Recently in Sociolinguistics Category
Something I have noticed but haven't commented on is that the meaning of "dude" has shifted. In my generation and a little earlier, dudes were exclusively male, but by the time the critically acclaimed Juno was released, dude could be used as an affectionate term of address for females as well as males as in:
Juno: Anyway dude, I'm telling you I'm pregnant and you're acting shockingly cavalier.
Leah: Is this for real? Like, for real for real?
Juno: Unfortunately, yes.
The usage of dude as male is still around as in:
- Dudes (i.e. men) Who Wear Skinny Jeans
- Former Governor Sarah Palin's reference to her husband Todd Palin as the "First Dude" (don't hate me because I watched her nomination speech)
- Dudes aren't into birth control - explaining while we may not see male birth control pills being developed
I'm curious if a third person reference to female dudes is possible (e.g. "Dudes who are knocked up"). So far entering "dude" and "pregnant" has mostly turned up references to males including The Dudes Guide to Pregnancy: Dealing with Your Expecting Wife and, of course, pregnant males.
On a recent episode of Top Chef the judges had an aumsing discussion of how to pronounce paella. For me, it should be /pajeja/ (pie-ey-a)...just like it is in (Latin American) Spanish, but Toby Young from the U.K. was happy to pronounce it with an /l/.
Who's right? Most of the Americans agree it's to use the authentic Spanish (or at least Latin American Spanish) pronunciation, but Toby countered that no one pronounces Mexico as /mehiko/, but as Anglicized /mɛksɨko/ - good one Toby.
Although I do tend to attempt authentic Spanish pronunciation of words, the argument points out that this is more of a U.S. custom than a U.K. one. However, Toby's point about the pronunciation of Mexico points out that there are lexical exceptions even to this rule. Some Spanish words (e.g. canyon, Mexico, Argentina not to mention Arizona, Colorado, Montana, rodeo) are so ingrained into English that even Americans have nativized the pronunciation.
It is good etiquette these days to pronounce foreign words as close to their original pronunciation as possible. For instance, Toby also commented that no one in English says Barcelona with a Spanish "th" /θ/, but of of his colleagues said she did. Ironically though, in Catalan, Barcelona (and Barcelona IS In Catalonia) may actually have an /s/. So...when playing this game, be sure you do have all the facts or the ghost of Toby Young may laugh in your face.
An interesting quirk happened in an iTunes search today. I have to admit that I religiously check out the iTunes Song/Video of the Week (even on vacation on my slower home DSL connection).
Two Artists, One Person
This week, the video was from singer Utada, a pop singer hoping to break into the English market. The iTunes description noted that she was from Japan, and being a linguist, I HAD to check out the Japanse originals (especially since she sounds just like an American R&B singer).
In iTunes, you can click on the tab of the artist's name (Utada) to see more of her (or his) work. But when I clicked, I only found her English songs. Was iTunes NOT selling her Japanese material?
Actually, they were, but under her full name of Utada Hikaru. So apparently, you need to go to Utada for English and Utada Hikaru for Japanese (aka Hikaru Utada or Hikki). What's happening here?
Without too much investigation, it seems like that the ultimate cause is U.S. vs Japanese marketing. Hikaru does have the major challenge of trying to be the first East Asian star to break out into the U.S. market which thus far has only accepted a few Latino and non-English speaker European stars. I would say that the name Utada was chosen as a way to emphasize her R&B style (as in Rihanna, Beyoncé, Tweet, and others) as well as de-emphasizing her "alien" name. Alas the alternate "Hikki" was not an option in the U.S. market.
So now we have an American vs Japanese name, and a database that doesn't appear to do cross references so well. Hmm.
Database Questions
First, I do have to comment that I wish iTunes had a slightly smarter database. Artists sometimes go through a lot of name changes (Puff Daddy/P. Diddy anyone), and some academics aren't always in tune with the music scene. Even in FileMaker I know of ways of circumventing this issue.
Speaking of cross references, I wouldn't mind if iTunes could connect bands with spin-off solo acts. For instance, I heard Ann & Nancy Wilson stopped recording under Heart and switched to a new name, but the only way to know for sure is to check Wikipedia. I bet they (& Apple) are losing some sales here.
Can't I Find More international Music?
But let's switch back to global culture for a moment. Another quirk of the iTunes database is that the Utada Hikaru songs in Japanese are classified as "J-Pop" (Japanese pop I presume), but other than language, I don't think Utada is actually a different genre from say Rihanna, the Spice Girls or Jazmine Sullivan. All three acts feature strong vocals, well-crafted tracks which vary between ballads and uptempo.
The Japanese tracks are all Western musically (unless I'm missing a spare Japanese instrument). Note that this is somewhat different from Latin American music which often features traditional Latin American musical elements.
So shouldn't Japanese Utada Hikaru be the same genre as American Utada? Apparently iTunes isn't sure we're ready for that yet, and maybe we're not. But since iTunes lets us purchase single songs and experience 30-second previews, I think the opportunity for Americans to learn more about world pop (and traditional world) is there as never before. I just wish it were a little easier to move beyond the categories already established in the U.S. market.
FYI - I applaud iTunes for it's "World" category which is mostly traditional music. But I do also want to know that the world teens are listening to - even if it's U.S. style music with Japanese lyrics. Besides, Utada HIkaru can really, really sing.
Guest columnist Evanthia O. Rosati at the Irrascible Professor has a funny column on the perils of being an English teacher out in society. She and I both agree - if you are so unfortunate as to be at a party with dip hanging from your mouth, there are more important issues then remembering if it's "who" or "whom."
As a linguist, I appreciate an English teacher who can remember that written grammar has it's place, and it may not be at the mall (even if she is compelled to correct mall flyers). I also have to guiltily confess that linguists have an unfair advantage over the English literature professions.
Depending on our moods linguists can play EITHER the descriptive card or the prescriptive card. For instance, I play the descriptive card when I write "one criteria" instead of "one criterion", but I can easily play the prescriptive card if an etymology is involved (no really, the word "administrate" is only a recent neologism...use the older "administer" instead).
If you are in a dispute with me, you will get it coming in going. It really isn't fair - but I refuse to give up the advantage.
A link I recently encountered is the Jamaican Language Unit.
As you may or may not know, many inhabitants of Jamaica, including the late Bob Marley, are native speakers of Jamaican Creole. As with most creoles, Jamaican Creole is often considered to be a "degenerate" form of English, but the Jamaican Language Unit is working to establish Jamaican Creole as an alternate written standard.
It's interesting that the first task is to establish a spelling system. Like other "oral languages", Jamaican Creole has to first standardize itself with written conventions. Depending on how many actual dialects there are, this can be difficult. For instance, the spelling convention says that the sound /h/ is phonemic in only a few dialects.
It also requires speakers to shift their perceptions of their own language from something used just at home or in the local community to one that can be used for all functions, even potentially for news stories and technical articles. Fortunately, Jamaican Creole has been used as a language of poetry and music, so there is already a literary culture.
I wish them luck. We already know from the standardization of the Tok Pisin Creole of Papua New Guinea that a creole can become a written standard.
Could it ever happen in the U.S.?
I also wonder if this could even happen in the United States with forms like AAVE (African American Vernacular English), Appalachian English, etc. One factor in Jamaica's favor is that the vast majority of inhabitants are native speakers of Jamaican Creole (this is also true for languages like Haitian (French) Creole which is also being codified as a written standard). In contrast, although there are large pockets of non-standard English speakers in the U.S., the plurality (if not the majority) are speaking standard English, and almost all people born in the United States are able to understand Standard English.
Another factor, oddly, against the standardization of the non-standard forms in the United States is their mutual intelligibility with Standard English. American Standard English speakers may mimic regional accents or show disdain for "bad grammar", but for the most part they can understand the non-standard forms in the U.S.
On the other hand, some forms like Jamaican Creole and true Scots are so divergent from Standard English that providing a dictionary and grammar begins to seem like a sensible idea.
Finally there is resistance in both the Standard English community and the speaker communities the idea that forms like AAVE or Appalachian English could function like a "real language". When the Oakland School Board proposed support for bilingual education, the concept was generally ridiculed and inspired parodies such as Da Ebonics Page. I admit even I was a little dubious (it does depend on what you mean by "bilingual education"). In any case, there's a lot attitude adjustment to be done before AAVE can become a literary standard.
But that could all change someday. And if it ever does, either Jamaica or Scotland could serve as a model of how to turn a "colloquial" language into a written form.
An interesting question I was asked on a linguistics survey was whether I distinguished "good writing" versus "bad writing". For most of the college-educated crowd, the answer is obviously "yes", but for a linguist, the answer is not obvious.
Linguists are known for focusing on descriptive language or "English as she is spoke", and frown upon fussy folks mocking fellow citizens for using non-standard grammatical forms. Yet...all practicing linguists make a living writing articles, and on my day job as an instructional designer, I routinely write technical documentation. Don't we want to make ourselves understood? Of course!.
So yes - I agree there is good writing, but what are my criteria if not "grammar"? Well, just as all the writing guides tell us, writers need to be clear and hopefully concise. Also, like the guides say, you have to target your writing for your audience. For instance, a "how-to" document written for every day users which uses unfamiliar jargon is not good writing, no matter how precisely correct the choice of terms are. Yet if a document is targeted towards a specialized audience, it would be critical to use the jargon correctly.
An interesting difference between my conception of "good writing" versus that of a non-linguistis that I think you can be a good "writer" (or at least an excellent communicator) in either standard English or non-standard English.
One of the more insightful articles on sociolinguistics I read as an undergraduate pointed out that politicians who relied exclusively on educated forms could sound stuffy or out of touch to some of the "common folks" while politicians, like Ross Perot, who mixed in some non-standard forms could sound more "in touch" with real life. Of course, if this strategy is not deployed properly, there is a tremendous risk of non-standard forms being equated with "stupid".
One final note about Standard English and the linguistic community - although linguists all respect non-standard grammar, I have yet to meet an American-born linguist who was NOT fluent in standard English (at least in terms of syntax). This iincludes specialists in forms such as AAVE, Californian English, "Spanglish" and Appalachian English. Native speakers in these forms are bilingual in Standard English if they reached the Ph.D. level of education.
Whatever else we may be speaking, even linguists feel the pressure to maintain one foot well within the standard language camp.
A few entries ago, I discussed some interesting "neo-classical" plurals I have heard like octopi, ommnibi and apparata. To this one I have to add Angi which is a collective plural for a herd of Black Angus cows (Anguses?).
This is a family term which is "humorous" because we don't really think it's an actual learned one, just one made up based on the final -us. But it's especially interesting because Angus is neither Latin or Greek, but Gaelic. Still there is a "rule" in play which is "expanding" its range. Or, more accurately, the constraint that should rule Angi because it is not in the classical lexicon is fairly weak.
I have to confess that Anguses (the regular plural, like Holsteins and Jerseys) does not sound very acceptable either. There is a tension in my grammar about which form should be used, or maybe the "correct" plural is actually the zero plural Angus (like deer) or only Angus cows. It's odd when a linguist can't form a simple plural.
Interesting usage note from NBC Olympics coverage
To paraphrase George H.W. Bush, the last time he was in China, the capital of China was Peking and not Beijing. over the past few decades, the Chinese have been gently nudging Westerners towards a more accurate pronunciation of Mandarin Chinese including Nanjing and Beijing for older Anglicized Peking and Nanking. As you can imagine, NBC has been very current in their pronunciation, hence we are definitively at the Beijing Games.
In the women's marathon, which ran through different parts of Beijing, I was startled to realize that one part of the course ran through Peking University and not Beijing University. It's not a NBC glitch either, but the official Anglicized name as seen on the English homepage for Peking University. For some reason this institution has maintained the older Peking nomenclature, at least in English. According to Wikipedia, Peking U is called Běijīng Dàxué or Beida in Mandarin Chinese.
Why Peking University?
Why is it still Peking University? I can't find a quick explanation on the Web, but if I had to speculate, I would say it's to emphasize the vintage of the University. It was founded in 1898 and was the leading university in China, even before Mao's revolution (in fact Mao is an alumnus). The older name may be a way to emphasize that the university has a historic pedigree and is one the top universities in China.
On the other hand, Beijing University might seem newer and more involved with various movements of the People's Republic of China - if one can be so impolite as to mention these issues. Perhaps, Peking University is the best old name for a new and improved type of Chinese university.
From Beijing to Peking
How do you get Peking /pikɪŋ/ from Beijing /bejʒɪŋ/ or [peitʃɪŋ]? There's a detailed explanation Bill Poser at Language Log , but there are three processes involved.
- The vowel "e" was probably misprounced by English speakers following English spelling convention where "e" = /i/, instead of European convention (e.g. Spanish "e" = /e/)
- The "B" of "Beijing" is actually an unaspirated /p/ (vs. English aspirated p or [pʰ]). If an English speaker hears a non-aspirated p at the beginning of a word, he or she may confuse it for a /b/).
- The most interesting element is the /k/ - Once it really was Beiking [pejkɪŋ], but in Mandarin Chinese, the [k] changed to [tʃ] before /i/ (similar to Latin to Italian). So the /k/ of Peking is either an old pronunciation or more likely, a Cantonese pronunciation (think Hong Kong), where the /k/ was preserved. This also accounts for the Nangking ~ Nanjing pair. It's an example of an archaic pronuciation being preserved in a foreign language.
It's amazing what you can learn from one little NBC pronunciation.
With the passing of George Carlin, the discussion of his famous "7 Words You Can Never Say on Television" came up. It is interesting to see which words have made it on the air (at least on HBO) and which ones are still rarely used in the U.S. market.
And of course, You Tube has several recorded routines from Geoge Carlin on this topic. I like this version from 1978 because he first has a discussion of roots vs. derived words and then follows with notes on alternate vocabulary for the banned terminology.
This is a monologue which most clearly demonstrates the futility of assuming that grammar follows rational logic (a lot is random convention). In any case, I will miss his analytic skills.
I've been lax in my blogging, so I thought I would add some reviews of books which are written for non-specialists but focus on some aspect of linguistics. I will start with the anthology Language in the USA
Book Product Details (from Amazon.com)
Paperback: 520 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (June 28, 2004)
ISBN-10: 052177747X
ISBN-13: 978-0521777476
Summary
This is a collection of articles covering different aspects of linguistic culture in the United States. The first part covers regional American English including origins, distinctiveness of the general accent, regional varietes, "social varieties" and a chapter on African American English and one on American Sign Language. The second part covers non-English with a focus on Spanish as well as creoles, Native American languages and multilingualism. The third section is an overview of different "sociolinguistic" issues including education, teen slang, gender/sexuality and cyberspace language.
My review
As you can see from the list above the goal of this book is to educate readers about the linguistic facts behind various "hot" policy and cultural topics. As such, the articles are written by discipline experts and include an overview of the field, specific data, a detailed bibliography and recommendations for further research.
Generally speaking, I would say the articles are successful because while they are not technical, they provide important details that clarify the underlying issues. For instance most people are familiar with American Sign Language (ASL) but may not realize it it has a grammar distinct from English, comes in regional varieties and has shown linguistic change over time. Hence ASL does have a unique linguistic heritage which is different from English.
The tone is generally non-preachy, which is good idea when the goal is to explain that commonly held views of language may be ... uh-hmm... dead wrong. More importantly, the academic tone of the articles lends crucial credibility to research fields like the study of hip-hop which might otherwise be considered "frivolous" by the general public. Another valuable factor is that many articles discuss research methods of past history of the discipline. Understanding where the data comes from is crucial for being able to track future debates where language and policy/culture collide.
As with any anthology, the articles vary in quality, but two particularly strong articles are "Spanish in the Northeast" and "Spanish in the Southwest". Although Spanish is the second largest language in the United States, these two articles show that not all Spanish speakers in the U.S. are alike.
For instance, "Spanish in the Northeast" article explains most speakers in the northeast have historically emigrated from the Caribbean and explains some of the history of immigrants from different countries. An example from the article is that in the middle of the 20th century, Anglos tended to regard the Cuban and Dominican communities more sympathetically then the Puerto Rican community because Cubans/Dominican immigrants were considered political refugees while Puerto Ricans were merely considered to be poor citizens from a U.S. colony. The recent situation in the northeast is now more complicated because of immigrants from other parts of Latin America including Mexican immigrants which previously had emigrated primarily to the Southwest
The "Spanish in the Southwest" article includes a discussion of the long contact between Spanish and English speakers in the region - enough so that there are Spanish vocabulary words unique to the region. It also mentions an important point that a significant number of speakers may be of Hispanic or Mexican heritage but are actually monolingual English speakers. Timing of immigration is an important factor.
Although most of the articles are well-written, there are a few glitches. One gap is that there is no key for the special phonetic symbols used in different articles. On the one hand, I don't think you can have a rational discussion of pronunciation for long without understanding how a transcription system works, but then again so few Americans learn it that a key is essential. Some articles do explain the underlying pronunciation mechanisms, but it's a fine line to walk.
Ironically, another weak area is coverage of regional American English. While it does cover the basics, it doesn't really touch on the details that many "mainstream" English speakers are interested in. Then again regional English could cover an entire book and they are available. Some of my favorites in that vein are the The Story of English and Do You Speak American?
One of the ongoing challenges facing the field of linguistics is how to translate important research insights into a format that non-specialists can understand. I think Language in the USA does an admirable job of trying to bridge the gap between researcher and citizen, hopefully without losing too much data in the process.
My Rating
I'll give a 4.5 out of 5
