Lingual evolution?!

[PonderBee]

I can’t speak for other nations but the US is absolutely infected with an abundance of widely accepted and used non-existent words. I am not referring to instances of wordplay such as street-talk – while I may not embrace street-talk I find it to be of some creative value. I am pointing to the widespread acceptance and usage of the bastardization of an actual word.
Examples that I simply can’t ignore are heighth, conversate and irregardless.

[Geoff]

I can’t speak for other nations but the US is absolutely infected with an abundance of widely accepted and used non-existent words. I am not referring to instances of wordplay such as street-talk – while I may not embrace street-talk I find it to be of some creative value. I am pointing to the widespread acceptance and usage of the bastardization of an actual word.
Examples that I simply can’t ignore are heighth, conversate and irregardless.

Ahh, my particular bugbear is 'percific' for specific! Aaaaarghhh :laser:

-Geoff

[Lee]

"Upskilling" - I work for the public sector in the UK and I have heard this make believe word used by management when talking about improving peoples language skills, I wanted to simultaneously burst out laughing and to and to slap her.

Usually I couldn't care a less about language, but some people just take things to far.

[cjs55]

I like irregardless, it just rolls nicely off the tongue ; )

I really dislike words created by political correctness, or corporate world words. Stuff like prioritize...

[PonderBee]

Nukeular .... makes me sob.

[Helios]

Who says what is a word or not? If it conveys meaning in a manner understood by the masses of said tongue, how is it really any different than those words that have been officially sanctioned by those in authority of such things? Myself ,I will not be subjected to the tyranny of Webster and his minions ! Besides I like "irregardless". :P

[jimkopelli]

Linear is a word... but the arch professors here have created a similar one, one that I despise... planular.

[Chicken]

Hooo da fawk cares 'ow u sey it, if da msg is gttin across, nigga!?!?!

Oh, and I think Britian is far worse off than the United States at this point. Since text messaging was introduced to their youths and teens their literacy rate has gone down.

m8 wn we gon 2 da pub?
c u l8r 4 a pnt!!!
ROFFLES!

[Lee]

Hooo da fawk cares 'ow u sey it, if da msg is gttin across, nigga!?!?!

Oh, and I think Britian is far worse off than the United States at this point. Since text messaging was introduced to their youths and teens their literacy rate has gone down.

m8 wn we gon 2 da pub?
c u l8r 4 a pnt!!!
ROFFLES!

Do not get me started on text speak :mad:

[ApeTheDog]

Happens in Belgium too.

heps instead of hesp. It's the silliest thing. Course, none of english speakers you can tell, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

[CreativeChaos]

Well, from what I have read in Ancient History (one of my fav subjects) is language evolution is par for the course.

[Eileen]

Well, from what I have read in Ancient History (one of my fav subjects) is language evolution is par for the course.

Yep. Language changes. I guess we need the nazis around to slow it down a bit in our fast-paced media culture. I guess. Or we could be like the French and get a council together to make sure the language NEVER, EVER CHANGES and other dialects NEVER, EVER taint our Pure Standard one.

[Geoff]

America has had various councils for the preservation of English, every bit as restrictive as the French one. Doesnt change anything of course!

-Geoff

[Elro]

I really dislike words created by political correctness, or corporate world words. Stuff like prioritize...

Oh come on, "prioritize" is useful. In certain situations, you can use it to make procrastination sound much more efficient.

[jimkopelli]

I brought this thread up with my mom... (a teacher in a school in the boonies) and her favorite is supposably. And axing people questions.

[Eileen]

I brought this thread up with my mom... (a teacher in a school in the boonies) and her favorite is supposably. And axing people questions.

Is she a teacher in NC?

The latter example is DEFINITELY dialect-related.

[songbird36]

A language should be capable of growing and evolving. Those who try and argue otherwise are Luddites.

Some words fall out of usage and become redundant or archaic, and other words (like "upskilling" and "prioritise") enter common usage and eventually become part of the idiom. These words can be extremely useful, and frequently do not have an existing alternative.

But what really galls me is the *misuse* of existing words in a way which enters common parlance. Commonly misused words include:

"Competency" (when what is meant is a person's "competence"). The two words have different meanings.

"Perverting the course of justice" when what is meant is "subverting" or "impeding" the course of justice. The word "pervert" does not mean the same as "divert" or "subvert".

OK, rant over.

[Solo]

You really can't call a word non-existent becasue someone made it up. All words were made up by someone. The word is givin a meaning. People then use the word. If we didn't accept new words language wouldn't evolve.

[jimkopelli]

Is she a teacher in NC?

The latter example is DEFINITELY dialect-related.

She used to be, (for about 7 of the 10 years we lived there) then we moved.

Believe me, I know.

[jimkopelli]

You really can't call a word non-existent becasue someone made it up. All words were made up by someone. The word is givin a meaning. People then use the word. If we didn't accept new words language wouldn't evolve.
True... but that doesn't mean we can't be annoyed at words that are ignorant attempts at working versions... or at words that are still new and haven't passed into general useage/acceptance yet.

[Shai Gar]

i slightly agree with you songbird, words should be allowed to be added to the english language all the time, (or else we would not have shampoo) but words should not be taken out of the english language, especially if they have a unique meaning. like most of the lost words do.

and misuse of the english language should be a fineable offence. (ironic no?) though english language skills should be enforced in schools programs.i do not mean the ability to talk on a street, or 3rd grade level. i mean teaching as much of the english lexicon to the students before they leave high school as possible, and providing an environment where sophisiticated english is rewarded and encouraged

[Eileen]

i slightly agree with you songbird, words should be allowed to be added to the english language all the time, (or else we would not have shampoo) but words should not be taken out of the english language, especially if they have a unique meaning. like most of the lost words do.

and misuse of the english language should be a fineable offence. (ironic no?) though english language skills should be enforced in schools programs.i do not mean the ability to talk on a street, or 3rd grade level. i mean teaching as much of the english lexicon to the students before they leave high school as possible, and providing an environment where sophisiticated english is rewarded and encouraged

So, what dialect is sophisticated English?


Edit: I'm all for vocabulary building; don't get me wrong. I just get a little weary of this "misuse of English" stuff when people really mean "lack of use of the Standard dialect." That's not ALWAYS what they mean (in fact, I don't think it's what you mean, Shai Gar), but frequently it is.

[Shai Gar]

victorian upper class spoken and written english.

and this has been bugging me for some time now so i have GOT to say it. that dialect bullshit that you have oh so obviously been told to spin for the benefit of the students (i read a few books on it by american teachers who oppose it) really does not benefit the students, sure it makes them feel great but what is better? a false belief in their own useless abilities or confidence that they have learnt proper english? spelling however they want to is not dialect, it is the result of a lack of information. if the students are taught to pronounce the words correctly (even with that accent), and are taught to write correctly (even if you MUST use that bastardised american spelling) then they will at least all have a uniform understanding of grammer, structure and spelling that can be assessed.

you can NOT judge a person honestly on his skills if the person is forced to write however they want, and pronounce words as if they are throwing phonetic symbols at words like darts.

they will be more grateful for that help than all this PC bullshit about making them feel better instead of teaching them the truth. okay i got that off my chest.

and using dialect in that fashion is misuse of the english language.

[Geoff]

So, what dialect is sophisticated English?


Edit: I'm all for vocabulary building; don't get me wrong. I just get a little weary of this "misuse of English" stuff when people really mean "lack of use of the Standard dialect." That's not ALWAYS what they mean (in fact, I don't think it's what you mean, Shai Gar), but frequently it is.

Middle-upper class British English, but with a twist for local dialectal variations. So Middle-upper class British English is 'sophisticated' in North America but humour would still be shorn of a spare 'u'.

I do not comment on what is right or wrong here - just the perceived manner of sophisticated english. I am sure it is not a case of it being borrowed from modern Britain. More that upper-class British english maintains a vocab set that parallels a maintained vocab set in, say ,the Americas. And there is probably a degree of cross fertilisation - words from American sophisticates infecting British English and vice versa at the higher echelons.

You will also find that sophisticated english usually has more of the classical about it as a set - more latinesque words, for example. It also is in the eye and ear of the beholder, so the linguistic set is also modified by the mode of the speaker.

As an aside I think languages should be encouraged to converge in the global world we now live.

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

certainly, the lexicons should borrow from eachother. however to suggest that proper english should merge with an increasingly infantile language is absurd.

[Eileen]

Their own useless abilities? That's horrible. Language is utterly, utterly tied to culture, and to call one dialect sophisticated and the other--by implication--primitive is not only factually wrong, but an act of cultural violence that happens every day and harms the self-concept of linguistically diverse students.

You will note that I do not say that we SHOULDN'T just can teaching standard English, but referring to it as "sophisticated" or "proper" or "right" is discrimination. Being fluent in multiple dialects is NOT a useless skill, any more so than an immigrant from Mexico being fluent in both Spanish and English. A person should be able to use the language of his culture to communicate with people from his culture. He should also be able to navigate the Standard dialect competently and elegantly, so that he can talk to people in the larger culture. Anybody can learn to code-switch, so there is no purpose in eradicating or devaluing other dialects.

I am convinced that teaching students about dialects and teaching them to appreciate them instead of judge them will give them a far more sophisticated grasp of language. My reasoning is that IF we have competent teachers doing this (which is certainly always an issue), students can observe how dialects vary structurally and thus have a more profound insight on the language. I see vocabulary building as a different, less complicated issue than the act of teaching grammar.

[Eileen]

certainly, the lexicons should borrow from eachother. however to suggest that proper english should merge with an increasingly infantile language is absurd.

Shai Gar, have you taken a class in linguistics? Your rhetoric reflects the attitudes about linguistics of society, but not the attitudes of bona fide linguists.

[Shai Gar]

I am convinced that teaching students about dialects and teaching them to appreciate them instead of judge them will give them a far more sophisticated grasp of language. My reasoning is that IF we have competent teachers doing this (which is certainly always an issue), students can observe how dialects vary structurally and thus have a more profound insight on the language. I see vocabulary building as a different, less complicated issue than the act of teaching grammar.
sure no seriously, teach them this. after they have a very solid grounding in the english language which it sounds like they will not get from you. are you assuming that they have already been taught proper english?

[Shai Gar]

Shai Gar, have you taken a class in linguistics? Your rhetoric reflects the attitudes about linguistics of society, but not the attitudes of bona fide linguists. actually i have had a pretty good gmail conversation with professor chomsky on this, it started from historical terrorism and turned into linguistics.

and i have read quite a bit of stuff in this field. i do not need to, nor do i desire to take a class in linguistics where they teach the crap you are spilling. i said it first as politeness but honestly if you want to keep going on this i will knock the crap out of your argument. i am not that good in computers, i am not that good in philosophy, i am quite good in history and politics. but i am fucking awesome on the topic of the english lexicon and english theory

[Shai Gar]

Their own useless abilities? That's horrible. Language is utterly, utterly tied to culture, and to call one dialect sophisticated and the other--by implication--primitive is not only factually wrong, but an act of cultural violence that happens every day and harms the self-concept of linguistically diverse students.
once again you are taking their self esteem before their confidence and competence. and misusing the word dialect.

they are not linguistically diverse students. they are uninformed students who spell bad and pronounce badly because teachers care more about their "dialect" and feelings than correcting their spelling and pronunciation.

people like you will make the field of etymology a nightmare for scientists within 50 years

[coffeezombie]

There is not one English that is "more correct" than the others. However, a common grammatical and spelling structure needs to be maintained for the practical purposes of one person being able to understand another's speech and writing. When among one's own dialect group, though, one should not be ostracised for the use of any dialectical form. I was just having a conversation last night with a friend about how badly people with different accents can be stereotyped and discriminated against when it comes to job interviews. It's a deplorable act just as bad as any racism or religious discrmination.

[Eileen]

sure no seriously, teach them this. after they have a very solid grounding in the english language which it sounds like they will not get from you. are you assuming that they have already been taught proper english?

First and foremost--what is your background in pedagogy of language? What do you actually know about how people learn language?

The traditional way of teaching grammar (which includes calling it the "proper" or "sophisticated" dialect) is NOT WORKING for these students because there is conflict between what they know of their language and what they are being taught of the standard dialect, and nobody's addressing it. Teaching grammar in America is much more complicated than it was several decades ago, and people want to just assume that what worked then is going to work now, but it is not. Kids are coming in with different prior knowledge of language; teachers have to work with that. That African American children come in with different prior knowledge does not make that knowledge inferior than the knowledge of the upper-middle class white children; it can be just as useful, but it takes competence on the part of the teacher to access and utilize that prior knowledge.


Truly, by the time students get to me, they should have a much stronger grounding in the standard dialect than they do, but they're being taught the same old way; nobody's trying to use diversity as a teaching tool--they only view it as an impediment. Schools need to be more rigorous from K/first grade on in vocabulary building and grammar instruction, and they also need to change the rhetoric of teaching language to address the needs of a multicultural (NOT melting-pot) society. The value of the standard dialect is that it is important for communicating between cultures, NOT that it is somehow superior to the dialects used by America's various cultures.

[Eileen]

once again you are taking their self esteem before their confidence and competence. and misusing the word dialect.

they are not linguistically diverse students. they are uninformed students who spell bad and pronounce badly because teachers care more about their "dialect" and feelings than correcting their spelling and pronunciation.

people like you will make the field of etymology a nightmare for scientists within 50 years


Shai Gar, HOW am I misusing the word "dialect"? Damn--I dare you to answer that. I went to college for English education, man. I think that I know the language of my disipline.

They are uninformed students IN THE STANDARD DIALECT. I am not claiming that we should stop teaching the standard dialect; I'm saying that we should stop referring to it as "proper" and "sophisticated." It has no value IN AND OF ITSELF except that it can be used to communicate cross-culture. It should be referred to as a "common language," not a "superior language."



Also: It's not my job to make the field of etymology easy for etymologists.

[Shai Gar]

y0 bi4<H!!!!!!! is tlkn lk ths 4 deialct?

accents are not my beef, accents are not mispronunciation. nor are dialects what we are talking about here. dialect is the PC catchphrase for idiots who dont know how to spell properly, and teachers excuse for moronically not teaching them what they need to know.

i refer to your second sentence, i am in full agreement with it. and there is one form of english more correct than any other. the OED

[Shai Gar]

eileen. your above two posts require proper thought and shit like that. i am prepared for a smartarse comeback at the moment, however not a full argument because i dont have the time. after school tommorow i will come back and argue.

**i reserve this post to place my rebuttle**

[coffeezombie]

i refer to your second sentence, i am in full agreement with it. and there is one form of english more correct than any other. the OED

It's only the form of English that is accepted by the majority of people, although if it weren't for Indians using it, Standard American English would be they most widely spoken dialectical form in the world.

But at one time, even the "OED" was not a "proper English." Contemporary English evolved from many forms that were considered "unacceptable" at the time. Remember Middle English and Old English? How could contemporary English evolve if not from what were at one time incorrect dialectical forms?

This is secondary to the discussion. Eileen has a good point: many people need some special training and, hence, more funding in the school systems to learn "proper English" because of the dialectical backgrounds that they come from. Not giving these people that training and expecting them to learn English just as well as people who already come from that dialectical background is ludicrous.

[Eileen]

y0 bi4<H!!!!!!! is tlkn lk ths 4 deialct?

Well, technically it (edit) could be, but all along, I have been talking about the manner in which people speak.



accents are not my beef, accents are not mispronunciation. nor are dialects what we are talking about here. dialect is the PC catchphrase for idiots who dont know how to spell properly, and teachers excuse for moronically not teaching them what they need to know.


Dialect is the proper term for the manner in which people speak and includes pronunciation. It also includes vocabulary, tone and intonation, and grammatical idiosyncracies. Dialects, except the standard, are rarely written.

I have never been talking about spelling, although dialect accents (which is distinct from language accents like a Spanish accent) would affect a student's spelling. Spelling is written and easily standardized for that reason. Grammar is both written and spoken, so it is much more complicated.



i refer to your second sentence, i am in full agreement with it. and there is one form of english more correct than any other. the OED

No, there is one form of English that is more standardized than any other.

[Shai Gar]

refer to my post asking you to wait 14 hours for my next real post

[Eileen]

eileen. your above two posts require proper thought and shit like that. i am prepared for a smartarse comeback at the moment, however not a full argument because i dont have the time. after school tommorow i will come back and argue.

**i reserve this post to place my rebuttle**

:) I await your response.

However, I may need to leave these boards for a day or two! Hours get sucked up by them, and I have grades due on Wednesday! Eeeek!

[Eileen]

But at one time, even the "OED" was not a "proper English." Contemporary English evolved from many forms that were considered "unacceptable" at the time. Remember Middle English and Old English? How could contemporary English evolve if not from what were at one time incorrect dialectical forms?

I think that the manifest attitude is that OED (or SEAE) is the pinnacle of language evolution and that it has reached some sort of perfection and therefore has nowhere to progress, which is pretty similar to the idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and therefore have nowhere to progress.

[Geoff]

I think that the manifest attitude is that OED (or SEAE) is the pinnacle of language evolution and that it has reached some sort of perfection and therefore has nowhere to progress, which is pretty similar to the idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and therefore have nowhere to progress.

Well, this is all fairly interesting. Can I ask how, when you recognise dialectal variations but not a sophisticate hierarchy how you deal with the issue of upskilling?

I talk here about for example, gutter dialects spoken by the lowest classes, and typically by those who work in the street, on the market stalls, in the construction sites. In order to 'succeed' they need an ability to upskill their dialect to match a more accepted and sophisticate norm. So, take the child of a street sweeper who wishes to become a lawyer. If you encourage his dialectal variation then he will find it difficult to pursue his chosen path in life.

Yet if you teach a more sophisticate standard then you allow your students a freer range of future opportunities - and at the end of the day school is not just about esoteric education, it also must seek to equip the students for a practical life.

If you teach the sophisticate norm of english then you ensure that dialectal variations do not hold back the person's future life - if they have to downskill to be a street sweeper so be it - it rarely holds them back, and downskilling is usually more easily achieved.

Would be interested in your take on this?

I am constantly faced in my job with new university graduates who have been encouraged to speak, spell and write with 'freedom' and are thus badly lacking in basic skills they require in a professional environment. Quite frankly, a few of them should go back to school even though they have arrived with eg a degree in law. It is depressing.

In the UK, of course, txt speak has become so prevalent in the junior population that it is badly hampering written english in the young.

-Geoff

[Eileen]

Well, this is all fairly interesting. Can I ask how, when you recognise dialectal variations but not a sophisticate hierarchy how you deal with the issue of upskilling?


Ahh yes. Here, I'll enter into what I self-consciously consider mythic language.

I see that the standard dialect is necessary in party because people will be judged for a lack of it. This is a result of a misconception about language and also a classist/racist attitude.

I see also that the standard dialect is necessary for a good reason: Using it, particularly in writing, can make communication easier across cultures. It can become a common ground language, making it a good tool for politics and diplomacy and business and plenty of other practical endeavors.

People can be and often are fluent in multiple dialects. Someone who can use his cultural dialect to speak to people within his cultural group AND go out into the world and use the common ground language is more skilled in a very practical way than someone who can only use his cultural dialect. So ADDING SEAE or OED is upskilling in a similar way to the way my little sister is upskilling in the field of recreational therapy by learning Spanish. She can communicate to a greater number of people.

[Eileen]

In the UK, of course, txt speak has become so prevalent in the junior population that it is badly hampering written english in the young.




Yeah... I may be hypocritical when I say this, but I do think that "txt speak" is just lazy English most of the time--but it's appropriate within a certain context, I guess.

[Geoff]

Yeah... I may be hypocritical when I say this, but I do think that "txt speak" is just lazy English most of the time--but it's appropriate within a certain context, I guess.

The problem is, it is *taught* by the special limitations of mobile phone devices (and the need to reduce unnecessary words to a minimum number of characters). It isnt just lazy, it is a special form of reductionism. The problem is that the young are using it almost exclusively amongst themselves, and finding new and amusing ways to reduce words to just a couple of characters. This is all well and good but the problem is they are not concentrating on what they will actually need to survive in a wider context. There are already stories of papers being submitted in txt speak, and teachers routinely trying (and failing) to correct it across large numbers of students in written works.

It has become quite normal now to see emails end in "Tx", here in the UK, even from say the Managing Director of a Major Company. This did not happen 5 years ago...

-Geoff

[Geoff]

Ahh yes. Here, I'll enter into what I self-consciously consider mythic language.

I see that the standard dialect is necessary in party because people will be judged for a lack of it. This is a result of a misconception about language and also a classist/racist attitude.

I see also that the standard dialect is necessary for a good reason: Using it, particularly in writing, can make communication easier across cultures. It can become a common ground language, making it a good tool for politics and diplomacy and business and plenty of other practical endeavors.

People can be and often are fluent in multiple dialects. Someone who can use his cultural dialect to speak to people within his cultural group AND go out into the world and use the common ground language is more skilled in a very practical way than someone who can only use his cultural dialect. So ADDING SEAE or OED is upskilling in a similar way to the way my little sister is upskilling in the field of recreational therapy by learning Spanish. She can communicate to a greater number of people.


I dont disagree that it is classist and possibly racist (depending upon the environment). However by accepting that dialectal variation is 'ok' then you do hamper those individuals who will wish to work and live outside of the economic and cultural background from which their dialect originates. Upskilling them in a 'standard form' allows them to grow, but does not remove their roots (they will have those 'anyway' from their home environment).

-Geoff

[songbird36]

I don't agree that school should be teaching dialects Eileen, sorry.

They should be teaching a basic, traditional grammar-based version of English that will (as Geoff states) equip students for a profession or a trade or whatever career they decide to pursue. Higher learning (such as tech or university) is not taught in "dialect", so schools which pursue this approach are doing their students a grave disservice.

[Eileen]

I don't agree that school should be teaching dialects Eileen, sorry.

They should be teaching a basic, traditional grammar-based version of English that will (as Geoff states) equip students for a profession or a trade or whatever career they decide to pursue. Higher learning (such as tech or university) is not taught in "dialect", so schools which pursue this approach are doing their students a grave disservice.

No--I'm not trying to say that I would give lessons about how to speak/write (for example) in African American English. I'm saying that I would teach ABOUT dialects and not tell somebody that the way they speak is incorrect, simply that they should also know how to speak in this other dialect so that they can communicate with the larger culture.

The problem in education as I see it is that we ignore dialect completely as a natural and even good part of language, and when students get to school and are taught this different way of speaking English without giving them the dialectical perspective, it is CONFUSING for them, not to mention damaging.


Am I not getting my point across? This is an effort to change the RHETORIC of teaching language. Teaching that one dialect is fine and that a common dialect is necessary should not hamper anybody, but empower them to be multi-lingual in a way.

[Eileen]

There are already stories of papers being submitted in txt speak, and teachers routinely trying (and failing) to correct it across large numbers of students in written works.


I think that the failure is very frequently a failure to illuminate that there are contexts for certain ways of communicating and that it's important to know your audience

[songbird36]

Yes I see your point.

It will be important then to differentiate clearly in terms of the written form you are teaching, from lessons on spoken form. This distinction is made in foreign language (ESOL) classes too.

[Geoff]

I think that the failure is very frequently a failure to illuminate that there are contexts for certain ways of communicating and that it's important to know your audience

Well, teachers should be firm about refusing the acceptance of txt speak. A policy of non acceptance for papers written using it would do the trick, I expect.

Illumination by way of authority, not namby pamby "lets all express our freedom" is what is needed ;)

-Geoff

[Eileen]

Yes I see your point.

It will be important then to differentiate clearly in terms of the written form you are teaching, from lessons on spoken form. This distinction is made in foreign language (ESOL) classes too.

I agree.

[Eileen]

Well, teachers should be firm about refusing the acceptance of txt speak. A policy of non acceptance for papers written using it would do the trick, I expect.

Illumination by way of authority, not namby pamby "lets all express our freedom" is what is needed ;)

-Geoff

I agree with this too--I just think that there's a way to talk about the standard dialect without devaluing the culture of students whose primary dialect is not the standard one.

I don't mean to imply that when I get a paper, I don't count off for grammar, because it's my job to teach the common ground dialect and its their responsibility to learn it in order to be useful members of society.