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

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 01:47, Timothy C. Klein wrote:

*snip*

> > 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. 

You are so amazingly wrong, and this goes very far in explaining why you
are so optimistic about our cultural approach to language. 

The "point" of written language -- if there is a single point -- is to
record thoughts, records and ideas for later use by the author or by
other readers. 

Written language started with cave paintings and evolved from there.
There have been, and still are, languages which do not map symbols
directly to sound. Remember mathematics, the "universal language"? No
attempt is made to directly represent sound with mathematical symbols,
because anyone can use equations no matter what language they speak. 

Note that I also brought up the de-evolution of language towards
pictograms and such -- we're increasingly relying on symbols that
represent a concept, not a collection of phonemes. 

*snip*

> > 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.

First, define the language -- are we talking about the rules for the
language, that are well-codified and written down? Are we talking about
the language in practice as used by the speakers of the English
language?

I would also submit that I could find an equal or greater number of
scholars that would, in fact, state that the usage of the language --
skill in usage, proper usage, actual ability to use the language to
communicate effectively -- is in decline. 

> > 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.

Indeed -- it has always been the case that some portion of the
population is unable to use the language (written or spoken) with skill.
What I am saying is that the percentage of our population that is
skilled with English is shrinking and that the criteria people are
judged against -- standardized tests, requirements to graduate high
school, requirements to enter college -- are being lowered to match an
increasingly lower standard of literacy. 

> That is one of the features that makes a good writer, and it is part of
> why not everyone is not a good writer.

There are degrees of precision. No doubt, the majority of the population
will never be quite as skilled as John Irving, Mark Twain or any
talented author you might care to name.

However, I would be willing to bet that if you were to take a random
sampling of adults and recent high school graduates 25 years ago and
test them, then administer the same test today to a similar sampling,
you would find that the modern sampling would show a general decline in
skill. 

> > 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.  

Again, you say "evolution" and I say decline. We've become terribly
casual about using words with specific meanings in a less specific
sense, and even in ways that are contrary to the original meaning of the
word. 

Again -- this points to a lack of precision in the use of language. 

I also doubt that you're right about this specific example. You could
prompt people to say what you're inferring, but I expect most people who
read that story come away with an impression that Bush actually thinks
what the reporter says he thinks, rather than what his actions suggest. 

*snip*

> > 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. 

Again, my point is that it *is* being accepted. It's no longer a stigma
to be unable (or unwilling) to use proper spelling or grammar. 

> 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.

But that's not what I'm talking about. You're assuming a standardized
drift away from certain difficult rules, like confusing "it's" and "its"
-- and I'm saying it's much larger than that. If everyone was just
settling for one spelling of "its" it would be annoying but ultimately
non-harmful.

What I'm saying is that people do not bother to learn the rules of our
language sufficiently, and they tend to practice their own version of
non-standard English which may not jibe with other people's non-standard
usage. 

I'm not just talking about not spelling "there" or "their" properly, I'm
talking about not being able or willing to spell words correctly that
have a single spelling. That does, whether you care to admit it or not,
impair one's ability to communicate. 

> > 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. 

It hasn't happened *yet* -- that doesn't mean it cannot happen. 

Here's what I'm saying -- as a group of people, we have gone the other
direction. That is, we used to have a cultural stigma attached to poor
English usage. People who were unable or unwilling to use "proper
English" as defined by the rules of the day, were looked down upon.
Proper usage was encouraged, and precise usage was the goal.

That stigma is rapidly disappearing, if not gone. With a new set of
cultural norms, the population as a mass is losing some of the ability
to use English with the precision that was expected 20 or 30 years ago. 

*snip*

> > 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.

Your attitude is exactly what I'm referring to. "Who gets to decide what
is 'correct' English?" -- In other words, you feel absolutely no
pressure to follow the (previously) accepted guidelines -- and neither
do most school kids, or college kids.

With any other discipline, this would be absolutely ridiculous -- "who
gets to decide what constitutes an G-sharp?" "Who gets to decide what is
correct algebra?" But people feel free to abandon the rules of the
English language. 

Yes, kids should be required to learn standardized English and
demonstrate that they can employ those rules. If the language actually
changes, the standardized rules will be changed. 

*snip*

> > 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.

And I'm saying that you can't expect someone to learn the rules of a
language when the vast majority of the practicioners of the language
refuse to follow a set of guidelines. 

It takes a long time to be able to reflexively understand words in
context in a written and spoken language. Native speakers do so because
they are immersed in a language from day one. People learning English or
any other language have to learn the rules of the language. When they
try to communicate with people who do not follow those rules, it becomes
quite the challenge. 

> > 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. 

Ah, but how does one become fluent when the rules are constantly in
flux? That's my point, that you seem to keep missing. We have rules of
usage. People seem to feel they no longer need to follow those rules of
usage. 

>  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.*

English is somewhat unusual in this regard in the first place. 

Many languages depend on placement for meaning. Verb goes here, noun
goes here, etc. In English, you can reverse the placement of subject,
verb, and so on with no ill effect because we have other rules that are
supposed to help the reader or listener cue in. The misspelling of "by"
vs. "buy" would not matter so much if we followed strict placement --
but it is more important because we do not have those rules. 

> > 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.

It may be separate from what *you're* talking about, but it's not
separate from what I'm talking about. 

> 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.

ARGH. That was my whole point to begin with... misspellings are a
symptom of lack of education/emphasis. A study that says "people can
understand words spelled incorrectly..." just provides an excuse for
students who don't care to learn usage in the first place. 

> > 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?  

Lower, meaning less skill in usage defined by existing rules of
language. I would say that it is already happening. 

> 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.

We've obviously talking at cross purposes here...

I'm referring to society as a whole, you're saying the language itself.
I'm not worried about the English language as reprsented on paper, I'm
worried about the values of the society as a whole. 

> 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.

But it is not the only requirement of the speaker. 

If you ask Avril to sit down and write a complex paper, can she do it?
Can Avril express complex thoughts in written or even spoken language?
I've watched my younger brothers struggle to express themselves in
writing and it is not because they are unintelligent -- it is because
they lack skill in the language -- but by the standards of our society,
they are considered literate. By the standards of the educational
system, they'll pass muster, even if they can't express their own
thoughts on paper. I don't believe that was as true twenty years ago. 

Have we always produced skilled writers with our system of education?
No. But I'm saying the ability to use the language to express oneself is
in decline. 

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