cobalt can refer to a blue by itself, you don't need to specify the parent for each instance.

Ahh, so "dis" and "this" are correct spellings of "this", but "dis" isn't a correct spelling of "dis", because "dis" isn't a real word. Gotcha!

It wouldn't be simpler because it's not the case! If a particular spelling is "demanded" by something, how can it possibly be an incorrect spelling? It's the one we need!

Yes, it's appropriate to the situation. Spelling the word incorrectly is appropriate to the situation. The situation demands an incorrect spelling. Is this a problem? I don't think so, and I think it's a much simpler, neater way of describing how, for example, Mark Twain uses language in his works.

We decide by what words we choose to use. In 1960, interrobang wasn't a word. You're helping it into the dictionary. (That's where we keep all the ones we've been in agreement on for a long time. ) If only four people are writing "lafter", we're going to ignore them, but if it catches on, it becomes more and more acceptable, more and more "correct", as we acknowledge it. I refuse to contribute to the acceptance of donut and tonite, but it doesn't matter, they're spreading. I think they're gross. But I don't get to decide what words other people use, or how they spell them. We decide by what we use, and we determine by looking at what's used. I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than this. It's not clear-cut, it's just a matter of general consensus.

EDIT: Also, there's your example. Lafter. For that thing the guy is doing.

Surely it's a "less correct" spelling of "laughter", rather than an "incorrect" one? Besides, I understood you perfectly, so there's no comunication failure. If someone wrote "lafter", I'd pause for a moment, perhaps, but for no longer than if someone wrote "dis" or "dat" or "tonite" or "donut" or "incorectly" or "comunication".

 

[Abaddon]

I like the evolution of language, even if it seems to be simplifying//dumbing down

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not asking whether it's appropriate, just whether it's possible. For example, I would say that in certain situations, it's inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly, and in others it's not inappropriate to spell a word incorrectly. In both cases, however, the word is spelt incorrectly. ("dis" is an incorrect spelling of "this" regardless of the context.)

If you agree with that, then surely you must agree that there is a correct and incorrect way of spelling things?

My question, then, is where that is decided (or dictated or prescribed or described, however you want to call it)?

Yes, I think that there are correct and incorrect ways of spelling words. But when I post in chat, I often do not correct my spelling before tapping "enter".

Cultural subgroups and their "leadership" detemine what is correct and incorrect for various constituencies.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ah - you used a better word than I did. Presentation.

The most effective presentation is not always the most effective communication.

Wouldn't an ineffective presentation, by definition, be poor communication, and if you have communicated your message well, your presentation was effective? Or have I missed your point?

Verbosity is an impediment to clear communication, but it's commonly seen as a boon to presentation, because it gives an illusion of education.

Smart people see though it immediately. Not so smart people ignore it and go to sleep. Average people can be entranced. Typically, people hide their lack of depth in a subject behind verbosity or think that it will make them sound educated or do not have the interview skills to know when to shut up and listen.

I'm kind of straying here, but to get back to the resume thing, I really don't think it is about understanding. Not in most cases, anyway. That ghetto talk can be a lot more eloquent and communicative than the clean-cut English full of school words*, but it doesn't matter how understandable something is if no one will give it a fair shake.

*One of Jazz's "thug" friends complained that - I can't remember whether it was Will or Carlton - used a "school word" on an episode of Fresh Prince. It's the perfect term for what I'm talking about.

"Jazz's thugs" is completely outside of my experience and so the connection is totally lost on me. It is probably a generational "thing", but as a communcation device to support your previous statement it fails completely and thereby tends to weaken your comments about "dis". It doesn't make you wrong, just less effective. If I knew what you meant, I could suggest an altenative, but I cannot.

"...but to get back to the resume thing..." ghetto talk may be be far more eloquent and communcative that "clean-cut English", but it may not be more effective at communicating what the other party is looking for. Sending a painting or crafting your resume in the style of e e cummings may be very creative endeavors, but fail at getting you the job. They are just the wrong approach for that task in most cases.

An unwillingness to even listen to an alternative approach is wrong, but a very human trait. that is why you should use a multi-dimentional presentation style.

You might enjoy Edward Tufte: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

He is all about the principles of effective communication that have value far beyond the quantitative arena.