Yes, 5 Words Can Ruin it for You

After a week of heightened tension with North Korea making all of the headlines, it’s important to keep things in perspective. Many of us forget that it only takes a few incorrect words (5 to be exact) to create epic linguistic disasters of the same importance as a potential nuclear threat. Or so the mavens would have us believe.

One outlet gave us the click bait hyperlink “5 Words You’re Probably Saying Wrong.”

From the Huffington Post. 4/12/2013

From the Huffington Post. 4/12/2013

Fortunately, the author of the piece, William B. Bradshaw, chose the title “How Do I Say It?” to address the five most frequent inquiries about pronunciation: either, neither, tomato, harass, and Caribbean. To be fair, his conclusion was that all of these words have multiple accepted pronunciations. Though I acknowledge that his position on either is more nuanced, I disagree on his assertion that the preferred pronunciation of either is e-ther. This article, at least, is not quite so maven-esque.

Another news site didn’t even bother to provide its own content but chose to hyperlink another article published five months prior, “5 Words That Make You Sound Stupid.” The focus of this piece was five commonly used crutch words. The author, Mariam Jehangir, describes crutch words as follows:

Dictionary.com compiled a short list of these words that we carelessly slip into sentences to give ourselves more time to think and, in doing so, ruin the sentence. These so-called “crutch words” detract from your main message and don’t add useful meaning to your statement. (emphasis added).

Examples include:

Actually

Basically

Honestly

Like

Literally

In linguistics, these so-called crutch words are called fillersThe author is correct in noting that they give us more time to think. But she missed their other, more important role. They signal to others that we have paused to think but are not finished speaking. When speaking, most of us use fillers at some point. There is nothing careless about their use. They don’t ruin our sentences. And they don’t detract from our main message unless we use too many of them. And they certainly don’t make us sound stupid. They are natural parts of our spoken language (shared with many other languages) used by the vast majority of us. If they make us sound stupid to some rare person out there, too bad for them for not understanding how language works.

If someone were to correct your use of honestly:

Um, excuse me, but you just used the word “honestly” like a crutch word. “Honestly” should only be used to add meaningful honesty to your sentence.

then you will know you are speaking to a maven and, as such, have my permission to ignore them. Let their correction become part of the white noise in the background and carry on. The bellicose rhetoric of the grammar mavens is inversely proportional to any semblance of relevance they think they have.

There is a bright side to these nearly worthless salvos in the grammar war. More often than not, in the comments section we will find mavens getting caught and called out in their own errors.  I’ll leave you with one exchange found in the Jehangir article:

obongo replied:

You are wrong, the most over used phrase is “you know”. Just count the number of times some of these slow thinkers use that phrase because they usually cannot think in straight lines to express a cogent thought.

PotKettle replied:

“Overused” is one word, so I guess you won’t be joining the elite caste of fast thinkers any time soon.

Priceless.

© 2013 Jay P Laughlin

Advertisements

Even Dictionaries Don’t Always Get It Right

Quoth the Maven:

I was recently informed of a terrible error in the Dictionary of American Regional English. This error is so egregious that it rivals the permissive Webster’s 3rd in lacking the linguistic and authoritarian fortitude to identify proper American Regional English.

The error in question is the word smidget.

Everyone is quite familiar with the abbreviated form smidge, which means a small amount of something and is most often used in reference to food. However, anyone worth their salt knows that the long-form of this word is smidgen. Only the most intellectually slovenly of speakers would ever mispronounce it smiget.

If this error is not corrected, the DARE should surrender all claim to authority on matters of American Regional English. This is at heart a symbol of the permissiveness that has infected our society, our education system, and our families. The very future of our glorious language is at stake.

© 2012 Jay P Laughlin

Usage Poll: Shined or Shone?

After reading my last post, my wife expressed some doubt about the appropriate usage for the past tense of to shine. Her belief that some of the examples were incorrect only emphasized my point. I believe that having both a regular and an irregular past tense of a verb is superfluous and will eventually lead to the loss of the irregular form.

However, the question still remains as to how interchangeable the regular and irregular past tense forms are for the speaker community.

The sentences in question are as follows:

The sun shined on the clear blue lake.

The sun shone on the clear blue lake.

Each of these sentences is considered correct by some authorities while the other is incorrect.  The American Heritage Dictionary suggests that they are interchangeable. So there is no hard and fast rule as to which is correct.

I decided to see what you all think. Are both OK? Do you prefer one over the other?

© 2012 Jay P Laughlin

Out-shined by Norma Loquendi*

Grammar mavens like to complain. One complained recently that the narrator of a history program used an incorrect past tense for the word to shine. The narrator used shined when, as the argument goes, he should have said shone. Of all of the nuanced usage distinctions that mavens sometimes get themselves all worked up over, this is arguably one of the weakest and most useless. The fact that the verb to shine has two past tense forms is an example of unnecessary redundancy in our language.

So what is causing this hullabaloo over the past tense of to shine? Simply put, it’s a matter of whether the verb is used in its transitive or intransitive forms. However, it gets a bit more complicated than that.

The transitive form occurs when the verb has an object and takes the past tense shined. For example:

Mark shined his shoes before going to the dance.

The intransitive form occurs when the verb does not have an object and takes the irregular past tense shone. For example:

The sun shone all day last Saturday.

At this point the distinction is easy enough. True, two past tenses for the same verb is excessive and superfluous, but it’s not difficult to keep straight. But it doesn’t end there.

When the verb is transitive but less active, there is a disagreement over whether the use of shone or shined is appropriate. Consider the following sentences, both of which are considered correct by some but incorrect by others.

The sun shined on the clear blue lake.

The sun shone on the clear blue lake.

Compound the needless distinction of dual past tenses with disagreements over how the distinction is best applied and you have a grammar rule that’s ripe for the garbage bin. In fact, the American Heritage Dictionary, which normally provides an explanation of contentious usage that has been submitted to a usage panel, doesn’t even mention the issue of “less active” transitive usage. In fact, it has the intransitive form taking shone or shinedMore prescriptive than other dictionaries, if the American Heritage Dictionary reports that shone versus shined is optional, then I think it’s safe to say that the distinction is close to disappearing.

Shined will eventually reign. Remember that the rule for forming regular past tenses only requires adding the suffix –ed to the root. The exception to this rule occurs when separate (irregular) past tenses can be provided by memory. In the case of the verb to shine, there is an overlap that does not follow the rule. Given that we tend to obey word forming regularity as we learn our language, a child learning English will default to the regular ending unless some other input (parents, teachers, etc.) introduces the irregular form and its contexts. But this requires that the distinction is held strongly enough that most fluent speakers remember it as well. And as we have seen, the unnamed narrator didn’t remember it, and there is disagreement over whether it is necessary or optional. In this case, I predict that the loser will be irregular shone. And the grammar sticklers risk appearing even more lugubrious than normal by insisting upon keeping it.

*norma loquendi: a lexicographic principle, started by Samuel Johnson, stating that the standards of word meaning and usage are established by the usage customs of the speaker community. In other words, the principle is to report how speakers use language, not dictate how the speakers ought to use the language.

This principle is still in use by lexicographers today for descriptive dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.

© 2012 Jay P Laughlin

Dirty Words and Gender Switching in the Blues

What do the words nut, lemon, rider, and cock have in common?

According to Debra Devi, author of the book, The Language of the Blues: From Alcorub to Zuzuthey are all sexual euphemisms that can switch gender references in blues music. An example of gender switching occurs with the use of riding as a metaphor for sexual intercourse. Devi explains that this usage has been common for centuries:

…but the rider was typically male. In the blues, though, a rider can be of either sex. Both male and female singers sing the traditional song “C.C. Rider,” for example; they just change the gender of the rider.

“C.C. Rider, see what you have done
You made me love you now your man [woman] done come”

An “easy rider” is someone who sponges off his or her lover.

To read more, see the article Debra Devi: Dirty Words and Gender Switching in the Blues

…or read the book.

English-only? There is a Cure!

Various versions of the English-only movement have been in existence in the US since the early 1800s. The idea that having one official language establishes some sort of political or cultural unity has a pernicious hold on the minds of many Americans. I was not surprised, therefore, to see the specter of English-only arise again in the political sphere.

In addressing potential state-hood for Puerto Rico, (a primarily Spanish speaking US territory) Former US Senator Rick Santorum was recently quoted as saying:

Like any other state, there has to be compliance with this and any other federal law… And that is that English has to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language such as Hawaii but to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language. (Reuters. March 14, 2012)

Not only does this display a mind-numbingly misinformed understanding of federal law regarding the supposed requirement that English be the primary language, but it is also certain to not win over any friends in a primarily Spanish speaking community. While there are some states that have passed laws making English the official language, not all of them have done so nor, contrary to what might be asserted otherwise, does federal law require it.

For reasons that should be apparent to anyone with half of a functioning neuron, organizations such as the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (English-only position paper) are opposed to English-only efforts. The LSA stated their opposition in a 1986-7 resolution that declares, among other things,

The English language in America is not threatened. All evidence suggests that recent immigrants are overwhelmingly aware of the social and economic advantages of becoming proficient in English, and require no additional compulsion to learn the language.

American unity has never rested primarily on unity of language, but rather on common political and social ideals.

Like I said, anyone with half of a functioning neur-… never mind. You’d think that, in a 21st century America, we’d not even have to state something so obvious. Somehow facts just shouldn’t get in the way of political expediency, I guess.

Though I often work with English language learners, I don’t often encounter the sorts who openly advertise their allegiance to the English-only movement. This has occurred just once. I tried to talk about the myths that the concept of English-only promotes but wasn’t getting anywhere.

During the conversation I was reminded of a quote by Noam Chomsky describing the object of linguistic theory:

Linguistic theory is concerned with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions such as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interests, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.

In short, it is something that does not exist. Speech communities are not homogeneous and no speakers are perfect in their knowledge of their language. We are all subject to memory and recall limitations, distractions, attention shifts and errors. We are all imperfect speakers.

Perhaps I failed to articulate my position, or perhaps my fellow commuter was too stubborn to see my wisdom, but when he also affirmed a belief that people with accents shouldn’t teach English (of course, we all have accents) I resorted to a tactic based on the idea that we are all imperfect speakers. I made him doubt his own language proficiency.

“Before you say that, shouldn’t you speak English better than you do?”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, you’ve already made numerous errors in this conversation.”

The conversation ended shortly thereafter.

© 2012 Jay P Laughlin

The Hermemorphic Shift: a Parody

Why'd you pull me into this, huh?

Why’d you pull me into this, huh?

A seldom discussed linguistic principle, the Hermemorphic Shift is named after Hermes, the Greek god of language. The principle states:

In any conversation in which the meaning or pronunciation of a word is contested, a speaker’s religious belief about the word in question trumps all other scientific and conventional usages.

In short, it is an appeal to having access to a god’s knowledge of the word. Thus, for an otherwise competent speaker to change the meaning of a word to suit their purposes they need only say something to the nature of “It is my religious belief that the meaning is otherwise.” Case closed.

When it comes to disputes about pronunciation this is rarely a serious matter. Claiming heavenly or elysianic authority over the pronunciation of atomic weapons as NOO-kyoo-ler, for example, or that the people of our nation are uh-MER-kins, doesn’t tend to produce mutual unintelligibility. (Though if more Americans favoring the latter pronunciation understood the joke, they might work harder at their elocution).

However, when it comes to disputing word meaning, a heremorphic shift is absolutely corrosive to the discourse. Although both speakers may hold the same, or similar, religious beliefs about all other word usages, the first to rely upon this principle for a word in dispute is usually the “winner” of the debate. As an example, consider the following (partially) parodic dialogue inspired by Rep. Tim Murphy:

S1: Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug?

S2: This drug is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient. It does not interfere with pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition of abortifation.

S1: Ma’am, that is just your interpretation and I appreciate that.

S2: A contraceptive prevents pregnancy before fertilization. So it’s not my interpretation. That’s what the scientists and doctors…

S1: We’re not talking about scientists. Almighty Wotan himself told me that this pill is an abortifacient, using that very word! Ma’am, I’m asking you about a religious belief. This is, therefore, a violation of a religious belief. Wotan himself condemns it.

If by definition a substance is a contraceptive but the speaker’s religious belief declares that it it not, then it is not. Science, definition, and conventional usage (norma loquendi) be damned!

The speakers may be using the same words but now they are decidedly not speaking the same language. The winning strategy by employing a hermemorphic shift is, therefore, through assuring mutual unintelligibility. It dissolves the meaning of the word in mid-discourse and without warning to such an extreme degree that words, in general, no longer have meaning in the conversation. The complete lack of even the appearance of meaning, and the subsequent difficulties in analysis that ensues, is why linguists shun this principle.

© 2012 Jay P Laughlin