Paul Fitzpatrick's Lingo Land
S1085035
Chapter 2
Chapter 1
This deals with the idea that changing the meaning of words would negatively impact language. Mr. Trudgill debunks this idea entirely by showing us that all language has always changed throughout the history of mankind. He does this by using a number of examples in English, like ‘nice’ and ‘awful’, both of which used to mean something entirely different. And he continues his argument by stating that, in the end, the users of language decide what words will mean. If everyone starts using the word ‘disinterested’ in the (currently incorrect) meaning of ‘uninterested’, in 200 years’ time that will be the new meaning of disinterested. There is very little that small groups of people can do against this process of language transformation. More importantly, it is not a bad thing that language is constantly reinventing itself like this, but rather it is a necessary phenomenon to keep a language ‘current’ for its users.
This article discusses the misconception that some languages are just not good enough for complex communication. The main point Mr. Harlow brings across is that all languages are capable of doing this, but some languages (like English) have been doing it for much longer and have therefore got more substance than others. There has historically been a lot less need to discuss nuclear physics in Maori, but that does not mean the language would not be capable of adapting to this sort of discussion. While I agree with this premise, I can imagine that a lot of people prefer to just learn a language like English. That way they can communicate on a high level around the world and not worry too much about the adequacy of their own language. Although it is not necessarily a good thing, I do not see an easy way to avoid this development over time.
I agree with the ideas put forth in this article, which states that it is impossible to say that some languages have no grammar. It reminded me a bit of Chapter 2, where similar arguments were put forth to show the complexities of any given language. The only thing I can think of that might make a language seem more complex is that it has a long written history and thus by default has a high percentage of highly educated readers and writers in its population. Some languages have never been written down, which surely must mean that there are certain levels of complexity that have not been attained by its speakers. So all languages do have grammar, but not all languages have an equal history in usage.
Although I fully recognize all the arguments in this article, I would have to disagree slightly on one point. I do also see standards of spelling and grammar declining, which is more than just a reflection of social status or background. If you do not know how to write a basic essay about a short story when you’re in 10th grade without making several major mistakes in your spelling and grammar, I feel that is a big problem. It is something I see around me, even in an ‘elitist’ private international school. So the reasons behind it are debatable, but it is something that has definitely gone wrong in their education, because I cannot remember that being tolerated in my secondary school.
Chapter 10
Chapter 8
Read all about the book Language Myths below!
I found this a very interesting article, with some points that I had not thought of before when thinking of the African American vernacular and the, obviously flawed, arguments for its inferiority. The fact that double negatives and the skipping of verbs in other languages are commonplace was something I knew but had never put into context like that. Also the idea that ‘We be doing’ means something different from ‘We doing’ was an eye-opener; it is actually just as complex as our usage, just in a different way. It rang similarly to the article on accents, where it was stated that essentially accents reflect social status and therefore influence our opinions of the people with those accents. As I said in the analysis of that article, it is a matter of time before these prejudices disappear and ‘the way we talk’ is no longer of paramount importance to the impression that we make.
This article discusses whether mass media have an influence on the language that people use. The conclusion is a resounding no, although I’m not sure I fully agree. It depends on whether English is your first or second/third language. Dutch people are well known for their excellent usage of English, and the main reason for this is the fact that Holland does not overdub any of their English programs on television. Most Dutch people end up with a very American sounding accent because of the programs they watch. The fact that mass media are not able to teach a child to speak is obvious, but once the child has learned to speak its own language I do think mass media can have quite a significant influence on the acquisition of another language, because it has no other source of this language around it.
Again this is a very interesting article, discussing the usage of double negatives and their apparent stifling in the 18th century with the introduction a set of grammatical rules for good usage in English. A similar statement was made in the previous article about African-American vernacular, but the phenomenon of double negatives occurs in every dialect, of course. The author provides many arguments for the logicality of double negatives, amongst others the usage of them in other languages and in old English. It is interesting to think that a certain type of English became the norm in the 18th century whilst the other dialects escaped this procedure of ‘tidying up’. This would mean that a certain amount of naturally evolved meaning would have disappeared from the language when it was thrust into a set of rules that did not always necessarily make sense. So in some ways people speaking dialects are more capable of expressing themselves in a natural way.
This article basically states that the liking or disliking of a language or dialect is really a subjective thing. It is not, as was believed and still is by some, a kind of biological tendency towards ‘nicer-sounding’ modes of communication. In essence, the appreciation of a dialect or language is directly linked to the social status connected with that dialect or language. But I believe it is something that is slowly disappearing, especially with English becoming such a world language. I have only about 10% native speakers in my classes, the rest having various degrees of accents in their English. This will only become more widespread, until the ‘old-fashioned’ link between accent and social status will disappear completely.
Chapter 15
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 11
The last chapter on our list was possibly also the least interesting for me. The conclusion is that the speed of sound utterance does not vary significantly between different languages, but that the type of interaction does matter. So if you are telling a story you speak more slowly than when you are conducting an interview. I would be more interested in knowing whether there is a difference between languages when it comes to the speed of getting something across. Does a Chinese person need the same amount of time as a Spanish to tell someone an complex anecdote? The speed of ‘meaning’ is surely more important than the speed of ‘sounds’.