Conclusiones del Capítulo Segundo

Linguists understand that language change such as new word formation is a fundamental part of language. However, linguists aren’t the only people interested in language. Most people have opinions about language and language use. Looking at the letters pages in a newspaper, on blogs or even listening to the radio we notice that people have very strong ideas about language. There may be particular words or expressions that are commented on, perhaps because they cause offence, or because they are considered to be ‘grammatically wrong’. For example, Prince Charles, at a British Council launch of a five-year program to preserve ‘English English’, said: ‘People tend to invent all sorts of nouns and verbs and make words that shouldn’t be’ (The Times, 24 March 1995). This is a very common belief among speakers of all languages.

What do you think about these words in Example 1.2? Do you think they are useful additions to English? What do you suppose someone with Prince Charles’ point of view would say about them?

Example 1.2

a. ginormous (adjective): bigger than gigantic and bigger than enormous

b. woot (interjection): an exclamation of joy or excitement c. chillax (verb): chill out/relax, hang out with friends

Activity 1.1

For linguists, and for lexicographers who compile dictionaries, meaning is determined by use. That is, we don’t judge a use of a word as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ because our concern is mutual understanding. This can be captured more precisely by talking about the difference between descrip- tion and prescription. Linguists are concerned with describing what people do with language (description) while people who want to say that a certain use is incorrect are setting down rules for proper language use (prescrip- tion), quite apart from what people actually do. Prescriptivists have very strong ideas about how language should be used. They have clear ideas about what is ‘correct’ and what isn’t. Prescriptivists seem to think that if language changes, if ‘rules’ are broken, that the heart of language will be torn out. As we’ve pointed out, for linguists, these changes are an inherent feature of language and very interesting. As languages are used, they change naturally. Although language changes, it is always systematic; that is, language changes are always consistent with the building codes of that language. The difference between prescriptive and descriptive perspectives might take some getting used to; but it is fundamental for any study of language.

Many prescriptivist requests to respect the ‘rules’ also come with some kind of warning: breaking the rules will lead to breaking the language itself. ‘The crisis is imminent’, we are told; ‘things have never been this bad, it’s all the fault of young people, foreigners and poor schooling’. The themes of prescriptivist arguments remain consistent over time. Disapproval of the way some people use language, especially in relation to grammar and the meaning of words, has a very long history known as ‘the complaint tradition’ (Milroy & Milroy 1999). The idea that language is in decline and that this is someone’s fault, dates back to at least the fourteenth century (Boletta 1992; see also Crowley 2003). You can find many contemporary examples of the complaint tradition in newspapers and on the internet.

The concept of correctness and ‘Standard English’ is a tricky one (Trudgill 1999). ‘Standard English’ (or ‘standard’ in any other language) is defined by speech communities and not linguists. Therefore ‘standard’ refers to many varieties that speakers believe to be correct. In this book, we use the expression ‘standard English’ to refer to this popular definition. This term is intended to acknowledge that non-linguists believe that there are

varieties that are more correct than others, a belief predicated on prescrip- tivist ideas but one that we do not endorse.

In contrast, prescriptivists feel it’s important to have guidelines or ‘rules’ for the best way of speaking. So they assert the importance of the ‘rules’ by recording them in books and teaching them to students. It’s very important to consider who ‘makes’ these rules for language use and why they insist everyone follow them. Rules for language use (remember: we’re not talking about the ‘building codes’ we described previously) are dictated and maintained by educated members of the higher social echelons of society. They are the members of society who have the power to sanction members of the speech community for not ‘following the rules’. These sanctions might take the form of a poor mark in school, a failed job interview or lack of a promotion at work. So, knowing the prescriptive rules of language clearly has consequences. Because prescriptive ideas about language circulate in our culture, it is not uncommon to form judgements about other people because of their use of language. For example, OKCupid, an online dating site, gave advice to its users on how to use language in order to get more replies. They analysed half a million messages making first contact to see how successful they were in getting a reply and developed some ‘rules’ for the people using the website. Their first rule is:

Be literate

Netspeak, bad grammar, and bad spelling are huge turn-offs. Our negative correlation list is a fool’s lexicon: ur, u, wat, wont, and so on. These all make a terrible first impression. In fact, if you count hit (and we do!) the worst 6 words you can use in a first message are all stupid slang.

(Rudder 2009)

Thus OKCupid is suggesting that members who use ‘Netspeak, bad grammar, and bad spelling’ give the appearance that they are ‘stupid’. We will think hard about this judgement and throughout this book dissect the ideologies behind this position.

Another example of the complaint tradition that prescriptivists make is that speakers use the word ‘literally’ incorrectly when they use it as an inten- sifier, because that is a different meaning from its ‘original’ one. For example, one blogger complained about Hollywood stylist Rachel Zoe using ‘literally’:

Stylist Rachel Zoe, on the other hand, sure doesn’t seem to know when to stop using the word ‘literally.’ Who doesn’t want to see Rachel Zoe say literally literally 29 times in a minute in 29 seconds, beginning with, ‘I literally want to cut myself in half’?

(Triska 2012)

The complaint about the ‘unconventional’ use of literally is especially inter- esting because it is not clear that ‘literally’ has always enjoyed the ‘literal’

meaning that is being claimed for it. The figurative meaning is attested from at least the eighteenth century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). This meaning is described as follows:

colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.

Now one of the most common uses, although often considered irregular in standard English since it reverses the original sense of liter- ally (‘not figuratively or metaphorically’).

(www.oed.com)

The distinction made here is important. The OED lists this meaning as ‘collo- quial’ and then notes that this is ‘considered irregular in standard English’. This clearly demonstrates that not all speakers use the word in the same way. If there are many ways to say the same thing, how is it possible to know whether ‘literally’ is being used correctly or not? It all depends on whether we take a descriptive or prescriptive position.

Consider the example sentences in Table 1.1. Decide which ones would be considered ‘correct’ from a descriptive or prescriptive position. What features of the examples make you think so?

Table 1.1 Prescriptive and descriptive activity

Prescriptivist _Descriptive

Example: Mary don’t usually be at church.

Not correct: it does not follow prescriptive rules for negation in English

Correct: it consists of a structure allowed by the building codes of English

a. If I was you, I’d study harder for exams b. Sally wants out of the car c. Dog the up quickly ran

road

d. We should not have went to that party last night e. I book read yesterday

have the

Activity 1.2

Examples c. and e. are ‘not correct’ from either a prescriptivist or descriptivist perspective because they don’t conform to the building codes of English and therefore don’t communicate a clear message. That is, it’s difficult to determine what they mean. Examples b. and d., on the other hand, commu- nicate a clear message, and are ‘correct’ from the descriptive perspective.

From the prescriptive perspective, though, they are ‘incorrect’ because they don’t follow prescriptive rules. In b.(i) and d.(i), slight modifications to the example sentences make them each prescriptively correct.

b. Sally wants out of the car b.(i) Sally wants to get out of the car

d. We should not have went to that party last night d.(i) We should not have gone to that party last night

You may feel like examples b. and d. don’t conform to the building codes of English. In fact, there are varieties of English where examples c. and e. are used. There are so many different kinds of English that some constructions might actually sound impossible to you. We’ll encounter this idea again in Chapter 10.

1.5 LANGUAGE: MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS

A single utterance can do more than one thing. Roman Jakobson, a twenti- eth-century linguist, argues that ‘Language must be investigated in all the variety of its functions’ (2000: 335). It’s useful to look at Jakobson’s schema of functions in a bit more detail as it helps to have a framework to describe and investigate the different functions of language. Without this, it can be difficult to think about the various ways that we use language.

CONTEXT

ADDRESSER MESSAGE ADDRESSEE CONTACT

CODE

Figure 1.1 Factors involved in communication, Jakobson

He starts by describing the components of communication that one needs to take into consideration (see Figure 1.1). First, there is the Addresser (in the left side of the schema): the person who is speaking. Second, there is the Addressee, or the person being spoken to (on the right side of the schema). Third, to fully account for the message from the Addresser to the Addressee we need to examine four things (in the centre of the schema) that mediate the communication between the Addresser and the Addressee. For the message to be communicated there has to be a medium of commu- nication, which may be verbal, written or even visual (contact). This will have some influence on how the message, the content, is encoded; whether through words or hand signals for example. Whatever code is chosen (words or hand signals), it must be one that both addresser and addressee mutually understand. The message will also be sent and received in a context, that is, there will be a social and linguistic environment that frames the message (e.g. at work, at a party, on the phone, etc.).

‘Each of these six factors [in Figure 1.1] determines a different function of language’ (Jakobson 2000: 335). We can see these functions set out in Figure 1.2 in the same format as the components just examined. The emotive (or expressive) function is in the position of the Addresser, as it ‘aims a direct expression of the speaker’s attitude towards what he is speaking about’ (2000: 336). The referential function of language is what we might normally think of as information, or the denotative function of language, but also includes the ideas, objects and conventions which speakers share knowledge of. The referential function allows us to ask someone to pass the salt, and receive the salt (rather than the pepper). The conative function of language relates to the addressee (hence placed in the addressee/right hand side of the schema). This function helps us describe messages that are intended to have an effect on the audience. This might be anything from a command, an insult or an attempt at persuasion.

REFERENTIAL

EMOTIVE POETIC CONATIVE

PHATIC METALINGUAL

Figure 1.2 Six functions of communication, Jakobson

People usually think primarily of the referential function of language. We need to consider all the functions to account for the way language works. If a person says ‘it’s cold in here’, you may understand this as simply being a comment about the level of air conditioning. If you’re sitting near an open window, however, it would be reasonable to interpret this as a request to close the window; thus, it’s a message where the conative function (a request to shut the window) is highlighted. Common stereotypes about British speech describe a preoccupation with the weather. So, in a conver- sation among British people, ‘it’s cold in here’ may well be understood as small talk, or making conversation. This is the phatic function. The purpose is not so much to communicate information (anyone in the room can tell what the temperature is), but rather to be polite to make ‘small talk’. One way to do this in British culture is to talk about something that is socially accept- able and not terribly significant. Knowing this is an example of communica- tive competence that we described earlier.

It’s important at this stage to note that the conative function is different from connotation. Connotation is the subjective or personal aspect of meaning, which can be contrasted with denotation, which is the literal definition. While denotation is related to the referential function of language, connotation is more likely to be related to the emotive function. To come back to Jakobson’s schema of functions, remember that the conative function is about addressing someone, using imperatives or vocatives.

The poetic function was of great importance to Jakobson as he was looking specifically at language and literature. The poetic function is impor- tant in everyday language, though, and draws attention to the message for

its own sake. The most obvious examples of messages with significant poetic function often also have an important conative (and indeed emotive) function. Advertising, whether spoken or written, often takes advantage of the poetic function of language (i.e. the form of the message). The same is true of political and other persuasive texts.

The final function that Jakobson draws our attention to is the metalin- gual. This is language that refers to language and communication while communicating. This function is vital for successful communication to continue to take place. When we ask someone to repeat or rephrase or explain again what their message is, we are exploiting the metalingual function of language. In short, we are able to talk about talking.

All these functions of language are always present. We can, for example, look at the poetic function of any piece of language, whether it’s literature, advertising or a mathematics textbook. Generally, however, we only notice functions when they’re foregrounded. For example, we tend to notice the poetic function of language when a message is particularly nicely phrased. These functions are also central in understanding how people use language to do things, whether it is to get a window closed or to be elected to govern- ment. In the same way, the functions of language are the means by which power can be exercised over people.

Try to identify texts or speech situations that are good examples of each function Jacobson identifies. Do you think there are any functions of language he has not included?

Activity 1.3

Language performs a variety of functions. We use it to do a whole range of things, from talking to our friends to applying for jobs. This flexibility is important and not something we always think about. When we are confronted with a new use of language or have to use language in an unfamiliar way, we are likely to become aware of the choices available and the significance of the words we choose. In everyday language use, however, this usually goes unremarked.

1.6 POWER

Finding a full definition of power with respect to language is not straightfor- ward. The many functions of language mean that there are different ways in which power can be exercised. While there are some examples of power being used to change language directly, the relationship is generally more subtle. We saw that speaking a particular variety of English (e.g. British

English) may make it possible to perform particular actions or influence particular groups of people. But even small variations in language use can bring benefits to speakers. People who speak the standard variety of British English, for example, will be thought to be more educated and more capable than others. This may give them access to better employment, institutions with power or even a better education. This is because of the attitudes that people have about language. While the speakers gain from being able to speak the standard language, and so have a degree of power, it is not the case that they – as individuals – are controlling others. Rather, having competence in a prestigious language is in itself beneficial.

We noted that language change is an inherent part of language, yet some people feel that language should stay the same. Some nations even have institutions that attempt to regulate the form of their language by stipulating which forms are ‘correct’ (the Académie Française in France for example). Although this is not terribly common, other examples can be found. The former president of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, exercised his power directly over language. In 2002 ‘He decreed that the month of January should be named after him and April after his mother’ (Parfitt 2006). He also named a town after himself (or more correctly the title he insisted upon – Turkmenbashi – ‘leader of all Turkmen’) and decreed that ‘bread’ also be called by his mother’s name (Paton Walsh 2006). This is an example of straightforward legal and political power being used to change language. Such action is generally only possible where there is absolute singular authority, as was the case with this dictator.

Do you think some kinds of language use should be regulated by law?

Activity 1.4

Many countries regulate what people can say and write, or at least punish- ments exist for certain kinds of linguistic activity. The most common areas of ‘regulation’ relate to threats, encouraging others to commit crimes, protec- tion of intellectual property and damaging someone’s reputation. But would it be permissible to regulate other kinds of speech? Should gossip be illegal for example? In September 2013, an Indian website announced that the government would require those spreading rumours to have licences.

Upset with the fact that anyone with an internet connection and basic language skills can take part in rumor mongering, the government is thinking of issuing licenses for rumor mongers.

While this was a joke announced on a humorous fake news website, in the previous year there was some confusion about whether or not gossiping was, in fact, illegal in Fiji. Vosamana reports in the Fiji Times:

In her formal address, police constable Mere Mocetoka told the women that anyone was liable to spend one year in prison if found gossiping or making bad remarks about another person.

(Vosamana 2012)

While this was a real news report, it appears that the police officer had misinterpreted a law that stipulates insulting people is a crime (ABC 2012). While ‘gossip’ can refer to a number of different activities (see Chapter 6), it would be possible for certain kinds of malicious gossip to warrant legal