Language sensitivity

Today Jaimie Epstein fills in for William Safire who has allowed us a vacation from his On Language column. Her offering, entitled "Sentence Sensibility," laments the loneliness she has to endure because she's so picky about language.

I've been there (I promised Casey I would tell the story soon). But now I'm in a good place. A calm place. And it feels like an enlightened place when I come across the following from Ms Epstein:

But just imagine what it’s like to be afflicted with an excess language-sensitivity gene.

There is a big difference between being very picky about usage and being very sensitive to language. All speakers/hearers are sensitive to language. It's called competence. Knowing that in the phrase "the black shoes" both the and black help determine shoes and that the order of the and black is fixed is natural "language-sensitivity." It is standard English because that's the way the language works and we don't need to be explicitly told that the article goes first. We learn the language from learning...the language.

Epstein's column focuses on factual and typographical errors that are not natural language features. It is not genetic language-sensitivity that allows her to notice when someone claims the author of Atonement is "Ian McGregor". That's just an information error. It's not a "language-sensitivity gene" that sets her against the description "slurshing sound of the waves" because it made her think "drink sloppily and quickly" and drove her to seasickness. That's just a preference. Someone who really likes the word "slurshing" isn't less sensitive than Epstein.

Epstein laments that there is no "12-step program for usage addicts." So she's addicted to usage? Well who isn't. I find I can't get through a single conversation without using a usage. My speech is full of usages.

Yes yes I know what she means. She's addicted to complaining about usage. She herself admits that her language isn't "perfect." I agree with her that a lot of writing such as the copy on a résumé deserves extra attention. But she lumps in spelling errors with the difference between who and whom and the importance of using media as a plural noun. These are all very different issues whose uses depend on varying norms and registers.

Spelling and prescriptivism are bodies of information that must be taught. Nobody asks about what are you talking? because of a language-sensitivity gene or because of an ear that is fine tuned to correct usage (Epstein refers to herself as "someone whose ear is as tuned to the pitch of language as a cellist’s is to music"). That construction comes from attention to the schoolmarm. It comes from attention to some claims about language. Investigating the music metaphor I'd say it's more like a cellist who insists on playing everything in one key.

Here's one sour note that Epstein's trusted editors missed. Take a look at the byline.



I would have willingly chuckled at it thinking it's a clever little joke but on the ADS-L Laurence Horn confirmed that in the print version the spelling is correct.

[Update:
The editors caught the error and changed it. It's not a horrible mistake. Just look at any of my posts and you'll find typos of that sort all over.

Bad genes I suppose.
]

Got change for that?

I love language change. Several years ago when I was a young and rabid prescriptivist I had some idea in my head that language could not achieve beauty if it didn't sit still long enough to be crafted by the lingual artisans. I really believed that.

Now I get all flustered and excited when I notice a new trend or a construction that doesn't work "logically" but starts taking over speech. I start hoping for quicker change. For new developments. For the same reason that geneticists rely on the mayfly for its short lifespan I yearn to see new generations of language spreading on the petri dish of.../abandoned metaphor/

Explaining change is one of the lovely theoretical areas I hope I can eventually contribute to. There is a wonderful paradox that both Labov and J Milroy examine: If language is a tool developed solely for the sake of communication it would logically follow that stability would be one of the fundamental characteristics. But language constantly changes. What's the free radical? Speakers.

So explaining language change must turn to the people who unwittingly allow such change. And what do such changes reveal about the system?

A late chapter in Lyle Campbell's Historical Linguistics text offers up some of the early theories for language change. The ideas are hilarious. And yet I can imagine some language prudes even today offering up suggestions like these.

Climatic or geographical determinism

In 1900 Harry Sweet wrote that the change from [a:] to [o] in northern European languages (such as Old English) was "doubtless the result of unwillingness to open the mouth widely in the chilly and foggy air of the North."

Nevermind that in England it was the Northumbrian dialect that resisted the rounding of [a:].

'Racial' and anatomical determination

There were unsubstantiated claims that Grimm's Law (*p>f *t>θ *k>h *b>p *d>t *g>k etc) was a result of wax plugging the ears of the Germanic tribes.

"Hey I told you each to pillage and prepare the garrottes"
"Oh we thought you said eat our fill of the free fare and carrots"

Barbarians indeed

Etiquette, social conventions and cultural traits

Wilhelm Wundt claimed that in Iroquoian etiquette is was rude to close ones mouth while speaking. He then used that fact to explain why Iroquoian languages have no labial consonants. What was his evidence that it was rude? Well the absence of labials in the languages of course.

Indolence

Young people don't care enough and are ruining our beautiful language! They're lazy lazy speakers.

Thank goodness such silly ideas are no longer thrown around so glibly.

I can name that drug with three connotations

Daniel's suggestion of Ameliozene is good (comments of last post). These drug brands can be just that transparent in their implications.

Some notable drug brand names (assume a little ® after each):

Abilify: This antipsychotic drug has a nice 'verbing' name. To make able or to give ability is to abilify right?

Acarbose: Of course diabetics want to neutralize or decarbify all those sugars. They're not carbs. They're Acarbs.

Actron: Not only will you ease your suffering from osteoarthritis, you'll be strong like a robot!

Alavert: Avert is not only appropriate for someone hoping to avoid allergies--vert is also a popular syllable with that upright connotation.

Bactroban: This medication for bacterial skin disease has a negative sense. The name introduces itself as half bacteria for goodness sake.

Celexa: Half of the Citalopram molecule was useless and caused side effects. So they refined it and used only the good half to make Lexapro (Escitalopram). It's like Celexa finally made it to "the show."

Eulexin: These brands love that 'X'.

Flomax: Your enlarged prostate is keeping the flow to a minimum. Well take it to the max. (See this SNL ad for Urigrow. A disgusting parody that's very funny.)

Januvia: For some reason J is not a popular initial letter.

Miltown: Feeling anxious. Come on down to Miltown. More Chillin' when you're illin'

Provigil: Pro is a popular drug brand name morpheme. What sufferer from narcolepsy doesn't wish to be capable of a vigil?

Proscar: Either a racing circuit or a lobby in favor of the cicatrix or a bad name for a medication for an enlarged prostate.

Wigraine: Suffering from migraine? Wigraine? Because you deserve relief.

Wytensin: Why so tense? Wytensin. (You know they thought of that.)

Zanamivir: It's intended to curtail the flu virus. It sounds like the master of the pan flute. Wait. Zanamivir... respiration... flu... playing the flute... pan flute master Zamfir...

Zyban: We don't want any more Zys Dammit!

So I suggest we call this new drug Extasty (PRO) and make it in the shape of a little candy heart stamped with the message "Say Yes to Me!"

Ask your doctor about

We call on Thursday to beg them to let us take the not-yet-approved-for-use-by-humans drug. It's name so far is APD791. "This is the first study in which APD791 will be given to humans." Here's the word on the street about it:

APD791 is a selective inverse agonist of the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor. By selectively inhibiting the activation of 5-HT2A serotonin receptors found on platelets and vascular smooth muscle, Arena believes that APD791 may reduce the risk of arterial thrombosis and conditions such as acute coronary syndrome, heart attack and stroke.

Sweeeet.

If we are among the chosen few we will be the first humans to take this. Fortunately that means that our dosage will be low: 1mg one time. The plan is to increase the dosage (in later studies) as high as 160mg.

But the fun has already begun. Today we showed up and signed on all the dotted lines agreeing to risk the following:

nausea, abdominal pain, rash, headache, dry mouth, dizziness, drowsiness, common cold symptoms, and nausea.

Other side effects also include nausea and sometimes feelings of nausea. And those are just the "common" side effects of similar drugs. Of course the list continues:

hepatitis, kidney stones, heart attack, low blood pressure, abnormal heart beat, bleeding from the stomach, nose bleed etc.

Okay--they list heart attack third. As if they had to ease up to it then taper back down. Why bother listing anything else?

"What might go wrong?"
"Oh there are several possibilities. Your heart might stop beating."
"Hmmm...tell me more before I decide."
"Well you might have trouble sleeping."
"Wow that sounds serious. Anything else?"
"Dry mouth..."
"Whoah! Get me outta here!"

Among the "side effects" listed are "abnormal laboratory test results." This is the type of warning that could be nothing or it could be horrific.

Scenario 1:

"Your results are back and I'm a little concerned about some abnormalities."
"Oh No! What is it?"
"Well your cholesterol is surprisingly good for someone with your diet and you seem to have antibodies making you immune to to every disease known to man."
"Hmmm...That's odd."

Scenario 2:

"Your results are back and I'm a little concerned about some abnormalities."
"Oh No! What is it?"
"Well we can't find your blood and it says your soul is dead."
"I have crossed oceans of time to find you."

But the name needs work. APD791 just doesn't have the right connotations of health vigor and longevity that it needs in order to sell. How about a little game of fill in the blank hinted at by the title post:

Ask your doctor about ___________.

I'm going to think about this for a few hours before posting again tonight.

That John Denver was full of...

That felt like an eternity to me. But mostly because it was spent in central Minnesota. Far away from the pretty stuff. And now I'm in Nebraska. *sigh*

My hands are covered with pen marks and chicken scratches reminding me of the usages I've heard the last few days that might makes interesting topics. Listening to several hours of radio and Buffy I'm sure to come across some language oddities. Then throw a trip to the northwestern Midwest and a father in law that grew up in Texas but has lived in Minnesota since his twenties and there's all sorts of interesting stuff scrawled on my hand wrist arm...and receipts.

We'll start slow today with no real discussion (Tuesday is an early day--I have an appointment at 6:30am. Under most circumstances I'd just stay awake till then--but good blood pressure could make the difference between 1500 dollars and none so I need my sleep).

Rebecca Ford of Oxford University Press writes announcing a new column to be written by Ben Zimmer: From A to Zimmer. That's my kind of title.

Ben Zimmer contributes regularly to Language Log and I'm sure his column will be excellent. Here's his first contribution. Go read it.

I've got the Mrs Wagner's Pies

Looks like an impressive trip don't it? From Indiana up to Minnesota down to Nebraska then back. We're hoping that the little stint in Nebraska will pay off and cover our gas expenses. In return we'll be giving some pharmaceutical company a new list of possible side effects to put on their product.

IPA symbol for the day: $ -- What sound does it represent? Cha-ching

I expect to have internet access.

Semantic tectonics

The commentary from a recent post alights on some very basic (but always interesting) historical linguistics topics.

Textbooks are always sure to provide a list of traditional semantic changes including amelioration and pejoration, and common examples such as knave churl hussy nice...etc. The following list gives some loose examples of amelioration but it's not exactly the type of elevating shift that is intended by the term.

bad sick fierce mad wicked ridiculous crazy insane terrific awesome

Rather than having shifted meaning by undergoing simple amelioration the first eight of these are a type of contranym (or autoantonym, or "janus word" or several other rarely necessary words that few dictionaries list). But those labels usually indicate a word like cleave or peruse that is equally likely to have contradictory meanings without consideration of style or register while the first eight words above typically have clear meanings based on the context. Consider the following pairs of uses:

She is a bad mother.
She's one bad mother!

Trying that stunt was ridiculous.
Dude that 360 nac-nac was ridiculous!

In formal speech the 2nd meaning would be very odd for each word. Like ridiculous in slang usage crazy and insane don't simply mean extremely good. They have a connotation of impressiveness and "hard-to-believability" (that was awkward).

Terrific and awesome are good examples of a complete semantic shift, having abandoned an earlier meaning. Awesome has the interesting tie to awful which has kept its negative meaning. We can trace awe back to OE ege and its cognate in ON agi: fear and terror.

Amelioration and elevation don't quite capture the force on these words. There is an inversion that isn't explained by simple lenition of the semantic force. In fact there is no lenition at all, but an equally forced reversal; there is no significant loss or gain of neutrality in these words.

The common theory that a word must go through polysemy in order to acquire new meanings is probably quite relevant here. For a word like terrific there was clearly a time when the more specific meaning "causing fear" generalized to include other emotions before moving over and settling on "worthy of praise." But what generalization and polysemy was there with bad? In some of these words like insane and mad there is that space where they are used to concurrently indicate positive attributes like bravery and daring while also indicating a lack of good judgment.

How about "that's sick"? Maybe something like "It's sick that anyone should be so talented. I'm jealous of your skill." Wicked? Perhaps an intention like "You must have connections to darker powers to be so successful." Both of these jocular in use. But there always a little truth in any good jest no?

And bad might follow right along with that but with a more basic sense of the fascination we have for those people who break rules and show no fear or remorse. In fact the OED suggests in its very recent draft addition the meaning of "dangerous, menacing, or imposing to a degree which inspires awe or admiration; impressively tough, uncompromising, or combative."

Considering all this we go back to a word like comprise, which when considered alongside a word like apprise is evidence that the mental representation of a word's semantics is much more broad than just to include the intention. Somewhere in that encyclopedic matrix of 'what this word means' is an awareness of what the word does not mean and a sense of the word's opposites and even complements. So when called up, a word like start brings with it a role of opposite of stop. That's pretty clear. What I find fascinating is that the understanding and use of a word like gather comprises not only disperse but also be gathered. And a word like learn travels with be taught and forget and teach in its pocket. These words must have such pockets. Otherwise it'd be hard to understand why we are always finding new meanings in there.

We don't have franken berries either

Nancy Friedman at Away With Words posted this exchange that she found at Overheard in New York.

Someone going by the name Waplow submitted this--overheard at a Starbucks:

Tourist: What kind of berry is a triberry?
Barista: What?
Tourist: You're selling a triberry muffin. Well, what's a triberry? I've never heard of that before.
Barista: It has blueberry, strawberry, and raspberry in it. They call it triberry because it has three kinds of berries in it.
Tourist: So there aren't any triberries in it?
Barista: No.
Tourist: Then why do you call it a triberry muffin? That's false advertising.
Barista: As I explained, it's called that because it has three berries in it.
Tourist: But none of those berries are triberries?
Barista: No. There is no such thing as a triberry.
Tourist: I don't understand.
Barista: Look, do you want the muffin or not?
Tourist: I don't think so. I don't want to eat anything unless I know what it is first.
Barista: So what can I get you?
Tourist: Do you have a donut?
Barista: No.
Tourist: Never mind. [leaves]
Barista: Dumbass.

What's my commentary? Brand names? Taking things literally? Ambiguity?

Actually I'm going to ignore the exchange for now. What I first noticed was an implication about the players. A Tourist and a Barista. I wonder what information the 'reporter' had that led to the label Tourist. Was it an accent? Was it a t-shirt that said Hey there! I'm from the Midwest! Was there some sort of announcement?

So let's assume that indeed there was a clear indication that it was a tourist. Why use the label? Why not Customer? Tourist doesn't add anything necessary to the structure of the joke. But there is a definite misoxenic pitch in this. Looking over the archives at Overheard in NY this is not typical. Many of the dialogs that identify a tourist do so when that identity is relevant to the conversation and necessary for the humour. Such as the following overheard on the subway:

Manic tourist lady #1: Oh wow, the front of the train. I've never been in FRONT before. Look! Haha! No driver!
Manic tourist lady #2: No driver? Seriously? Excuse me, sir? Who's driving this subway?

Local looks up from paper and looks around frantically.

Manic tourist #2: Wait, seriously? Oh my God, should we get off?
Manic tourist #1: Oh, calm down. He's just joking. We can't get off 'til Union Square.
Local: Ma'am, I swear to God that I'm not joking. Nobody's driving this train. I'm just as terrified as you are.
Manic tourist #2: Oh, whatever. He's one of those New York assholes we heard about. Ignore him.

--Location: 4 train, 59th St

Nabokov Schmabokov

It's 'naBOKov'

John Wells has given us some entertaining guidance regarding the pronunciation of Vladimir Nabokov (i.e. the pronunciation of his name/s of course). I grew up thinking it was a dactylic dimeter. And by "grew up" I mean from the time I first heard the name in junior high from my sister who loved Sting and decided to learn more about Nabokov after hearing his name in the song "Don't Stand So Close to Me."

3 poems to make the point that each name is not a dactyl. Lines 1-3 of each stanza are dactylic dimeter. One line has to be a single word. Lines 4 and 8 must rhyme. (These were the regulations of the New Statesman competition. The third poem below was the winning entry.

Humberty-nymphety,
VN the novelist
Wrote of a passion pro-
scribed by the law.

Careful! His names must be
Stressed à la russe, i.e.
Paroxytonically:
("...dímir Nabó...").
-Nigel Greenwood

The next one is in Dutch. The rhythm is the same so you should be able to "utter" it and hear how it works. I'm assuming the "Na-" of "Nabokov" in the final line is orphaned from the second dactyl in the preceding line. Translation follows:

Vlinder- en kindervriend
Vladimir Nabokov...
Lezer, uw uitspraak doet
Pijn aan mijn oor.

Volgens de Russische
Intelligentsia
Moet het Vladimir
Nabokov zijn hoor!

Translation:
Lover of butterflies and children,
'Vladimir 'Nabokov...
Reader, your pronunciation
hurts my ear.
According to the Russian
intelligentsia,
it ought to be Vla'dimir Na'bokov!
-Jan Kal

The winning entry:

Higgledy piggledy
Vladimir Nabokov —
Wait! Hasn't somebody
made a mistake?

Out of such errors, Vla-
dimir Nabokov would
sesquipedalian
paragraphs make.

Why should we care? Only because Nabokov himself cared. Wells writes: "Apparently Nabokov himself characteristically liked to point out that his first name rhymed with Redeemer."

The joy of anaptyxis

I'm not the only one who is hypnotized by Bob Ross. His soft voice and slow rhythm are famously popular. I used to watch him every summer afternoon at 12:30 on PBS and his calm joy and belief in the general goodness of rocks helped to ease and clarify my turbid adolescent soul.

I found some of his videos on YouTube realized that I had forgotten what a lovely soft drawl he had. Some notable vowels that add to his light lilt:

• He adds a soft diphthong to the [ɛ] in 'again': it sounds like [əgɪən] or [əgeən]


• Initially [ɛ] in 'anybody' is raised to [ɪ] so it sounds like 'inibody'


• Compunded '-body' doesn't gain the mid vowel [ʌ] -- it keeps a nice open [a] (usually 'body' becomes 'buddy' in compounds somebody and anybody)


• [ɪ] is tensed/raised to [i] so 'him' sounds like 'heem' or 'eem'

Two words this video he pronounces with an extra syllable. Each should be analysed differently.

Around 3:15 he says "canvasseses" reduplicating the final [-əz] syllable. Not part of his dialect. And so quickly said that I'm fairly certain it was an accident. A 'happy accident' to be sure.

His anaptyctic vowel in 'umbarella' (7:20 into the video--2:40 left in the countdown) is pretty carefully pronounced and probably not accidental. This is a common pronunciation similar to 'athalete'. Note that in each word an approximant [ɹ/l] follows a consonant of lesser sonority [b/θ]. Of all the possible analyses of this extra segment--anticipatory vowel or delayed articulation of the alveolar or pure epenthesis (i.e. not a "part" of either adjacent segment)--I like to think that Bob Ross was such an optimist that he simply believed every word had the potential to be more than it was.