Saturday, October 29, 2011

"Occupy" Wall Street

Occupying Word Street



The public protest over economic inequalities known as "Occupy Wall Street" has been going on nearly a month now, with the original demonstration in Manhattan's Financial District spreading to cities around the world. Thanks to the success of the movement, the lingo of the protesters has spread quickly, with the verb occupy in particular becoming a kind of rallying cry.

Occupy and occupation first became part of the language of protest in September 1920, when factory workers in Italy held strikes against working conditions. About 600,000 workers took control of the factories, and the movement was known in Italian as l'occupazione delle fabbriche, or "the occupation of the factories." The earliest evidence in the Oxford English Dictionary for the relevant senses of occupy ("to gain access to and remain in...without authority, as a form of protest") and occupation ("the action of occupying a work place, public building, etc., as a form of protest") come from reports of the 1920 Italy protests. Another term for protest-style occupation, the sit-in, has been in use since 1937, though it really took off in the '60s, along with such spin-offs as the teach-in and the be-in.

Occupy Wall Street has its origins in a call for action on July 13 by Adbusters Media Foundation, an anti-consumerist group of "culture jammers" based in Vancouver. "On September 17," the announcement read, "we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months." Adbusters made an explicit analogy to the protests of the Arab Spring, asking, "Are you ready for a Tahrir moment?" That's a reference to Cairo's Tahrir Square, the focal point of Egypt's anti-Mubarak protests. Another group involved with the planning of the September 17 protest dubbed it the U.S. Day of Rage.


As with many other grassroots movements these days, Occupy Wall Street got the word out via social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Meetup. On Twitter, the hashtag #occupywallstreet circulated in the leadup to September 17, often shortened to #ows. Protesters dug in for the long haul by taking over Zuccotti Park, a privately owned park not too far from Wall Street. (Zuccotti Park was originally known as Liberty Plaza Park, and the OWS crowd has tended to call it "Liberty Park.") As news spread of OWS, similar protests sprang up in other cities around the country, going by the labels Occupy Boston, Occupy Philly, and so forth. The website Occupy Together became a hub for coordinating the demonstrations in the U.S., while activists in cities around the world followed suit. Of course, there have also been parodies, like Occupy Sesame Street.

The demonstrators usually call themselves occupiers, though they've also been called occupants or even occupationistas. And with the growth of the movement, the verb occupy no longer requires "Wall Street" or any other object to follow it. About a week after the OWS demonstration began, in late September, people were already talking about "the Occupy protests" and "the Occupy movement." In a newspaper created for OWS, the Occupy Wall Street Journal, a list of "5 Things You Can Do Now" begins with #1: "Occupy! Bring instruments, food, blankets, bedding, rain gear, and your friends." To occupy can now be used as an intransitive verb meaning to take part in the Occupy protests. (Naturally, the hashtag #occupy has taken off on Twitter in recent weeks.)


Beyond the talismanic power of occupy, other words and phrases have become firmly linked to the movement. One popular slogan, "We are the 99%," began as a Tumblr feed with the message, "We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything." The "99 percenters" have been met by the "53 percenters," conservatives who instead focus on the 53 percent of households that pay federal income tax.

At the center of the action, in Zuccotti Park, the leaderless (and some would say message-less) protesters have developed their own terminology and practices for their experiment in "participatory democracy." At the OWS "general assembly," participants have overcome the ban on amplified sound by using what has been dubbed "the human microphone" or "the people's mic": after a speaker says a few words, those nearby repeat what was said in unison. Then those a bit further away repeat what the first group said, amplifying the message across the entire crowd. To register approval for a point under discussion, the occupiers use a hand-signal system that has been called "jazz hands" or "twinkling": those in agreement wave their hands with fingers pointed upward in silent applause. This hand-signal system has been used in the past by grassroots groups in Europe, such as Seeds for Change and Climate Camp.

As the protests continue to spread around the world (Occupy protests are scheduled to take place in 25 countries on October 15), the political impact becomes more profound, as does the linguistic impact. If the movement does have lasting consequences, we could be looking at occupy as a strong contender for the 2011 Word of the Year.

Update: You can hear more of my thoughts about the word occupy on the National Public Radio show "On the Media."

Source: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/3001/?utm_source=rss

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Insider jargon, bad customer service, airline

Airlinese

May 16th 2011, 16:57 by R.L.G. | AIR TRAVEL HELL

IT’S boring to say that airline travel has become a nightmare. From shedding belt and shoes at security, to being told to put your hands by your ears like a grand-theft-auto suspect so someone can evaluate what you look like under your clothes, to the watery four-dollar coffee with non-dairy creamer, to the ever-shrinking services offered by the carriers at ever-higher prices, no frequent air traveller needs reminding that flying today is less fun than most bus travel, and not always faster.

But when inevitable things go wrong and make the experience even worse, the airlines can do one big thing to help themselves in my affections: speak like human beings to the miserable customers. I’m stuck right now at the wrong airport due to a “ground stop”; the way this information was relayed, I had no idea what it meant or which airport was affected. As I shuffled off the plane I’d just boarded with my fellow sufferers I asked the pilot, “does that mean the weather at LaGuardia means we can’t land?”  “Yeah, zero visibility.”  Why hadn’t they just said that?

In general, flying is filled with phrases you’ll never hear anywhere else. You must “deplane”, not just leave the airplane. In a theatre you’re asked to switch your mobile phone off; on an American airline you’re told to put all electronic devices "in the off position”, whatever that is. Carry-on suitcases with wheels apparently became "rollerboards" "roll-aboards" in the mouths of the airline staff at some point. Many of the instructions seem replete with extra verbiage: seats and tray tables in "the full upright and locked position". Flights that are not just full but completely full.

Finally, one last thing about airlinese: the weird intonation that makes flight attendants stress every auxiliary verb:  “This is a completely full flight, so we do ask you to keep your bags beneath your seats. Federal regulations do prohibit smoking on all flights and you are asked to please not smoke in the lavatories.  All electronic items must now be switched off as we have closed the doors and are preparing to taxi.”  It’s weird. I notice when flight attendants don’t do this, and I appreciate it, because I hear a real human at the other end of the curly wire.

Most professions (including journalism) have insider language that has a social value for its users.  Lawyers, consultants, athletes and others are no different. But anyone dealing with the public (especially when giving them bad news like a ground stop) is well advised to put aside the jargon.  It makes you look not professional, but aloof and clueless about what your customers are going through.


Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/insider_language

Use of slang words, decade, ephemeral




Source: http://images.fastcompany.com/magazine/107/next_essay_chart.gif

NS spelling in advertising promotes poor spelling in youth

[...]

Lots of businesses create deliberately deviant spellings to offer "stand out quality". Take Kwiksave, Kwikfit, Krispy Kreme and my old favourite (sadly no longer with us) Mr Byrite. At some point, a creative in an advertising agency decided that Qu and C were just old-fashioned and that K was where it was happening. K was cool...sorry Kool. Is there something intrinsically more exciting about K than C, or is the act of mis-spelling something part of the rebellious appeal of a brand? Vodafone chooses to use f instead of ph and Toys'R'Us abbreviates too, but do we see them as edgy, unconventional brands? Maybe not.

But is it harmless fun, or is this trendy phonetic spelling something that sends out mixed messages to younger people? Is it leading to an acceptance of bad spelling? One teacher quoted in the BBC piece, Mark Rayner, seems to think so:
In terms of grammar we are fighting a battle on many fronts, from text speak, on the internet, even in emails now you find shortened words are creeping in. Pupils regularly write C for see and U for you. But one hopes schools can still teach the correct spelling and grammar.
[...]

Source: http://englishlangsfx.blogspot.com/2011/09/stoking-up-spelling-trubble.html

Twitter = promoting ability expression

Tweets, Tweeps and Twerps

Thursday, September 08, 2011
 
Any new technology that is used for communication is bound to lead to some concern about its impact on language use. In his book, A Better Pencil, the linguist Dennis Baron looks at how writing technologies such as the pencil, pen , typewriter and word processor developed and traces worries about these (then) new forms of communication. So it's not a great surprise to see that digital communication - text messaging, Facebook, MSN and Twitter being four recent examples - has spawned its own set of worries.

Twitter is often viewed as a fairly limited means of communication, forcing its users to transmit simple, terse 140-character messages to their followers, compressing and trimming language to create anodyne, bite-sized chunks, but in an article for The Guardian this week, the poet Carol Ann Duffy argues that texting and tweeting are brilliantly creative tools for helping people think more carefully about how they're communicating.

"The poem is a form of texting ... it's the original text," says Carol Ann Duffy. "It's a perfecting of a feeling in language – it's a way of saying more with less, just as texting is. We've got to realise that the Facebook generation is the future – and, oddly enough, poetry is the perfect form for them. It's a kind of time capsule – it allows feelings and ideas to travel big distances in a very condensed form."

It's an appealing argument and one that I think is very true. Writing creatively is not so much about writing as much as you can in as flowery and dense form as possible but finding the best ways to say what you want to say. Sometimes, the process of editing yourself down to fewer words, or finding a new combination of words, is exactly what you need to make yourself a clearer communicator. Poetry is often prized for its sparing use of telling words, and tweets can be like that too, honing the editing skills of their senders.
Inspired by this (if slightly confused: Duffy was talking more about texting than tweeting) The Guardian has launched its own Twitter poetry challenge which you can find here.

[...]

Source: http://englishlangsfx.blogspot.com/2011/09/tweets-tweeps-and-twerps.html

Americanisms and British English

Americanisms: 50 of your most noted examples

Comments (1295)
The Magazine's recent piece on Americanisms entering the language in the UK prompted thousands of you to e-mail examples.

Some are useful, while some seem truly unnecessary, argued Matthew Engel in the article. Here are 50 of the most e-mailed.

1. When people ask for something, I often hear: "Can I get a..." It infuriates me. It's not New York. It's not the 90s. You're not in Central Perk with the rest of the Friends. Really." Steve, Rossendale, Lancashire

2. The next time someone tells you something is the "least worst option", tell them that their most best option is learning grammar. Mike Ayres, Bodmin, Cornwall

3. The phrase I've watched seep into the language (especially with broadcasters) is "two-time" and "three-time". Have the words double, triple etc, been totally lost? Grammatically it makes no sense, and is even worse when spoken. My pulse rises every time I hear or see it. Which is not healthy as it's almost every day now. Argh! D Rochelle, Bath

4. Using 24/7 rather than "24 hours, 7 days a week" or even just plain "all day, every day". Simon Ball, Worcester

5. The one I can't stand is "deplane", meaning to disembark an aircraft, used in the phrase "you will be able to deplane momentarily". TykeIntheHague, Den Haag, Holland

6. To "wait on" instead of "wait for" when you're not a waiter - once read a friend's comment about being in a station waiting on a train. For him, the train had yet to arrive - I would have thought rather that it had got stuck at the station with the friend on board. T Balinski, Raglan, New Zealand

A US reader writes...

JP Spore believes there is nothing wrong with English evolving

Languages are, by their very nature, shifting, malleable things that morph according to the needs and desires of those who speak them.

Mr Engel suggests that British English should be preserved, but it seems to me this both lacks a historical perspective of the language, as well as an ignorance of why it is happening.

English itself is a rather complicated, interesting blend of Germanic, French and Latin (among other things). It has arrived at this point through the long and torturous process of assimilation and modification. The story of the English language is the story of an unstoppable train of consecutive changes - and for someone to put their hand up and say "wait - the train stops here and should go no further" is not only futile, but ludicrously arbitrary.

Why here? Why not stop it 20 years ago? Or 20 years hence? If we're going to just set an arbitrary limit on language change, why not choose the year 1066 AD? The Saxons had some cool words, right?
Mr Engel - and all language Luddites on both sides of the Atlantic, including more than a few here in the States - really need to get over it when their countrymen find more value in non-native words than in their native lexicon.

I understand the argument about loss of cultural identity, but if so many people are so willing to give up traditional forms and phrases maybe we should consider that they didn't have as much value as we previously imagined.


7. "It is what it is". Pity us. Michael Knapp, Chicago, US

8. Dare I even mention the fanny pack? Lisa, Red Deer, Canada

9. "Touch base" - it makes me cringe no end. Chris, UK

10. Is "physicality" a real word? Curtis, US

11. Transportation. What's wrong with transport? Greg Porter, Hercules, CA, US

12. The word I hate to hear is "leverage". Pronounced lev-er-ig rather than lee-ver -ig. It seems to pop up in all aspects of work. And its meaning seems to have changed to "value added". Gareth Wilkins, Leicester

13. Does nobody celebrate a birthday anymore, must we all "turn" 12 or 21 or 40? Even the Duke of Edinburgh was universally described as "turning" 90 last month. When did this begin? I quite like the phrase in itself, but it seems to have obliterated all other ways of speaking about birthdays. Michael McAndrew, Swindon

14. I caught myself saying "shopping cart" instead of shopping trolley today and was thoroughly disgusted with myself. I've never lived nor been to the US either. Graham Nicholson, Glasgow

15. What kind of word is "gotten"? It makes me shudder. Julie Marrs, Warrington

16. "I'm good" for "I'm well". That'll do for a start. Mike, Bridgend, Wales

17. "Bangs" for a fringe of the hair. Philip Hall, Nottingham

18. Take-out rather than takeaway! Simon Ball, Worcester

19. I enjoy Americanisms. I suspect even some Americans use them in a tongue-in-cheek manner? "That statement was the height of ridiculosity". Bob, Edinburgh

20. "A half hour" instead of "half an hour". EJB, Devon

21. A "heads up". For example, as in a business meeting. Lets do a "heads up" on this issue. I have never been sure of the meaning. R Haworth, Marlborough

22. Train station. My teeth are on edge every time I hear it. Who started it? Have they been punished? Chris Capewell, Queens Park, London

23. To put a list into alphabetical order is to "alphabetize it" - horrid! Chris Fackrell, York

24. People that say "my bad" after a mistake. I don't know how anything could be as annoying or lazy as that. Simon Williamson, Lymington, Hampshire

25. "Normalcy" instead of "normality" really irritates me. Tom Gabbutt, Huddersfield

26. As an expat living in New Orleans, it is a very long list but "burglarize" is currently the word that I most dislike. Simon, New Orleans

A US reader writes...

Melanie Johnson - MA student in Applied Linguistics, now in the UK

The idea that there once existed a "pure" form of English is simply untrue. The English spoken in the UK today has been influenced by a number of languages, including Dutch, French and German. Speakers from the time of William the Conqueror would not recognise what we speak in Britain as English. This is because language variation shifts are constantly changing.

Five years ago you might have found it odd if someone asked you to "friend" them, but today many of us know this means to add them on Facebook. The increased use of technology, in combination with the rise of a globalised society, means language changes are happening faster than ever, especially in places with highly diverse populations like London. Young people are usually at the vanguard of this, so it's no surprise to find London teenagers increasingly speaking what's been termed "multicultural ethnic English".

Changes in word use are normal and not unique to any language. But English does enjoy a privileged status as the world's lingua franca. That began with the British, but has been maintained by the Americans. It's difficult to predict how English will next evolve, but the one certainty is it will.


27. "Oftentimes" just makes me shiver with annoyance. Fortunately I've not noticed it over here yet. John, London

28. Eaterie. To use a prevalent phrase, oh my gaad! Alastair, Maidstone (now in Athens, Ohio)

29. I'm a Brit living in New York. The one that always gets me is the American need to use the word bi-weekly when fortnightly would suffice just fine. Ami Grewal, New York

30. I hate "alternate" for "alternative". I don't like this as they are two distinct words, both have distinct meanings and it's useful to have both. Using alternate for alternative deprives us of a word. Catherine, London

31. "Hike" a price. Does that mean people who do that are hikers? No, hikers are ramblers! M Holloway, Accrington

32. Going forward? If I do I shall collide with my keyboard. Ric Allen, Matlock

33. I hate the word "deliverable". Used by management consultants for something that they will "deliver" instead of a report. Joseph Wall, Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire

34. The most annoying Americanism is "a million and a half" when it is clearly one and a half million! A million and a half is 1,000,000.5 where one and a half million is 1,500,000. Gordon Brown, Coventry

35. "Reach out to" when the correct word is "ask". For example: "I will reach out to Kevin and let you know if that timing is convenient". Reach out? Is Kevin stuck in quicksand? Is he teetering on the edge of a cliff? Can't we just ask him? Nerina, London

36. Surely the most irritating is: "You do the Math." Math? It's MATHS. Michael Zealey, London

37. I hate the fact I now have to order a "regular Americano". What ever happened to a medium sized coffee? Marcus Edwards, Hurst Green

38. My worst horror is expiration, as in "expiration date". Whatever happened to expiry? Christina Vakomies, London

39. My favourite one was where Americans claimed their family were "Scotch-Irish". This of course it totally inaccurate, as even if it were possible, it would be "Scots" not "Scotch", which as I pointed out is a drink. James, Somerset

40.I am increasingly hearing the phrase "that'll learn you" - when the English (and more correct) version was always "that'll teach you". What a ridiculous phrase! Tabitha, London

41. I really hate the phrase: "Where's it at?" This is not more efficient or informative than "where is it?" It just sounds grotesque and is immensely irritating. Adam, London

42. Period instead of full stop. Stuart Oliver, Sunderland

43. My pet hate is "winningest", used in the context "Michael Schumacher is the winningest driver of all time". I can feel the rage rising even using it here. Gayle, Nottingham

44. My brother now uses the term "season" for a TV series. Hideous. D Henderson, Edinburgh

45. Having an "issue" instead of a "problem". John, Leicester

46. I hear more and more people pronouncing the letter Z as "zee". Not happy about it! Ross, London

47. To "medal" instead of to win a medal. Sets my teeth on edge with a vengeance. Helen, Martock, Somerset

48. "I got it for free" is a pet hate. You got it "free" not "for free". You don't get something cheap and say you got it "for cheap" do you? Mark Jones, Plymouth

49. "Turn that off already". Oh dear. Darren, Munich

50. "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" has to be the worst. Opposite meaning of what they're trying to say. Jonathan, Birmingham


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14201796

Use of "like"

[...]

It's possible that all this like-ing is a nervous habit that has simultaneously inflicted an entire generation of women, but I'm starting to wonder if something more is at work.

We know that saying "like" excessively is not a linguistic style that leads to others to view us as intelligent people. At best, someone who notices that I say "like" a lot would just ignore it or see it as a benign cyst on my verbal communication skills. At worst, too much "like" can cause my audience to shut themselves off to the idea that I could possibly have a valid opinion or worthwhile thought; after all, I'm talking like a silly girl. If it looks like a ditz and walks like a ditz and talks like a ditz, then it probably is a ditz. I know this. I know what saying "like" is conveying to people. I'm just not thinking about it while I"m doing it, at least not consciously.

Since we know that saying "like" too much leads others to negatively judge our intelligence, maybe inserting "like" into a sentence is something that we do to purposefully make ourselves sound less intelligent and forceful and therefore less formidable than we actually are. We're sabotaging ourselves! Saying "I'm an aerospace engineer," or "I enjoy reading Don DeLillo" sounds much more intimidating than "I'm, like, an engineer," or "I enjoy reading, like, Don DeLillo."

Maybe women of my generation have been taught, through positive social reinforcement, that we're supposed to pepper our speech with meaningless modifiers that make us sounds a little less sure of ourselves, a little less credible. No one likes a show off or a know-it-all. Better temper your smart-talk with assurance to whoever you're speaking that you're not, like, a threat or anything. Any girl who's been teased for middle school nerdery has likely developed a long standing aversion for the feeling of being excluded for being too smart or opinionated. This is the way that socially acceptable people talk. This is the way that pretty people talk. Women are taught that it's more important to be pretty and socially accepted than it is to be smart. Ergo, like.

[...]

See Judith Baxter's "Double-Voice Discourse".

SE - poor grammar disrupts flow of discourse

By Barbara Gunn
Posted Jun 22, 2011 @ 07:24 PM

Is English, as we know it, dead?

    Yes, according to Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten.
"The end came quietly when a reader castigated the newspaper for having written that Sasha Obama was the youngest daughter of the president and first lady rather than the younger daughter. The letter writer called the first couple the 'Obama's.' This constituted an illiterate proofreading of an illiterate criticism of an illiteracy ..." and, Weingarten concluded, "English, already severely weakened, died of shame."

    Not so fast, Mr. Weingarten. Maybe the patient can be revived. Who cares, except maybe a few newspaper columnists, former teachers of grammar, and those few copy editors who are still employed? Others may have some lingering memories of the differences between contractions and plurals, agreement of subject and verb, misplaced modifiers, dangling participles, and even, ugh, a teacher who insisted on diagramming sentences and perhaps something called "parsing." Those teachers red-penciled every spelling, punctuation, and usage error when it was quite clear what you meant. Who needs that?

    Some probably thought "spell check" would save English. It might have saved Sarah Palin some backtracking had she checked "refudiate" and been able to choose "repudiate" or "refuse" or George W. Bush with "fundamentaries" or "educationalizing."

    A different type of error occurred when spell check failed to stop a newsletter of mine stating a publication was not available when it should have stated it was now available.

 Spell check allows some amusing errors. Who would want to spoil the fun of discovering "spade" female cats are for sale or that men now have a choice of treatments for "prostrate" cancer?

    Newspapers have had to cut back on expenses for copy editors, but one would think Oprah could afford the best. Yet, consider this sentence from one of her news releases: "The audience was made up of some of who the programs called its most loyal viewers." A copy editor might change "who" to "whom" but would probably reword the sentence to read: "The audience was made up of some of the program's most loyal viewers."

    There is another poorly written sentence in Dr. Phil's column in the November 2010 Oprah magazine: "Explain to your mother that you will continue to provide the highest-quality care you can afford her with." Rewritten, this would be "Explain to your mother that you will continue to provide her with the highest quality care you can afford."

    The Oprah examples are not only ungrammatical, they stop the flow of the passage, forcing the reader to pause and think, "How was that again?"
    Some more errors someone someplace should have corrected:

"The fact of the matter is..." (White House spokesman), a redundancy similar to Judge Judy's pet peeve, "Basically."

"For Michele and I..." (President Obama), a compound object of the preposition; thus, "for Michele and for me."

"Two pair of eyeglasses" (Vision World), pair is singular; "one pair, two pairs."

"Lots of tension between Simon and I" (Ellen DeGeneres), compound object of preposition; thus, "between Simon and me."

    Those of us who bemoan grammatical errors and awkward sentences may not save English, but maybe another group will: employers.

    An employer might overlook or not recognize some of the fine points of grammar that annoy columnists and teachers, but why take that chance?

Barbara Gunn is an Oak Ridge resident and frequent columnist.


Source: http://www.oakridger.com/columnists/x898078904/Can-English-be-resuscitated

Political Correctness, Slutwalks, effects

Political Correctness: theories and debates

Thursday, June 23, 2011
 
I wouldn't normally copy a comment from another post over as a new post, but I think this might be helpful for tomorrow's ENGA3 if PC comes up as a topic.

This is in response to a comment by Jessica on the ENGA3 Language Discourses post from earlier in the week, asking about which theorists might be helpful on a question about PC. She'd already mentioned Sapir & Whorf, Miller and Swift and Norman Fairclough.  This is just my take on the theories and concepts that might help, so please add any comments or observations/criticisms to it as comments. I'd be interested to hear what anyone else has to say on arguments around PC.

I think you're fine with those theorists really, so long as you're clear that the underpinnings of the PC movement come from a belief that if you remove sexist & racist words from the lexicon, you'll either:
a) remove the pejorative association of that term, or
b) go some way towards changing the discourse around sexism and racism by drawing attention to the problems inherent in those words.
E.g. You could argue that the debate about "slutwalking" has polarised opinion about the word slut and "slutty" dressing, but on a very simple level it has at least made everyone think about the word, what it means and whether or not it should be used. It's also given young feminists the chance to enter the debate about women's rights in a way that might not have been open to them before, thus intervening in the discourse.

I think the other thing is that it's important to realise that PC is quite a rarity in linguistic terms in that there has been a degree of success in imposing a "top-down" model of language change. You could argue to what extent it's been successful, but in many ways it's one of the few attempts at linguistic engineering that's actually worked.

Most of the time, language change is bottom-up - usage leads to adoption and codification of patterns of lexis and grammar - and organic.

This of course means that there are some who would normally see themselves as descriptivists aligning themselves with a rather prescriptivist stance - PC, after all, is all about prescription. So it makes for some unlikely bedfellows: normally prescriptive language commentators arguing that PC is a bad thing because it's telling us what we should and shouldn't say; normally descriptive linguists arguing that PC is a force for good.

That's why I think it's such an interesting debate.


Source: http://englishlangsfx.blogspot.com/2011/06/political-correctness-theories-and.html

Monday, October 3, 2011

New Words in the Oxford Dictionary

Schmick new words added to Oxford Dictionaries Online

1 June 2011

We’ve managed to spare a few femtoseconds in our busy schedule to add some schmick new words to Oxford Dictionaries Online. Whether you enjoy crafting, free running, or just surfing the Internet on your lappy, you’re sure to find something to interest you amongst the new additions.

The world of computers and social networking continues to be a major influence on the English language, with the introduction of badware, social graph, and network neutrality into our dictionary. And if you thought a breadcrumb trail was only useful to Hansel and Gretel – think again. The new additions also hint at the danger of sneaking a peek at the Twittersphere or other social networks whilst at work – not everyone is thoughtful enough to add the NSFW warning!

The new words aren’t all about technology though: fashion and relationships also play an important role. If you’re a bridezilla, why not start getting ready for the big day with a mani-pedi? You could also show your green credentials by wearing an eco-chic dress zhooshed up with some accessories. Let’s hope the groom-to-be doesn’t get man flu on the wedding day though, otherwise you may struggle to drag him from his man cave. At least you can rely on the support of your bestie, although the fact that she’s a recent dumpee might quell her enthusiasm for such a romance-laden event.

However, there’s no point in panicking. Instead, why not put your feet up or, better still, have a lie-down on your memory foam mattress, watch an old-timey film on your plasma TV, and relax? Because even if it all goes horribly wrong on the day, you may get the chance for a do-over in the future …

Explore a selection of the new words and phrases added to Oxford Dictionaries Online, from bankster to ZOMG.

Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwords_may2011_us

New Entries to Oxford Dictionary

From BOLO to ZOMG

Monday, June 06, 2011
 
The latest list of new additions to Oxford Dictionaries Online is a veritable smorgasbord of delights. You can find new words linked to the global economic crash, so you get casino banking and the bunch of banksters who got us into it. You get words and phrases to do with fashion and lifestyle - mani-pedi and awareness bracelet - but above all you get masses and masses of words to do with new technology - breadcrumb trail, NSFW and permalink being obvious examples.

The range of word formation processes is interesting too, with plenty of blends (bridezilla) and compounds (lifehack), a whole load of affixation taking place (cyber-, perma- and eco- being popular prefixes), and the odd shortening with silly addition at end (laptop becomes lappy).

The full list is here and the accompanying article here.

Edited to add: there's a piece by Lucy Tobin in yesterday's Evening Standard, featuring some dubious commentary from a certain "language researcher" at UCL. Is posting this here, the definition of egosurfing? I'm not sure I quite get why it's newlogism rather than neologism..

Source: http://englishlangsfx.blogspot.com/2011/06/from-bolo-to-zomg.html

Simon Heffer - Prescriptivism: Tabloid Exaggeration

Strictly English by Simon Heffer: Part Three

In the third of four extracts from his book instructing us on correct written English, Simon Heffer tackles the language of tabloid exaggeration


The language of tabloid exaggeration is apparent on every page of what the trade calls the “red-top” newspapers. Prices soar, and then they crash. In politics, rows about issues are always erupting, and they are inevitably furious. The key participants in them clash, and they evince rage. The consequence of an outrage is that there will be a probe, leading up to a damning report. Its shock findings will be followed by a clampdown (or a crackdown). The opponents of the transgressors will slam their behaviour and seek to topple them.
Any death, especially of a teen, is a tragedy, and if more than one person dies it is a catastrophe. It leaves grieving loved ones gutted. Should the victim be a young girl, she was bubbly, especially if blonde. Young men, unless proven criminals, had in their lives had huge respect from their mates.
On the sport pages, managers of soccer teams vow that their sides will do better, knowing they risk being axed if they do not. Should a team suddenly become brilliant it will be because a star player has shown he is a hero, and can expect a hike in his wages. He may then launch a new career as a fashion icon. Should the team crash to defeat in a cup final, all its fans would be devastated.
Celebs will usually have amazing lifestyles that are revealed by the tabloid press as a series of stunning events. These will often be fuelled by champagne and sometimes by drugs. They entail living in a million-pound home, but also possibly sharing a love nest with a stunner and, as the paper will reveal, a love child as a result of extensive cheating on a spouse. The wronged woman (for it usually is a woman) will be brave during her ordeal: until it emerges that she has had a toyboy too, with whom there have been nights of nookie.
Some of the italicised words are pure slang and have no place in respectable writing – celebs and nookie, for example. Others come under the heading of coy or vulgar euphemism – toyboy, love child, love nest, cheating and stunner are what might more directly be called gigolo, illegitimate child, flat, committing adultery and mistress.
Some are simply failures of terminology: those who ride horses go riding, not horse riding; and those who shoot or hunt practise field sports. Blood sports is a politically loaded term popularised by opponents of field sports, and often used unwittingly by newspapers that have no editorial objection to them.

The main objection to most of the tabloid language highlighted above is that it devalues the currency. If somebody is devastated because his football team has lost a match, how does he feel when he gets home and finds his wife and children have been killed in a fire? If a woman is brave because of her reaction to the way in which her philandering husband embarrasses her publicly, how are we to describe her if she endures with courage and fortitude a horrible and potentially fatal illness? How can the ordeal of one experience compare with that of the other?

If one death, however sad for those concerned, is a tragedy, how does one describe the moral effect of a plane crash in which 400 people are killed? If a man who scores a goal is a hero, what term do we reserve to describe one who wins the Victoria Cross? If an MP suffers shame because he claims for a food mixer improperly on his expenses, what does he suffer if he is convicted of a criminal offence? If he is disgraced for being found in bed with someone else’s wife, what adjective do we use of him if he is found to have perpetrated a systematic fraud, or is convicted of paedophilia?

Above all, if unexceptional facts (often supplied to the newspaper by a celebrity’s public relations adviser) are described as having been revealed when, in fact, all they have been is disclosed, what verb is to be used for something that is a genuine revelation?

Other words have become clichés and are therefore meaningless. Little weight is carried now by the metaphorical use of verbs such as soar, crash, launch, emerge, fuel and clash. Nouns like toff, fat cat, clampdown and icon are just lazy labels for people or for abstract activities; so too are phrases such as damning report and shock finding.

Respect (huge or otherwise) in this context is an absurdity. It has become a word used in urban argot to describe not a feeling of reverence by one for another, but what a self-regarding person who has watched too many gangster films imagines is the estimation in which he should be held by others.

* Strictly English: the Correct Way to Write… and Why It Matters by Simon Heffer (Random House, £12.99 t £11.99) is published on Sept 9


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7978041/Strictly-English-by-Simon-Heffer-Part-Three.html

Simon Heffer - Prescriptivism at its finest and saddest: Common Mistakes

Strictly English by Simon Heffer

Strictly English: Part one

Simon HefferThe first of four exclusive extracts from ‘Strictly English: the Correct Way to Write... and Why It Matters’ points out some common mistakes

Simon Heffer: 'It is perhaps unfortunate, but we judge people often by how they speak or write' 

Even when armed with fine intentions, one can still fall into traps: for many words do not mean what one thinks they mean. In the interests of accuracy and precision, what follows is a reminder of the true meaning of some commonly misused words.

One occasionally reads in newspapers about people who have died or been injured in a car that has collided with a tree. This is remarkable, because a collision requires both parties to it to be in motion. The Latin verb collidere means to strike or clash together, and the etymology is strict. So two moving vehicles may collide, as may a car and a cyclist or even a car and a pedestrian, but not a car and a tree. Like so much of our language this is a question of logic based on the etymology; there is no perversity about it.
One should take care in using the verb contradict. For there to be a contradiction there has to be a statement, for a contradiction is a categorical statement in opposition to another. If one person says “the dog is black” when it is obvious that the beast is white, then to affirm its whiteness is a contradiction; and one may say: “I contradicted his assertion that the dog was black.” However, if what one is taking issue with is not a statement, but a suggestion, or advice, or a conjecture, then one does not strictly contradict it: one rejects it, disputes it, contests it, ignores it, doubts it.
Another word that people insist on wrenching from its correct etymology is decimate. As every schoolboy knows, this was a punishment meted out to Roman legions, in which every 10th man was killed. Its correct sense in English, therefore, is the reduction of the strength of a body of people by 10 per cent. It does not mean more or less than that, though it is often used to describe the near elimination of a contingent, and has been wrongly used now for more than 100 years. The greatest absurdity of all is a statement such as “the workforce was decimated by 20 per cent”, followed closely by “the town was decimated completely”.
In his speech in Chicago in 2008 on the night he won the United States presidential election, Barack Obama spoke of the enormity of the task ahead of him.

Educated writers will use the phrase “a fraction of the cost went towards overheads” without thinking of its logic.

What such writers inevitably mean is a small fraction, which although still vague is a perfectly acceptable statement. However, they forget that nine tenths is also a fraction, and so to use the noun without qualifying it with an adjective is almost meaningless.

Part of the problem with the interference of the state in our lives, and the apparent ubiquity of its bureaucrats, is that many of us find ourselves using – or misusing – the jargon of officials in our everyday language.

We use the word inquiry when we mean question or query. An inquiry is really a formal investigation, usually conducted by a judge or senior official into some aspect of government activity or something for which the state has ultimate responsibility.

Individuals should not say that they have an inquiry; they have a question, or a query.

Literally is one of the more abused words in our tongue. Should you find yourself about to write it, pause and consider whether it is really necessary; it almost never is. One hears people say “he literally jumped out of his skin”, when we all know full well he did nothing of the sort. Yet literally, according to the dictionary in this sense, means “with exact fidelity of representation”. One cannot say “he literally died” unless he is dead, and died as a result of the event being described; but people do say it when “he” still lives and breathes.

To make matters worse, circumstances in which one could use the adverb accurately would almost always render its use tautological. If one has fallen down the stairs, nothing is added to the statement “I fell down the stairs” by extending it to “I literally fell down the stairs”.

So avoid this usually pointless, and often silly, word.

*Next week: Why jargon is ruining the language

Strictly English: the Correct Way to Write… and Why It Matters
by Simon Heffer (Random House, £12.99 T £11.99) is published on September 9


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7956023/Strictly-English-Part-one.html

Simon Heffer - Prescriptivism: Jargon

Strictly English: Part Two

In the second of four extracts from his book instructing us on the correct way to write English, Simon Heffer takes on contemporary jargon


Some groups of people – state officials, academics, lawyers, certain breeds of scientist – talk to each other in a private language. Some official documents make little sense to lay people because they have to be couched in an argot that combines avoidance of the politically incorrect with obeisance to the contemporary jargon of the profession. Some articles written by academics in particular are almost incomprehensible to those outside their circle. This is not because the outsiders are stupid. It is because the academics feel they have to write in a certain stilted, dense way in order to be taken seriously by their peers.
Many officials seem to have lost the knack of communicating with people outside their closed world. Some academics, however, are bilingual. If asked to write for a publication outside the circle – such as a newspaper – they can rediscover the knack of writing reasonably plain English. They do not indulge themselves in such a fashion when they write for learned journals.
There are certain phrases that they feel obliged to use: positing a thesis always goes down well, for example, where most of us would simply assert or argue or, in a radical move, say. One example of this will suffice to make the point. It is from an American psychology journal:
"Human behaviour is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasise biological influences on human behaviour, because most social scientists explain human behaviour as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behaviour is a product almost entirely of environment and socialisation. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways."

It is almost as though the purpose of such writing is not to be clear: that the writer is recording research in order to prove to peers or superiors that he has discovered something.

What is important is that others do not think it is somehow clever to emulate them. Academia – however clever its inhabitants are supposed to be – seems the constituency most resistant to the notion of clarity being the most desirable aspect of writing. The example above is not unusual or extreme. Its long words, scarcity of punctuation, abundance of abstracts and even the odd tautology (“innate human nature”) suggest to me that little care was taken in trying to communicate what we must be sure are important ideas. Were I the sub-editor on whose desk this piece of prose landed, and it was my job to turn it into comprehensible English, I should need a stiff drink and a lie down before even trying.

This obscurity is not a vice confined to academics. Creative types tend to have their own languages too, which add to the aura of pretentiousness and self-regard that such people are reputed to have around them. I found the following on the website of Daniel Libeskind, the celebrated architect, about his designs to extend the Military History Museum in Dresden: “The wedge cuts through the structural order of the arsenal, giving the museum a place for reflection about organised conflict and violence. This creates an objective view to the continuity of military conflicts and opens up vistas to central anthropological questioning.”

Few people will have any idea what much of that means. The ideal style is one comprehensible to any intelligent person. If you make a conscious decision to communicate with a select group, so be it: but in trying to appeal to a large audience, or even a small one that you wish to be sure will understand your meaning, writing of the sort exemplified here will not do. This sort of writing used to be kept from the general public thanks to the need to find someone to publish it. The advent of the internet means that one is no longer so shielded from its pernicious effects as one used to be; and such accessibility and ubiquity threaten to have a pervasive effect on the soundness of the language and its susceptibility to corruption.

Next week: the dangerous language of tabloid exaggeration

Strictly English: the Correct Way to Write… and Why It Matters by Simon Heffer (Random House, £12.99 T £11.99) is published on September 9


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7966297/Strictly-English-Part-Two.html

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Removing Grammar from School = Crime - Norman Tebbit

In 1985 Norman Tebbit suggested in all seriousness that the abandonment of traditional grammar-teaching in schools had contributed to the breakdown of law and order.

"If you allow standards to slip to the stage where good English is no better than bad English, [it] tends to cause people to have no standards at all, and once you lose standards there's no imperative to stay out of crime."

Quote - Language Change - Henry Hitchings

"A language is a transcript of history, not an immutable edifice." - Henry Hitchings [The Language Wars: A History of Proper English]

(Language is a record of history and is always changing).

Analysis of 'lol'

David Mitchell talks about the modern use of the word 'lol'.

"I understand 'lol' to be, 'I acknowledge that you have made a joke and I wish to express my enjoyment of it'. and it's an excellent and compact way of saying it'.

Standard English = Success

Kevin Myers: Omigod, this linguistic gibberish is, like, so gross

By Kevin Myers
Friday June 03 2011

There was a single, telling moment when Michelle Obama spoke to a group of inner-city London schoolgirls the other day: she said they must work hard to be different "from other girls".

She didn't say "than other girls", the common and lazy usage into which many people have slipped. She correctly used the preposition rather than the relative conjunction, which -- for example -- the comparative adverb "better" would have attracted: hence, "different from" and "better than".

And she did that because she understood the rules of grammar. Two generations after the civil rights movement, and slightly less after the professional emancipation of women, black American women like Michelle Obama and Condoleezza Rice show how it's done.

Success is terribly simple: it comes from hard work, hard work and more hard work. There is no easy route. And the very first step is the basic step, of learning to speak properly, using grammatically correct speech, constructed from sentences that can be parsed and analysed.

You can bet that the young Michelle and young Condoleezza were taught just that from the age of 11 onwards -- argot, repressed; slang, outlawed; patois, abolished; ghetto-talk, taboo. Speak sentences that President Lincoln could understand, and you cannot go far wrong.

Gentle reader, before the summer term ends, and schools close for another entire meteorological season, ride the Dundrum Luas or the Dun Laoghaire Dart in the mid-afternoon and listen to the "I'm like" babble of today's schoolgirls, for whom 'Sex and the City' is not a faintly mordant sexual satire with gay jokes and subversive word-games, but a social template, a blueprint, an aspiration, and a language role-model.

This is like using 'Dad's Army' as the basis for a military academy, or '30 Rock' as an example of how to run a TV station.

Who in Irish schools understands grammar any more? Does any teacher correct a pupil who says "different than"? Do teachers even have the temerity to stop their pupils speaking in the gruesome American lilt that is now almost the received-dialect of the old Protestant schools of Dublin?

The largely anglicised and hateful Dort accent of 20 years ago, which followed the line of the suburban railway track from Dun Laoghaire to Howth like hogweed, and which turned all "ar" sounds into "or" has gone. It has been replaced by this ghastly transatlantic mishmash of badly-learnt phrases, which is no less absurd than South Sea Isla-nders trying to copy Elvis.

The truth is that educated Americans simply don't talk like the television representations of them. Their conversations don't consist of an endless series of declarations of, "I'm like", followed by a brief facial imitation of some sort of mood or attitude. They mostly compose their sentences grammatically and carefully, a legacy of the Germanic-style high schools which make the US so very Teutonic in culture.

But of course, television -- the inspiration for the blatherings of the "I'm like" generation -- barely touches upon that mundane reality of the quotidian. Why should it? It's merely entertainment in the US; but tragically in Ireland, it has become the great cultural inspiration.

How did the old Protestant schools of Dublin become a factory for a pseudo-American language, as spoken so gruesomely by Jedward? Listen to the real speech of Condoleezza and Michelle. It does not follow the infuriating upward intonation of the phoney-interrogative, it is always measured and correctly constructed, and it is entirely without the conversational tropes of 'Friends' and 'Sex and the City', which are meant to be little in-jokes, not syntactical language-guides.

It is now the norm for the English-speaking world to adopt American words and usages: even Australians, quite unbearably, now say "guys" instead of "blokes", which was once one of the great talismanic terms of Strine. Equally, Irish rugby players never say "lads" any more: no, it's all "guys guys guys". And though I find it all hateful, I know such word-transferences are probably both inevitable and unstoppable.

However, what's happening in middle-class Irish schools is unique. An entire social class is doing more than picking up words: it is changing its complete speech patterns -- its melody, its emphases, its grammar and its narrative style -- to conform with what it perceives to be American. But it's not authentic American, but a bad copy of what was originally a parody anyway.

Look, if you do insist on learning from America, then let it be a model from the best of the US, and not from some grisly TV fant-asy: from Harvard, MIT, Yale, Cornell, William and Mary, Michigan State, Stan-ford, UCLA, Annapolis, West Point and Quantico. That USA is really worth copying.

You can be sure of one thing -- if Condoleezza or Michelle were head teachers in the middle-class schools of Dublin, they'd put a halt to the plague of linguistic gibberish in a single morning's assembly. It's not too late, even now: all that's required to reverse these revolting trends is the cultural self-confidence to defend Irish ways of speaking, and to ridicule the utterly ridiculous -- I'm like, Omigod, no WAY, shut up! that is so toadally gross.
- Kevin Myers

Irish Independent


Source: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-omigod-this-linguistic-gibberish-is-like-so-gross-2665049.html

Language influences thought - The Economist - Lane Greene

Lane Greene of The Economist Johnson Blog, provides a mini lecture into how language influences thought.

He shows some psychological experiments to do with language that are worth a look.

Around halfway, he also challenges the notion that "Gen Y" is degrading the English Language, that in fact Jonathan Swift in 1712 said the same thing, that the English language is beyond repair and there should be an "Academie Anglaise". haha.

Teens ruining the english language? Please.

Many people have argued that the current generation (Gen Y) is ruining and degrading the English Language with texting and e-speak which deviates from the spelling and grammatical standards.

Of course, such notions are not true. in 1712, the great Jonathan Swift wrote that the English Language is beyond repair and suggested that there be an "Academie Anglaise" like the current "Academie Francaise" which would regulate and ultimately "save" the English Language.

300 years later and the language is not only surviving, but thriving.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

"bogus grammatical rules"

A foolish consistency

Posted by on September 28, 2011

No doubt you’re familiar with the following line from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay on self-reliance: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. In a comment to my recent post about hopefully, Marc Leavitt quoted it in relation to the strange persistence of outdated and unfounded rules of grammar and usage.

Most people know the kind of bogus grammar rules I mean: Don’t start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction; Don’t end a sentence with a preposition; Don’t split infinitives. Usage myths are less widely known but circulate perennially in writing circles and among those who enjoy collecting pet peeves. For example: you can’t say drive slow or different than; decimate can’t mean destroy most of; aggravate can’t mean irritate; and so on.

The last two – complaints about decimate and aggravate – fall prey to the etymological fallacy: that a word should or must mean what it meant originally or long ago, and maybe in another language altogether. The fallacy does not take account of linguistic change, and rests on the false idea that words cannot or should not change their meanings.

These restrictions have no basis in grammatical correctness, yet they have survived for generations, passed on from teacher to pupil or stickler to stickler-in-waiting. They have been called “classroom folklore” (Joseph M. Williams), “Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins” (Theodore M. Bernstein), and “zombie rules” (Arnold Zwicky).

We don’t have to like or use new words and usages. I don’t use literally to intensify figurative statements, because it weakens its literal sense – and what other word means literally so literally? But I don’t gnash my teeth over people using it loosely; people have been using literally non-literally, sometimes literarily, for literally centuries. Besides, it can be funny.

Growing up, I developed a temporary dislike for singular data, but it didn’t take much research and reflection (and yes, data) for me to realise that there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. So I’m fine with either form, depending on context. Notice that no one complains about singular agenda or stamina nowadays. But please, resist singular criteria for now.

Correctness is primarily a matter of convention, and conventions change. Consistency should be applied only as far as common sense carries it. If we want to do justice to words, it’s necessary sometimes to adapt to shifts in their meaning and usage, and to update our ideas of what’s acceptable, where, and why.

Source: http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/a-foolish-consistency

The Exclamation Mark - Modern Usage

Things to note:
  • Use of exclamation mark --> distinction between formal/informal more blurred
  • Increased frequency of "..." in informal contexts = discourse function? hedging??

Online writing is great!!!

Posted by on September 26, 2011


Source: http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/online-writing-is-great