“I have the idea that there’s something about visual art – that is, the intellectual part of visual art – that is away from language, and that its value is that it’s away from language. It’s a knowledge that is not connected to language. When I have some great experience with a work of art, something that I love, something like Monet’s paintings or some really good stuff, the importance of it, what’s moving to me, what changes me is the part that’s knowledge away from language, that can’t be explained in language, and it makes me feel suddenly free. Because, I think because, at least partly, I am suddenly free of this prison of words, the prison of language.
I try to make art that’s not connected to metaphor, that hasn’t this descriptive, metaphorical, architectural weight to it. But I think my tendency, and most artists’ tendency – most artists that I know, especially, in the last 20 years – is to make instructive art, art that instructs us about something, or to make sublime art – art that says, ‘I’m the sensitive person, I’m your guide and you could never have seen this without me, the sensitive artist showing it to you’. I think those are the two sins we now have in art, I feel that for myself.” – Jimmie Durham (via.)
“Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.” – Steven Pinker
In Defense of Internet Lingo (Careful Fanboys, This Meme is Snarky)
Everyone has something to add to Oxford University Corpus’s list of the top “irritating phrases,” (for the upcoming book, Damp Squid.) The Telegraph article now has 2400 comments, some of which are a back and forth of what is and is not a misused phrase, eg, “To the person who ‘corrected’ the incorrect phrase ’spitting image’ to ’spirit and image’, your correction is incorrect. The original form of the phrase is ’spit and image’, commonly reduced in casual speech to ’spit ‘n’ image’, in the same way that ‘rock and roll’ becomes ‘rock ‘n’ roll’.”
Wired’s blog has another hundred or so comments, and many of them unsurprisingly sneer at common web lingo. Do these people really want to constrict the English language so that it never grows and words only mean what they have always meant? Or is it just a mild prejudice against the kind of people who talk like that?
Perhaps the greatest article on the subject was on Gawker a few years ago, rightly zinging the blogger-insider language that distinguishes it as not-real journalism:
I’m looking at you, [example of complaint].
Has been known to cause actual outbreaks of hives. As if the thing/person “looked” at would react with a surprised and bashful “Who, me?”. Puts the writer in the unflattering role (for all concerned) of pedantic schoolteacher addressing unruly children.Um, [condescension]?
As a verbal tic in conversation, “um” is perfectly acceptable and often auditorially invisible. Written in prose, it signals a level of smarmy superiority that would get you rightly punched in the face if you dared behave like that in person.[Argument], wait for it, [rhetorical flourish].
Where did this come from? Stage direction cues in the theater? No matter, it’s a ridiculous tease and artificial tension builder that’s never worth the wait.
Generally I’m annoyed by people who say “random!” when they don’t actually mean random or say it after a silly (not funny) joke. It’s not their usage of the word that bugs me, so much as the kind of people who tend to say it — a signal they might be part of a certain gum smacking subspecies. Hatred of business-ese also seems better directed at the overwhelming personalities of mid-management social media hacks who want to sell you something “bleeding edge,” part of the “brand called you” once they “touch base with you.” It has nothing to do really with the cliches themselves, misused or not.
Maybe I’ve insulated my world away from those kinds of people, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard or read the phrase “jumped the shark” used without the utterer knowingly referencing the annoyance the phrase inflicts. Likewise, “thinking outside the box,” always seems to be said with a knowing arched eyebrow.
There are three words web writers often can’t stand but I’d like to see them preserved as they so subtly acknowledge particular facets of online behavior: snark, fanboy, and meme.
I can’t improve on this response by Caesar on Wired about snark: “You can’t get replace ’snark’ with ’sarcasm.’ Everyone knows that sarcasm doesn’t come across over the internet, but it’s easy to tell when someone’s being snarky.” And a fanboy isn’t a fan. It is so much more, explaining a childlike blind devotion that is also a very isolating experience, one ususally can only share with others on online forums. Red Sox fans aren’t fanboys, especially in Boston, because you can meet and bond with anyone who shares your passion by entering the nearest Irish bar on game night.
I long tried to avoid using the word “meme” knowing how many people out there love to say Richard Dawkins wasn’t talking about dancing cat pictures. But, whatever. There’s no other word describing the way an idea on the internet spreads, um, “virally.” The term has been around since the early days of blogging. While it, like “blog,” is a hated word, it’s here to stay.
More interesting comments from the Wired thread:
I don’t know where to begin. Most people who think they have mastered English aren’t even close. In fact, there is no mastery of language, except in the understanding that it will never be static. Most phrases that annoy people are simply those that originate in a different region or culture (generation, dialect, etc.) and are misunderstood. Spelling and syntax errors aside (mostly), the flexibility of English is what makes it a great language, and I thumb my nose (I’m sure I just made a few people squirm) at those language Nazis who think their version is the correct one. If you want to sound intelligent, stick to the rules. However, there are great benefits to learning the lingo of another dialect or generation. And at the end of the day you’ll find you’ve communicated in a new way with someone who isn’t *you* (with all due respect). How about that.
Posted by: robogobo | Nov 7, 2008 10:36:23 AMMy god you people have a long stick up your collective asses. Do you hate every colloquialism? Is everything you say a completely unique combination of words? Are you never, ever redundant for emphasis, clarity, or just for entertainment? It’s tight asses like you who keep us from having an official genderless singular possessive pronoun equivalent of “his/her”, namely “their”- and so we’re stuck with one of the most awkward and yet “correct” phrases ever.
I swear all you English majors need to get laid more often.
Posted by: robogobo | Nov 7, 2008 11:24:06 AM“the”
I keep hearing that word all the time. I don’t care how useful it is; I’m tired of hearing it. If you’re not creative enough to express yourself without using old words, then you don’t deserve to express yourself.
…seriously though, cliches are pretty much the same as words. Why should I make up a new metaphor/symbol/sentence when a well known one already exists? I can use it without effort and my listener can understand it without effort.
The example of “snarky” was very ironic. In a piece that’s basically just complaining about people using old words, the author complained about people using a new word when the old word was “good enough.” Well, the expressions and sayings I already know are good enough for me.
The “begging the question” complaint is silly too. I have never once heard that phrase used “correctly,” and “circular argument” makes a lot more sense anyway. If everybody in the world forgot the original meaning of “begging the question,” nothing of value would have been lost.
I don’t care what any arbitrary “rules” (there are no actual rules… only conventions) say. The purpose of language is to express your idea in a way that others can understand. If you don’t do this, then you fail at language…. no matter how perfect your grammar/usage is or how unique your metaphors are.
Posted by: james | Nov 7, 2008 11:29:47 AM
A lot of comments make the infuriating assumption that typos evidence a writer’s sub-Grade 3 grammar skills. Look, the greater likelihood is someone accidently typed “their” instead of “they’re” because people often type homonyms accidently when they are typing fast. (For some reason I always seem to write celebrate as “selebrate,” even though I can’t remember not knowing how to spell the word. I guess my fingers are aligned in a weird way with the aural part of my brain.)
What we see as errors might be our own arrogance. One comment fumes over “centers around,” but while a bunch of centers wheeling around sure is stupid, one might also visualize this as finding a center point near or “around’ someplace.
Reading this, I was reminded of Steven Pinker’s op-ed, “Everything You Heard Is Wrong,” defending Sarah Palin and GWB’s pronunciation of “nucular”:
no, “nucular” is not a sign of ignorance. This reversal of vowel-like consonants (nuk-l’-yer —> nuk-y’-ler) is common in the world’s languages, and is no more illiterate than pronouncing “iron” the way most Americans do, as “eye-yern” instead of “eye-ren.”
Nucular, FTW!
Art by Mark Bradford
Previously:
Alright, Sokay: Tomorrow’s English Language
Locution of passivity in VP debate (previously discussed here.) Global Language Monitor said in a report, Palin used the passive voice in 8 percent of her sentences, Biden only 5 percent of the time. The report explains, “passive voice can be used to deflect responsibility; Biden used active voice when referring to [Vice President Dick] Cheney and [President] Bush; Palin countered with passive deflections.”
John Maeda author of Laws of Simplicity is now President of the Rhode Island School of Design. “RISD is MIT for the right brain,” he tells the WSJ. “Everyone asks me, ‘Are you bringing technology to RISD?’ I tell them, no, I’m bringing RISD to technology.” The article says he spends an hour a day blogging “unmediated” — “so you get the real me, typos, spelling mistakes, you name it.” (via.)
“I told him I was 35, and he replied that he had already fathered two children by the time he was my age. Since I had to admit I hadn’t, he advised: ‘But you should, because otherwise, when you are dead, no part of you will live on.’ For want of a better reply, I mentioned that I write and that maybe there was a chance that some of my writing would survive me. He agreed: ‘That’s not too bad, because you can never be sure that children will say what you want them to; with writing it’s different, it always does.’ Staggering out of the cab, I couldn’t help thinking: ‘Well, does it, really?’” – Jan Verwoert
“‘Bookslut,’ however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Some man, fancying himself a humorist, ran a site called Black Garterbelt, daring to impugn the moral fabric of books with an unspeakable reference to lingerie. I did not laugh. Instead, I took to wearing a burqa and urging the children in my community to do the same… I also understand from a friend that The Elegant Variation refers to the unholy act of premarital sex, and that Mark Sarvas’s blog is a place for unmarried pagans to hook up and commit foul and carnal acts. Enter the Octopus? Dear Lord, this is disgusting” – Ed Champion in reference to this.
Alright, Sokay: Tomorrow’s English Language
sokay
(also okay) informal
- exclamation 1 expressing agreement or acquiescence. 2 introducing an utterance.
- adjective 1 satisfactory. 2 permissible.
- adverb in a satisfactory manner or to a satisfactory extent.
- noun an authorization or approval.
- verb (OK’s, OK’d, OK’ing) give approval to.
— ORIGIN probably an abbreviation of it’s ok.
Oxford English Dictionary Online, Updated: 30 November 2035.
Fast contractions like the Brit-ism “innit,” and filer words (”um, like”) are constantly moving in and out of our daily lexicon. Why not “sokay”?
“Sokay,” says the waitress when the other waitress bumps into her tray with a “sorry.” You say “sokay,” to the guy saying “pardon” for almost pushing you out of the metro in rush hour. It’s the knee-jerk polite-ish response to the knee-jerk polite-ish apology, barely considered at all; sometimes uttered so softly neither party even hears it. You can’t just say “okay,” as that implies, “Oh, so you are sorry, well I recognize that.” Only “it’s okay,” assures the other person you didn’t take the bump personally.
Language is a constantly evolving thing. Soon few will know what a “swiftboat” was, or more dismally, who John Kerry was, but the term will continue on as it so narrowly defines a common campaign tactic. Lots of our language comes from election year rhetoric. “Keep the ball rolling” refers to “Victory Balls,” ten-foot diameter globes of tin and leather, General William Harrison’s supporters pushed from rally to rally in the presidential race in 1840.
There are a few theories about the origin of “OK”, but at least two refer to that same election’s victor (and incumbent) Martin Van Buren. “Orl korrect,” the 19th century jokey way of writing “all correct” was a Van Buren slogan. Plus, his nickname Old Kinderhook provided the initials.
What is known is that one of the first instances of OK appearing in print was in the spring of 1839 by the Boston Morning Post:
It is hardly necessary to say to those who know Mr. Hughes, that his establishment will be found to be ‘A. No. One’ — that is, O.K. — all correct.
So if OK stands for “all correct,” wouldn’t it be “AC”? Not exactly, says linguist Erin McKean, who points out that the word was intentionally misspelled. Much like the way people on the Internet shorten or abbreviate words when typing, OK was misspelled on purpose.
“For instance, a lot of kids online spell “cool,” “k-e-w-l,” says McKean, senior editor for U.S. dictionaries at Oxford Press. “They know how to spell cool, but it just looks cooler to spell it “k-e-w-l.”
Blame the kids. Now with the internet and mobile phones they have even more ways to pervert spelling and definitions. Kent State researchers consider instant messaging a separate language. “They found that what looked like nonstandard features of written language were, actually, the standardized features within the IM language. The language of instant messaging was found to be informal, explicit, playful, both abbreviated and elaborated, and to emphasize meaning over form and social relationships over content.”
Teens abroad have a subversive vocabulary based on the predictive text on mobile phones
Key words are replaced by the first alternative that comes up on a mobile phone using predictive text — changing “cool” into “book”, “awake” into “cycle”, “beer” into adds”, “pub” into “sub” and “barmaid” into “carnage”.
Those expressing excitement with the old-fashioned text phrase “woohoo!”, now use the far more hip “zonino!” instead. The replacement words — technically paragrams, but commonly known as textonyms, adaptonyms or cellodromes — are becoming part of regular teen banter.
And the older generation — many of whom already struggle with simple text language — are being thrown into yet deeper confusion.
Then again, they called uncool things “pants” long before test messaging.
More than technology, the increase in non-native speakers who might use English only online is going to totally change our language, as Michael Erard explained in New Scientist a few months ago. There will be countless pigeon forms, not just Engrish, but dialects of the sort that you find in African “English-speaking” countries. My friend’s brother-in-law in Nigeria claims he can’t understand her accent. Erard’s article makes the interesting observation that nonnative speakers communicate best with other nonnative speakers. The grammatical structure is too complex.
You probably know it’s “a lot” not “alot,” and flinch when someone says, “they mailed it to my friend and I.” You know what “hopefully” and “momentarily” really mean, but use the colloquialisms nevertheless. But what about “had” before a past-tense verb? Or hyphenating adverbs?
I’ve never understood why some people get crazy angry about “alright,” but grammatical excellence seems to have less to do with English language preservation than it does ritual and initiation. (Yes, I’m trying to find a way of explaining that without using the dreaded E-word.)
When I checked “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” out of the library, I hoped it might cover any grammatical terrain my K through BA public education didn’t. But basically the author says do whatever you want so long as it means exactly what you want it to (i.e. the panda isn’t shooting anybody or going anywhere.)
Garance Franke-Ruta writes:
As blogs move us into a less heavily copy-edited world, I sometimes wonder if we’re moving back into a more 16th and 17th century form of writing, where the idea of correct spelling was less important than the communication of meaning — which, in reality, can be accomplished just as well with incorrectly spelled words and homonyms as with a more perfect language. And also: as we move ever deeper into this new world of speech-like writing, will the perfect, formal language of the page one day seem as antique and elaborate as Victorian silverware?
The success rate of dyslexics should finally dismiss using spelling and grammar as an indicator of intelligence. But besides that, the size, lighting and composition of a computer makes it less than ideal for reading compared to a piece of paper. This makes line-by-line editing a drag for most of us. Maybe it even draws latent dyslexic tendencies from people who don’t otherwise have a problem. Yet this is the device almost all of us use to write. While I’m sure some people are good at spotting errors no matter what the medium. I’m not one of them.
BestWeekEver’s response to a letter suggesting a “copy editor or a lively seminar on the Strunk and White classic Elements of Style is in order” is a classic:
we’re a f*cking blog. And this is the Internet. Though there are many confusing similarities between BestWeekEver.tv and the Harvard Review, the simple fact is the latter is written and edited by erudite men and women of learning, while the former is barely cobbled together by hungover ne’er-do-wells with poor command of the English language and whose lives are generally in shambles. I’m not familiar with this “Strunk and White” of which you speak, but I will assume it’s one of those “book” things I hear so much about from old-timey people. These “books” are like short, boring internets, yes? Forgive me for not caring about them.
The most annoying thing about someone correcting written grammatical errors is the assumption the writer is unaware of the difference between possessive and plural. Why there isn’t more research about how fingers following some rote process, sometimes press the wrong key — usually a homophone — is really surprising.
Related links:
- “The Future of English?” by David Graddol
- Matt Ygelsias’ cake
- Engrish
- “Um…: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean” by Michael Erard
- “Going Nucular” by Geoff Nunberg
- Who is to Blame for “Under the Bus”? Newsweek
- “Do You Speak American?” PBS on the Ebonics debate
- Futurismic on “The Future of English”
- “Read My Slips: Speech Errors Show How Language Is Processed” Science
-
A collection of interesting ideas curated by
Joanne McNeil. About ➚
Sponsors
