[CLUE-Talk] Looks like our brains match \w+

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 21:02, Timothy C. Klein wrote:

> > I don't see an occasional misspelling as a lack of intelligence or as
> > laziness -- but I do see consistent grammatical errors, faulty
> > punctuation and poor spelling as a sign of laziness or stupidity (or
> > both). Typos are one thing - a refusal to learn or follow the rules of
> > your native language are another. 
> 
> I generally do to, but it depends upon what we are talking about.
> Someone who can't spell anything right is probably less educated, or
> didn't care about what they wrote.  But maybe not.  Take the three
> versions of the word: there | their | they're.  I am complete snob about
> those things.  But the reality is that having three versions in written
> English stupid and pointless.  Think about it:  there is only one
> version in spoken English, and your mind had to figure it out there.
> There is not reason it should not be the same in written English.  The
> fact that people always make mistakes with those is a sign of a problem,
> and it also means that in 500 years there very well could only be one
> version of the word there.  This is not a sign of any problem.

Actually, it's not pointless. First, "they're" is pronounced slightly
differently -- at least by many people. 

As for it being "pointless" to have different spellings, I heartily
disagree -- you might as well argue that we should abandon current rules
of spelling and be hukt awn fawnix. It's not the same word, just similar
pronounciation. There's a difference. I certainly hope that the three
words do not converge in 500 years -- each word conveys a specific
concept. 

Imagine this sentence "they're taking their baggage over there to
prepare for the trip," with a singular spelling "there taking there
baggage over there to prepare for a trip." I expect that many of us
would have to re-read that at least once or twice to get the meaning.

We do infer a great deal through context in spoken communication, no
doubt. However, we have a number of other clues available to us in
spoken communcation that we do not have available to us in written
communication -- inflection, tone, gestures, body language, facial
expressions, etc -- which is why it is vitally important to be precise
in written communication. 

> > It *does* harm the communicative ability of English. Think about people
> > that speak English as a second (or third, fourth, fifth...) language --
> > a sentence that contains one or more misspelled words can be quite a
> > hassle for them. If you're writing for an audience, you shouldn't assume
> > that all of the readers will be native English speakers. 
> > 
> > Here's an example -- if I write "My friend and I went buy the store
> > today" instead of "My friend and I went by the store today" -- you'll
> > parse that just fine. However, a person who is not a native speaker may
> > be thrown by that. Did the writer mean that he and his friend *bought*
> > the store? I see people using "buy" to mean "by" all the time, but I'm
> > sure there are better examples. 
> > 
> > I don't think I even need to explain the need for precision in language
> > when writing technical materials, instructional guides, medical
> > directions and so on. 
> 
> English does not have any idea of precision language.  That is the
> primary feature of natural language -- it is not precise.  It is
> ambiguous.  Context and interpretation always play a role.  And this is
> a good thing.  It is what makes human language so expressive.  The need
> to try and remove semantic ambiguity does not have any real bearing on
> what we talking about, wrt to technical writing.  It is a separate
> issue, really.

No, it's the same issue -- a general decline in English usage will also
(and has already) impact techical writing, news writing, and other types
of written communication that do depend on precision. 

I don't agree that English is not a precise language, nor would I argue
that it is a precise language -- it depends on the user. Language is a
tool -- English is a particularly versatile tool in the hands of an
experience user -- and when read by someone who is well-versed in the
language. 

Which brings me to one of my points -- I worry that many of the users of
the English language do not have the ability to use the English language
with precision and the general trend it towards greater imprecision. 

For example, it used to be a huge journalistic no-no to use the word
"thought" unless it's in a quote -- it's imprecise to say that "George
Bush thought that his plan for Iraq was the best possible scenario" --
because you don't know what Bush did or didn't think. You can say with
precision what he has said and what he has done, but you cannot presume
to know what another person is thinking. Yet, this happens all the time.

This is unrelated to spelling, but I simply use that to illustrate a
general decline in precise usage. Examples abound. 

> > I dearly hope that people continue to see poor spelling and grammar as a
> > fault rather than simply accepting lower standards. There's simply no
> > excuse for anyone with a high school education to be unable or unwilling
> > to use the language properly. 
> 
> I generally feel the way you do -- but our feelings are out of touch
> with reality. Language is a completely arbitrary construct. It is also
> a construct that evolves. The reason we have trouble with spelling
> in English is because our alphabet has 26 characters, but we have
> considerably more morphemes in the English language (something like 40,
> or it might be around 100 if you add different stresses on vowels, longs
> a shorts, etc.) Thus the reason we see major problems with spelling
> is because it is inefficient and horrid in English. The many errors
> are evolutionary pressures telling us that our spelling system really
> needs to evolve. 

I don't buy this -- the many errors tell me that many people don't
bother to take the time to learn. Would you say that frequent errors in
math are evolutionary pressures telling us that our mathematical systems
should "evolve" to accept a range of answers for 2+2 instead of 4? (Base
10, of course). Would you say that, since a majority of U.S. students
are unable to find Iraq on a map, that it must be an "evolutionary
pressure" to "evolve" our maps??? 

I don't think so. 

Could the English language improve? No doubt -- but I'm not willing to
accept the premise that it should devolve in order to fit the abilities
of people who have not taken the time to master the language. And that
is the issue here -- whether you care to admit it or not. It isn't that
English is so difficult to master -- it is that most people do not care
to make it a priority. That's a problem with values, not a problem with
the language itself. 

The language is not unduly difficult. I mean, it can be tricky, but the
real issue here is that we've let our standards slip. It's not
entertaining to learn the vagaries of English, and there's little stigma
against those who have trouble with it, so we're settling for less. It
isn't that students lack the capacity to learn the difference between
"there," "their" and "they're" -- it's that they're not being required
to. 

> The fact that 'by' and 'buy' say the exact same thing
> is a prime example -- there is absolutely no point for it. The foreign
> speaker has to distinguish those from context in spoken language, as
> they are same there. They should, therefore, have the same skill to
> disambiguate that in written English. If they don't, they need to
> develop it, there is no way around it. More importantly, there is no
> logical reason for the two words to be spelled differently.  In your
> construct, the incorrect conjugation of the word buy should be enough
> clue to alert the reader to the error.

I see -- the ESL student should learn to "disambiguate" the errors of
native speakers. Sorry, that line of reasoning strikes me as extremely
odd. The person learning English is already coming more than half-way in
this exchange. You'd think the native speaker could at least be troubled
to use their own language properly. 

I find this amusing -- you're basically arguing that the native speaker
need not be troubled to learn or utilize the rules of their own
language, yet suggesting that a newbie to the language be able to
develop the ability to "disambiguate" a language to which the rules are
not only complicated -- but the speakers of this language should be able
to throw them out the window at will. Talk about hitting a moving
target! 

Again -- there is plenty of reason for the two words to be spelled
differently. They have different meanings and evolved through different
channels. Hell, why don't we make it *really* simple and just use one
written word to mean everything? 

As far as incorrect conjugation -- have you ever spoken to anyone who is
new to the language? Hello! Conjugation is a major hurdle, particularly
with English since we do not have particularly well-defined rules of
conjugation as compared to other languages. 

> And really, it doesn't harm the communicative ability of English. I
> think it was Spencer, in the 1700s, who wrote a lengthy treatise on
> the degeneration of the English language. His thesis was that in a
> hundred years, no one would be able to communicate in English. He
> was completely, 100% wrong. It seems like you are making a similar
> argument. I would suggest studying the history of the English language
> -- it is very fun, and it will allay your fears. Trust me, they are
> completely unfounded.

Actually, I have studied the English language and communication theory
-- and continue to do so. It hasn't done anything to allay my fears, it
has in fact increased them. 

I do agree that it can be fun, however. I only wish that more people
felt that way.

> Errors that harm communication *will* not make it into the English
> language, except in very rare circumstances.  English is going to
> change, and it will do just fine.  It is a natural fact of life and
> language evolution.

I'm not talking merely about language evolution, I'm also talking about
a cultural shift that has deprioritized the ability to express oneself
effectively using written communication. I'm talking about the lack of
stigma attached to being unable or unwilling to properly use the
language. 

As I said initially -- the study that provoked this thread simply gives
those who choose to disregard the rules of English usage another excuse
to say "it doesn't matter" when it clearly does. 

English will change. But I can see a day when the standard to be
considered "literate" will be a much lower target. The language itself
may be fine, but what of the speakers? 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net