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

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier (jzb at dissociatedpress.net) wrote:
> 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. 

Yes, some pronounce they're differently, if they are speaking very
precisely.  In which case, it could keep its apostrophe, then.  But the
extra time it takes to pronounce it differently means that few do it.
In practice, it is a word that sounds the same to most.

> 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. 

I am not saying the words should converge -- a word is *not* the
spelling of that word. I am talking about the spelling. There would
still be three (well, just the first two, their and their, if you
apply what I said above) different words. But those words *sound the
same.* Therefore, to have a consistent set of rules to map graphemes to
phonemes, they should be spelled the same.

The point of written language is to map symbols to sound. There are
very persuasive arguments for making a mapping of sound-to-symbol
1-to-1. Germans don't have spelling problems. Why? Because their system
of graphemes much more closely matches their system or phonemes. In
English, we use almost the same set of graphemes as the Germans, but our
language, under the Great Vowel Shift before Chaucer's time, underwent
huge changes in the phonemes. When that happened, we introduced lots of
problems into the spelling system. As I said earlier, 'by' and 'buy'
are the same sound, but they mean different things. One absolutely must
learn the skill of looking at the syntax to find the meaning. There is
no choice in the spoken language -- it is an artifact of a broken system
that there is a little help in the spelling of the words in the written
system. I do not, however, think this little diamond in the rough is at
all worth the broken grapheme-to-phoneme system we are saddled with.

> 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. 

You don't have any help from the spelling when you are speaking -- and I
posit that you don't need the help then, in the spoken language, at
least not to discern the meaning of the word.  Your argument is
interesting, but I am not buying it as a reason to accept different
spelling of the same sound.  I would also say that there is *not* a
reason to have different spellings of the same sound -- it is an
historical accident, not an aid to distinguish between words with
different meanings that have the same sound.

> > > 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 chicle writing, news writing, and other types
> of written communication that do depend on precision. 

What I am saying is that your use of the phrase 'a general decline in
English usage' is something that many linguists, as I understand their
opinions, would not accept.  You say decline.  I say evolution.  There
may be a trend in the society towards people not be able to *use* the
language well -- but that is not the same thing as the language itself
changing to the point that it loses communicative ability.

> 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. 

I would agree that many don't have the ability to use the language with
precision.  I would also suspect that that has always been the case.
That is one of the features that makes a good writer, and it is part of
why not everyone is not a good writer.

> 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 would say what you are seeing is an evolution of the meaning of that
word.  If you question most people, you would probably get them to say
they really didn't think the journalist was claiming to 'know' what Bush
thought in some psychic sense.  But most would probably also say that
the reporter had decent evidence to have some broad picture of what the
Pres. 'thought,' and just say you were being pedantic.  Over time, it is
entirely possible that people will simply use the word thought enough
this way, and it will become another accepted nuance of the word's
meaning.  In this situation, it may be a bit of a stretch -- this really
more an example of bad journalism, and doesn't have much to do with the
language itself.  But words change all meaning over time, there is no
way around that.  And I am sure that, when the words first begin to
change, many see it as 'wrong.'  But if enough people understand and use
the word in its new meaning, then it will become accepted.  And it is
very important to realize that when one starts talking about 'wrong' wrt
to language, that we are just talking about arbitrary convention.  There
is no absolute authority on what is right or wrong in English.  If you
can use some construct or word to communicate with someone else, it is
as right as it ever can be.  It may not be generally accepted, or the
language of the elite, or whatever, but the only requirement is that the
language communicate.

> > > 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. 

This argument is really a straw man. There is only one point of language
-- to communicate. Poor grammar or spelling so bad that it harms
communication will never be accepted, simply because the language will
not be fulfilling its purpose. But odd grammar, word use, or spelling
that *does not* harm communication *will* be accepted if widely enough
used. The language you and I speak, right now, would violate any of
numerous grammar or spelling constructs of English of 200 years ago.
Many speakers of the time would say were are 'wrong.' But the fact is
that neither of us are right or wrong. We are simply communicating
differently, using a tool that is constantly evolving.

I am not excusing someone from not learning English.  But when a
majority of the people start spelling a word differently, or using a
word to mean something different, that is natural and unavoidable.

> 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. 

I am not saying the language should devolve either. Indeed, in the
language theory I understand, that phrase makes no sense. Languages
don't devolve (eg, become unable to communicate, or lose some of their
communicative ability). It simply does not happen. They change. The
English you and I speak was, at one point a thousand or so years ago,
a form of German. But the German and English (using those terms very
loosely) went their separate ways, and today we can't even understand
each other. But it is not the case that English 'devolved' from German.
It simply changed into English. Both language are still fully capable
of communicating the full range of human ideas and emotions and
experience.

> 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. 

True, they are not being required to. And I don't think they should be.
Who gets to decide what is 'correct' English? If the majority of kids
decide they are sick of the distinction between 'their' and 'there',
they have every power to quit distinguishing between them. The language
will still work. Indeed, I say that particular change would make the
written language better -- it would better represent the spoken language
in that case.

> > 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? 

You are really missing my argument. I am saying that the non-native
speaker, if he or she is going to be able to comprehend English, will
have to develop the skills to learn the difference between 'by' and
'buy'. I am not advocating that every word be spelled the same -- I am
saying there are real advantages to having every word *that sounds the
same* be *spelled the same.* That is what the point of a spelling system
is.

> 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. 

I understand this, but again, the non-native speaker has no choice to
master it if he or she is to be fluent.  That is how a native speaker
handles it.  The spelling is *not* how a native speaker handles the
difference between 'by' and 'buy.'  It is actually ridiculous if you
think about it.  How would you possibly know that is was spelled
incorrectly if you could not tell which meaning was actually intended?
Indeed, the only reason your mind will trip on it is because the
incorrect spelling *causes* the problem of picking the wrong word.  If the
spelling were the same, you would not be able to be miscued, and your
mind would have to examine the semantics to pick the correct meaning,
*as you should have been doing all along.*

> > 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. 

Many people today, indeed, are horrible written communicators. That is
an entirely separate issue from what we are talking about here, though.
That is a lack of practice or emphasis or education. The kinds of things
I have been talking about here are not going to prohibit one from being
an effective English writer.

> 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? 

I dare say that you are dead wrong on this one.  There will never be a
day when 'literate' will be a lower target.  Indeed, what would lower
mean?  There will be, without a doubt, that being literate will be a 
*different* target.  But also, without a doubt, that target will be
completely at the level of useful communication.  Linguists have never,
repeat, never, ran across a single language in which it was impossible
to communicate the most abstract, difficult, and complex of human ideas.
There may be a time when what the society defines as literate may be
lower, but that will have nothing to do with language, and everything to
do with the values of the society.  The ability of the langauge to
communicate any idea one wishes will still remain in those societies.

It may drive you and I nuts to see Avril say 'she said c u l8r boi, ur
just a sk8tr boi.'  But the fact is that it *communicates* with her
audience.  And at the end of the day, that is the only requirement of
language.

Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
======================================================