It's kinda like a hissy fit.

My father, a psychiatrist, puts a prudent amount of faith in how meaningful a substitution error is in speech. He doesn't believe a speech error tells us what you're thinking. But it does tell us what you're thinking about. If you slip up in your wedding vows and say "for better or for hearse" or "in sickness and in hell" there's something on your mind. Who knows why it's on your mind but it is.

I agree to an extent. But I also trust that there's a reasonable amount of linguistic gravity, even if it's largely phonological. And frozen or reinforced phrases easily add mass to these bits and pieces of linguistic matter. Such a phrase is one that everyone has heard and everyone uses as a single unit. Often idiomatic, sometimes perfectly grammatical. Think of the Match Game. I say 'Keep off' and you say 'the grass.' I say 'Buy one' you say 'get one free.'

It's also possible that the bare structure of a phrase is planned before it's spoken and some flourishes are added on the fly. So when a bare phrase is similar to a common phrase it can take the familiar form. That's probably what happened to Pat Buchanan while talking Rachel Maddow on her new MSNBC show. The topic was Sarah Palin. Isn't always these days?

Buchanan: The press threw an apocalyptic fit on this thing--an apoplectic fit if you will--when she was announced. And I think she was treated horribly.

His bare phrase is The press threw a fit. Before he says it he decides to add an adjective. What adjective would indicate a loss of composure and control. How would you indicate that the press was confused and slightly crazed? Well he can't go there of course. But it's fair to say that epileptic likely came to his mind pretty quickly. He avoids it and instead called it an apocalyptic fit. Well that one doesn't really capture it. He's going for an adjective that captures the behaviour of the press, not the historical or global implications. So he reaches into the bag again. This time he pulls out apoplectic, landing safely on a phrase that is out there. But his pronunciation of apoplectic provides a smidgen of evidence that epileptic is still rattling around his mind. The first vowel is pretty close to ɛ making apoplectic sound very close to it.

Now as I said, apoplectic fit is out there and it's attested. It even gets an early citation from 1611 in the OED. It's not as common as epileptic fit according to a quick Google™ search. 32K vs 124k. But as an object of the verb threw the numbers are much closer. Threw an epileptic fit: 90 hits. Threw an apoplectic fit 64 hits:

So what might have happened with Buchanan's statement is almost like a magnetic repellant from a dangerous phrase. He was thinking apoplectic, which is an appropriate phrase for what he's saying. But it's so close to a phrase he wants to avoid that he steps away from it and goes to apocalyptic which is fine but has an odd meaning. So he regathers and again approaches his original intention and goes juuuust a little past it to the first vowel of the word he was trying to avoid in the first place.

Now this is mapping out quite a visual path. And it would be nice if language worked so tangibly as to give our processes a reasonable space model for analysis. But I've probably already gone too far. And for too little.*

Mark Liberman has put up a few posts about such things recently.

---

*How about the rest of Buchanan's points? That's where the meat is.

Imus guilty as the next

Yeah yeah it's been eight months and now Don Imus is back on the air. We all knew he would be eventually.

OK. Just because he used a label doesn't immediately mean that he thinks it's an accurate depiction; he probably thought it was just a safe joke. Still--his comment was insensitive. Such cheap derogation is a weak way to entertain. He was a goat for the industry's expiation. And a safe one because CBS doesn't look like a bully canning a rich white man. At least that's what I'm convinced his banishment was.

There's a point where the use of a phrase is the issue--not the opinions or intentions of the speaker. Humor blurs the line between using a term and referring to a term. And so a joke at the wrong time can be viewed as too dangerous a game to play. Those who decry such jokes often don't care that the performer might not actually see things the way the joke says. The problem they say is that the words and opinions are put out there without condemnation.

Then why are so many reports and stories so eager to simply reprint the phrase unnecessarily? We all remember the phrase don't we?

I would put up links to all the stories but what's the point?

Coulter tells us what she can't say

I'll go ahead and say that only linguists should talk about offensive words. It's not because I'm looking to take away anyone else's right. It's because I think only linguists know how to do it. Semiotic ignorance leads many people to overlook the difference between talking about a word and actually using the word.

Isaiah Washington's post Golden Globe rant was on the fringe. Ann Coulter thinks she's only flirting with that same offensive word, but she's way past flirting. She has long been nurturing a love affair with hateful speech and she has consummated the affair in public several times.

Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference the demure Coulter decided to show impressive restraint by not referring to Presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot." Here's the example of her impotent jest.

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm...kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions. Thank you.

You see what she did there? She says she's at an "impasse" in her desire to use the word "faggot" and explains that she cannot therefore talk about Edwards, which at first sounds a lot like she really is refusing to say he is a "faggot." She could possibly hide behind a flimsy shield of conversational implicature and insist that she never said Edwards is a faggot, but let's follow the structure of her joke.

She's not allowed to say "faggot."
She has said it.
She tells us to whom she would like to apply it.

Not very clever.

Here's how she smuggly tried to dismiss the offense. Responding to criticism she said

C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.

(The New York Times reports this response came via email.)

See what she did there? Through the shrill peals of her turgid laughter we have her admission that she is very comfortable calling homosexuals faggots. "It was a joke," she says. Not the use of the word, but the comparison to Edwards.

Perhaps the best course of action with offensive language is to let it flow freely in all media and in all situations. We will surely find that the people who choose to speak a certain way will, through their intellectual inanity, do the best job of illustrating just how moronic it sounds.

[The original picture I posted of Coulter was too heavy handed. When an article or newscast finds it necessary to illustrate its commentary with a "crazy" picture it comes across as at least one of two things: A)a lack of confidence in the writing to adequately convey the poor judgement of the individual -- 2)just plain ad hominem malevolence. Too understand what Buffy's comment below refers to, click here to see the original picture.]

Culture vs Logic

Last week a fellow student in my History of the English Language shared a frustration with the textbook. The text is A Biography of the English Language by Celia M Millward. In an early chapter on writing systems Millward devotes a short section to syllabaries. Such systems may represent syllables but have limited or no way to differentiate between individual phonemes. She gives an example of the Japanese katakana and hiragana syllabaries, each of which uses 46 signs and some diacritics. Because Japanese syllables are relatively simple these few symbols are all that is necessary to represent every word in the language.

Millward explains that the Japanese system blends the kana syllabic symbols with the highly regarded Chinese characters--purely for reasons of "prestige." Here then she comments that the Japanese writing system "illustrat[es] how cultural factors may outweigh logic and efficiency in determining the written form of language."

My fellow student explained that she has some knowledge of Japanese language and writing, even if only by investigation, and the author's claim greatly offended her. In fact, based on this she announced that she hates the book. She believes the writer is biased.

I'm not sure I agree that this shows any bias or unfair judgment. I don't know enough about the Japanese writing system, but if Millward is claiming by a standard such as number of strokes and limitation of appropriate use that the Chinese logograms are more cumbersome than the Japanese kana the evaluation is reasonable. Since I know neither the data nor the argument I choose to defend her claim on other grounds.

It is no insult to claim that cultural factors influence writing systems. It is true of every language and every writing system, even the IPA. Why does the IPA use two symbols to represent affricates? Perhaps because of the influence of the French linguists whose native phonology contains no affricates. Perhaps. Why does the English language spell with so many silent "E"s? It's certainly more cultural than it is efficient.

And Millward does not make the claim that Japanese uses a more illogical system than other languages. She says it illustrates the phenomena. Perhaps she should have added that it can be said of all languages. Millward's stumble here is in the lack of a context for the logic. There is of course logic even in the choice to use a more complicated system when a more simple system is available. Logic requires the establishment of certain premises. If A then B is the most basic premise, and even though one may value another premise, say if A then C, that is not to say that only one of these is logical. Millward should clarify which logical premises the Japanese system ignores in favour of prestige.

But it's not an offensive flub.

So this is Halloween too?

Years ago a colleague shared with me his disdain for the "abbreviated" form Xmas for the word Christmas. He doesn't appreciate a spelling that takes "Christ" out of the word. This same concern has become Bill O'Reilly's yearly rant-motive, adopted and amplified by headlines and television reports. The latest focus is on a poll created by Zogby's that claims that people are more offended by the phrase "Happy Holidays" than by the phrase "Merry Christmas." Geoff Nunberg at Language Log posted a nice analysis of the poll to show how its wording and organization has likely contributed to a desired outcome.

Here's my précis of the post: The poll supplies more answers that acknowledge even a slight offense than no offense at all at the phrase "Happy Holidays". The poll loads the questions by implying or claiming a motive for those who use the phrase "Happy Holidays".

Maybe we should start calling them the "H-words". "Holiday" has religious meaning anyway. So there should be no such thing as a government holiday. That's establishmentarian.

Let's take these proto-rhetorical techniques to the extremes to show how they might affect the numbers. Here's a one question poll meant to show how people feel about Merry Christmas -vs- Happy Hol...I mean the H-words.

Q: Which of these statements best describes your opinion?

Possible Answers:

I've been wished a "Merry Christmas" many times and I've never gotten violent when I hear it

There's nothing absolutely evil about saying "Merry Christmas"

I don't get upset when people say "Merry Christmas"

I think saying "Happy Holidays" can sometimes be annoying if the person who says it is only trying to be politically correct and acts superior or snooty

"Merry Christmas" is a traditional greeting and poses not threat to National Security

I don't even always notice when someone says "Merry Christmas"

I think some people who insist on saying "Happy Holidays" can be a tiny bit off-putting

The mere sound of the phrase "Merry Christmas" is offensive and I feel like I have been slapped in the face and spit upon whenever someone says it even if they aren't directing it at me

This poll offers answers that support both "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays".

My guess is that answers that show tolerance for "Merry Christmas" are more likely to be chosen. I would then have to release the findings of my poll with the summary saying "More respondents answered that the phrase Merry Christmas is not at all offensive to them or that Happy Holidays is at least somewhat annoying."

Language history bit:
Typical English vowel changes have led to the pronunciation [ho^wlɪ] from OE hálig. Our pronunciation of holiday has not observed the usual [a:]>[o] change. It has preserved the vowel quality just as northern ME dialects did. This is not likely an effect of a preserved northern pronunciation. In the combined form the vowel retained its pronunciation [halɪdej] even in non-northern ME dialects. There might be several reasons for this--among them is the distinction between holy day with religious denotation and holiday without it. But that's research that I'll have to do later. Right now I'm on holi-... vacation.

Oh yes. Regarding my friend who believes Xmas takes Christ out of Christmas: he's only right as far as the orthography. As I understand his complaint he means that it secularises the day for the sake of a quicker spelling. But the X is probably symbolic of the cross. So the 'X' spelling could serve the pious Christian as a reminder of the birth and significance of the life to follow. Etymology can help us all learn to see past that which at first looks evil. Can I hear an 'amen'? (Or is it 'omen'?)

There's no Lyon in Baseball!

I know, I know -- It's "Lyons."

So if translating perceived attitudes into unattested linguistic patterns is to "linguify" then what do we call translating a linguistic behaviour into a claim about attitude? I'm not talking about translating a word into its classical semantic components - denotative and connotative. I'm talking about reading a decision about grammar as a comment on culture. Let's get past the obvious argument that language is a cultural phenomenon and it reveals much about the user. Let's look specifically at the recent firing of Steve Lyons for on air comments that have been called "racially insensitive" (Janie McCauley - AP) and "ethnically inappropriate" (Paul J. Gough - Hollywood Reporter).

According to McCauley Lyons was commenting on Lou Piniella's heritage. Gough doesn't identify any agenda in Lyons' speech. Here are some slices of the mini-corpus being autopsied.

Piniella compared the likelihood of an average player repeating a quality performance to "finding a wallet on a Friday night and looking for one on Sunday and Monday, too." He then described exceptional play as "en fuego" and poor play "frio." The stories I found disagreed about which players Piniella was describing.

Lyons, who apparently doesn't speak much Spanish, said that Piniella was "habla-ing Español" and added "I still can't find my wallet." He further said "I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit too close to him now."

Of his ungrammatical Spanish McCauley says Lyons was "butchering the conjugation for the word 'to speak'." Is it even more disrespectful if Lyons pronounced the "h"? G-d forbid that he go so far as to add a disrespectful English pronunciation to his insensitive English morphology. What's next? Racist syntax?

Well sort of.

Lyons put a joke in the wrong spot. Piniella made a common but weak analogy from athletic performance to material serendipity and then started speaking a language other than English for some vague effect -- a practice canonized by those linguistic-prophet sportscasters at ESPN.

I'm guessing that the controversy stems from the uncomfortable juxtaposition of a linguistic observation and jocular utterance. Or the merging of them with "habla-ing." The anger - or remedial action - directed at his comment must come from some belief that a comment about language (in the form of his Spanglish word) right next to a comment about a stolen wallet equals his equation of an ethnicity with a proclivity to steal.

The plot has its antecedent action as well. Lyons has a history of saying silly things that might show disrespect. That history includes questioning one player's commitment to Jewish traditions, commenting on an unfamiliar sight-aid he noticed in the crowd, and claiming that English was another player's second language.

How dare he mention L2 in a beisbol game?