Being more prescriptivist than the more scholarly members of this board, I've tended to eschew the notion that language isn't "going to hell in a handbasket." Yet language - and not just English - abides despite metaphor and simile being stretched to the point of absurdity, in my opinion. So I wonder whether the Chomskian notion of deep grammar makes sense as a framework for more than just logical cognition. Must it not also function in other ways? Is there a mathematical - and conjointly a musical- "deep numerancy," or an innate concept of patterns that artists exploit?

Help!

Being one of the less scholarly members of this board, I have only a dim idea of what "the Chomskian notion of deep grammar" means. I'm out of my depth here, Asa. Could you explain a little further?

Layman's terms?

Noam Chomsky put forward the idea that we are born pre-programmed to learn languages rather like a DVD is preprogrammed to be tunable to whatever stations are broadcast in your area. Much of the acquisition of the languages is really no more than setting the parameters applicable in the local language - rather like running the first time auto tuning on the TV so that it locks onto the correct stations.

Chomsky's argument is that the complexity of language that we can produce is much to vast to have been learned by imitation and correction alone, and that we must be born with some inate grammar that allows us to develop the applicable rules of the language to which we are exposed without ever having specific exposure to those rules.

That's it in a very tiny (and ludicrously over-simplified) nutshell. I can recommend lots of books if you'd like to examine it further.

Yet language - and not just English - abides despite metaphor and simile being stretched to the point of absurdity, in my opinion. So I wonder whether the Chomskian notion of deep grammar makes sense as a framework for more than just logical cognition. Must it not also function in other ways? Is there a mathematical - and conjointly a musical- "deep numerancy," or an innate concept of patterns that artists exploit?

A good question. I think what you're calling deep grammar here, and what Bob alluded to in his post, is what Chomsky actually called universal grammar. Deep grammar, or deep structure, and the transformations between it and surface structure, no longer plays much of a role in Chomskyan generative grammar since the government and binding days (early 1990s). Basically, the question which Chomsky rhetorically asked himself back in the day (late '50s and throughout the '60s) was how a child can learn a language so quickly with such a poverty of input. That is given that children are not exposed to every sentence possible (probably a huge number), how do they manage to learn a language well enough to generate grammatical utterances. He figured that despite the great structural differences between languages they must all be based on something common to all of them: universal grammar. (I myself think that universal grammar is something more like unversial pattern recognition, but I digress.)

I actually think that grammar, logic, and mathematics have very little, if anything at all, to do with one another. The Greeks invented logic as a method of argument by denaturing language (specifically the Indo-European language Greek) by taking all the metaphor and poetry out of it. The great thing about language is that it is way more metaphorical than realistic. That is it has more to do with thought than objects in some objectively real world.

As pessimistic as I am sometimes about humankind, I realize that most people talk not because they like to hear themselves speaking but because they are trying to communicate with another person. The reason languages don't degrade over time is because of this primary raison d'etre. Languages change, but before any changes become too drastic in the short term for communication they self correct. It springs back, but still changes over a longer time.

A long article in today's New York Times may be relevant here -- I haven't digested it yet. It's free on-line, an least for now. Title and subtitle are Music of the Hemispheres: Are our brains wired for sound? One professor has proocative theories.

Very interesting, Shu! So, according to the prefessor, music and math aren't connected. Also interesting that neonates have synæsthesia. Imagine a child asking, "How does that music smell?" Maybe when a mother rocks her baby while singing a lullaby she's doing it a greater favor than she realizes.

If there's an innate linguistic capacity, AND there's an innate musical capacity, AND an innate numeric capacity, we must be far more "animal-brained" than most people believe.

quote:

I realize that most people talk not because they like to hear themselves speaking but because they are trying to communicate with another person.

Well, that why MEN talk. For women (according to Allan Pease - http://www.peaseinternational.com/) talking isn't about simple communication; it's a deep and important social interaction.

Hence the direst threat than one woman can make about another would be, "I'll NEVER speak to her again!" Most men would take such a threat with total equanimity or even incomprehension.

according to Allan Pease

What a load of rubbish to use a phrase popular round these parts. Maybe this is another case of irony that I just don't get. Since Allan co-writes his books with his wife, Barbara, half of them must be uncommunicative. This is like arguing that screwdrivers aren't for driving screws because some people use them as awls. For those interested in the study of language, rather than fairy tales, there's plenty to read contra Peases over on Language Log.

A not too subtle way of saying, "Pease off?"

I know Allan and have heard him speak, read his books and find that there is much sense in what he says.

You can decide for yourself whether his theory holds water; I think it does.

OK, Richard, I'll take up the challenge. I'll buy one of his books (used), read it, and get back to you on it. I'll publish my findings in the WoBoGro forum.

Later that morning. There. I've ordered
Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps.

Wow...it has taken me a half hour just to get through this thread and all the links. Thanks for the interesting question, Asa, and all the responses WoBoGrowers!

Where to begin? First, I posted about an article last April where Chomsky had said that the inserting of words into sentences (center-embedding or recursive syntax pattern learning) is a boundary between humans and other creatures. However, the study in Nature seemed to refute that. The article I had referenced was out of date now, but here is an editor's summary of the Nature article.

Wordnerd's article in the Times was interesting, too, and I was especially intrigued about the difference with Williams Syndrome (low intelligence; high musical ability) and autism (high mathematical ability; low musical ability).

As for Richard's link to Pease, I wasn't able to access that article. However, I read a few of Language Log's pieces that zmj linked to, and I'd suggest you do that, too, Richard. I now see that whole stupid study about men saying 7,000 words daily, compared to women's 20,000 words, has been refuted. No such study ever existed! From experience, I thought it wasn't true, but I am happy to see the scholars refuting it. The difference is the person, not the gender. I also found the table in Language Log's first link rather telling (though Shu doesen't believe it! ) Richard, take a look at that table, at least.

Geez, Asa, when you start a thread, you start a thread (says Kalleh, one hour later)!

[P.S. to the prescriptivists: Shouldn't it be Williams's or William's Syndrome? ]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

I now see that whole stupid study about men saying 7,000 words daily, compared to women's 20,000 words, has been refuted.

It's good to read an experiment that seeks to test the relative frequency of men's and women's speaking and that survey certainly seems to show an opposite frequency to that which Pease and others have cited. But let's be honest, though, the researcher didn't say that there had been a stupid study that he was now able to refute - he simply said he had been unable to trace the study. Rather different, I suggest.

However, I do have a couple of reservations about his own study and would like to see more research. Firstly the experiment used a small sampling of university students in pairs (why did they use the rather unfamiliar expression "dyads" I wonder?). Pairs of university students cannot be said to be typical of all conversational groups. And secondly the setup was a created discussion on pre-determined subjects which is all that much like a normal conversation; it's more akin to an interview.

When I run syndicate discussion groups in my training courses I always notice differences in the contributions that different members make and (as Kalleh suggested) this seems to be more a reflection of the person's inclinations than gender. If I have seen any pattern after around 25 years of running such events it is that the men tend to take the lead more often than the women in mixed groups. And the leaders tend to talk more (similar then to the results shown in this survey).

I do not know where the statistics came from in Allan's book and I would like to find out more myself. A proper survey would be difficult, but not impossible, to set up and I would be surprised if it had never been done.

I do not know where the statistics came from in Allan's book and I would like to find out more myself. A proper survey would be difficult, but not impossible, to set up and I would be surprised if it had never been done.

If the author does not list his sources, how can we trust his statements? We cannot just accept them as fact. Saying something is so does not make it so no matter how much we want to believe it.

First, please forgive the word stupid that I used. This particular study has been quoted to me before by my loving, but sometimes annoying, husband, and I have some emotional feelings toward it.

Let's face it, Richard, you cannot discuss any subject intelligently without knowing the sources of studies so that you can critically analyze the results (as Zmj has said). In fact, you needed the specifics of the study you critiqued:

quote:

Firstly the experiment used a small sampling of university students in pairs (why did they use the rather unfamiliar expression "dyads" I wonder?).

Quite appropriately the authors gave you the specifics so that you could analyze the results, considering the methods he used. That is the essence of scholarly work. It is quite pompous (and unscholarly) for authors to just cite figures without any of us having an idea as to how those figures were obtained. After all, the conclusion was that "the average number of words of men and women are..." Now, does that mean all cultures? Or just in the U.S. If in the U.S. was it a stratefied random sample of all regions? How was the data collected? Did they tape record, for 1 month, all the words said by the people in the sample? How did they analyze the results? Did they have several people counting the words? If so, did they establish interrater reliability? And, what was their sample size? In any case, their conclusions were way overplayed, that I am sure of...if in fact the study exists at all. As Language Log has said, Dr. Brizendine has withdrawn the word-count numbers in her publications and speeches. If the study really existed, don't you think she would have cited it, rather than to have embarrassed herself?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

If the author does not list his sources, how can we trust his statements? We cannot just accept them as fact. Saying something is so does not make it so no matter how much we want to believe it.

Although I agree in principle, I suspect that, outside of academe, far more reports are published without source references than are published with them. I am not saying this is a good thing but it is what happens.

Allan's role in life is as a motivational speaker and he makes a very good living from it. I know of no motivational speakers who quote extensive references for their speeches - not should they. But I am sure that Allan would be happy enough to share his sources if you care to ask him.

"Never (Blogg and Bloggs - temporal dimensions 1893) in the field of human conflict (Lae Tze "the art of war 800BC) has so much (Jenkins and Smith - abstruse statistics 1888) been owed (Archer and Bowman - national debt and its outcomes 1903) by so many (Hansard 1940) to so few"

Catchy, eh?

quote:

Quite appropriately the authors gave you the specifics so that you could analyze the results, considering the methods he used.

My query here was about the use of the word "dyads", intsead of the more common words "pairs" not about the methodology.

As I have said elsewhere, there are times when it is better to use a rare or complex word simply because no other exists. This is not such an instance.

quote:

My query here was about the use of the word "dyads", instead of the more common words "pairs" not about the methodology.

I suspect they used "dyad" because they meant dyad. It's apparently a bit of sociological jargon that implies an ongoing relationship or that relationship itself.

quote:

Where to begin? First, I posted about an article last April where Chomsky had said that the inserting of words into sentences (center-embedding or recursive syntax pattern learning) is a boundary between humans and other creatures. However, the study in Nature seemed to refute that. The article I had referenced was out of date now, but here is an editor's summary of the Nature article.

I think it's clear that the conclusions of this study are too strong. The findings probably have nothing to do with recursive embedding. Something that might actually be a challenge to Chomsky is the claim that Pirahã has no recursive embedding at all .

quote:

Although I agree in principle, I suspect that, outside of academe, far more reports are published without source references than are published with them. I am not saying this is a good thing but it is what happens.

And, yet, Richard, you always tell me that you only go by the facts. I assume by "the facts" you check out what you read, and I think you do. That elusive study needs to be reported in its entirety before anyone should cite or quote it.

quote:

"Never (Blogg and Bloggs - temporal dimensions 1893) in the field of human conflict (Lae Tze "the art of war 800BC) has so much (Jenkins and Smith - abstruse statistics 1888) been owed (Archer and Bowman - national debt and its outcomes 1903) by so many (Hansard 1940) to so few"

Catchy, eh?

Most writers of scientific works use the APA Style Guide, or another type, which will allow all the cites at the end of the sentence, and they are shortened, with the full references at the end of the manuscript. So, were I writing that, I'd write:

Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few (Archer & Bowman, 1903; Blogg & Bloggs, 1893; Hansard, 1940; Jenkins & Smith, 1888; Tze, date).

Not bad, eh?

Yes, Gooofy, it is clear that those conclusions were too strong. That's obviously the case of the 7,000 vs 20,000 words study as well, if in fact the study even exists.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

I suspect they used "dyad" because they meant dyad. It's apparently a bit of sociological jargon that implies an ongoing relationship or that relationship itself

All the diectionaries I have checked give the meaning of the word "dyad" as "two items of the same kind". That is a precise synonym for "pair".

It is jargon that is used (along with "triads") in the training world. I regard it as an affectation and do not use it myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
All the diectionaries I have checked give the meaning of the word "dyad" as "two items of the same kind". That is a precise synonym for "pair".

MW gives it as

quote:

1 : PAIR; specifically : two individuals (as husband and wife) maintaining a sociologically significant relationship

which seems to me to be significantly more appropriate and specific than "pair" would have been. When someone uses a technical word it's usually with a reason beyond simple affectation. If someone in a specialised field outside my own uses a word that I am unfamiliar with or a familiar word in an unfamiliar context, there's a fair bet that it's used that way throughout that field.

Here is another way to include appropriate citations in a paper so that they don't affect the reading of it; the citations, according to their number, are included at the end of the document. I recently wrote a publication with about 100 or so sources using this system. It is easy to read, but if you decide to insert a new citation or to delete one (upon reflectiom), it can be a mess! At one point I had wanted to add 2 citations, and my editor refused because we would have had to go through all those numbers again; she was probably right. That's why I prefer the APA style.

Never¹ in the field of human conflict² has so much³ been owed4 by so many5 to so few.

[Sorry, I couldn't get the 4 and 5 to suprascript.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I notice that when Richard doesn't want to address a person's thesis he fixates on their vocabulary. An old rhetorical trick, n'est-ce pas?

quote:

I notice that when Richard doesn't want to address a person's thesis he fixates on their vocabulary. An old rhetorical trick, n'est-ce pas?

I agree that's an old rhetorical trick; I do not agree I used it.

My comment about the use of the word "dyad" was an aside; my full comment about the study was:

"However, I do have a couple of reservations about his own study and would like to see more research. Firstly the experiment used a small sampling of university students in pairs (why did they use the rather unfamiliar expression "dyads" I wonder?). Pairs of university students cannot be said to be typical of all conversational groups. And secondly the setup was a created discussion on pre-determined subjects which is all that much like a normal conversation; it's more akin to an interview."

I do not see how I could be said to have ficussed on the vocabulary here - although I agree, I did pick up on that topic later when Kalleh raised the point.

quote:

MW gives it as

quote:
1 : PAIR; specifically : two individuals (as husband and wife) maintaining a sociologically significant relationship

Pair is a word with many meanings and MW's definition is just one. Indeed, MW's first definition is "...two corresponding things designed for use together ..." Pair in the sense of a couple is its second.

COED gives its first definition as:

A set of two persons or things used together or regarded as a unit.

Most of the dictionaries I have checked use a similar definition as their primary; the word pair in the sense of a "couple" doesn't appear until the 3rd entry of the COED.

Dyad, a term that is sometimes used in training has the specialist mathematical meaning: " an operator which is the combination of two vectors". A good and justifiable use of a specialist term; to use the term when all you mean is a pair of people is rather silly. The word "triad" is also commonly used to mean "a group of three" and I can accept that there is some sense in the use of a single word to replace three words. Mind you, I suspect that most people won't be familiar with the word triad in its numerical sense and will wonder what a Chinese secret society has to do with the task in hand.

I never use the term triad, dyad (or quartet, quintet or any other specialist numerical term) when I run group sessions. I simply say something like, "...OK we'll work on this in groups of four..." and I have never found instructions using such mundane expressions to have confused anyone.

I didn't post the MW definition of "pair", I posted the MW definition of "dyad" and if it is accurate then the words are NOT synonyms. Rather "dyad" represents a specific kind of pair so that while I may have a pair of shoes, a pair of canaries, a pair of randomly allocated strangers at a seminar or a pair of people involved in a significant relationship, only the last of these is a dyad.

It's a bit like saying I never use the words trousers or shirt because I have the perfectly good word clothes.

I'd also be rather surprised if when conducting the study they said "OK people, we're now going to be working in dyads."
I see no problem at all in using it when describing the results for people who can be reasonably expected to share the same specialist vocabulary.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Further to the last post. I actually did a tiny bit of work on this myself for my recent course. I chose to look at male/female strategies of politeness and used various sources.
Here's my list of references.

BROWN , P. (1980) How and Why Are Women More Polite: Some Evidence from a Mayan Community. in Coates, J. (ed.) Language and Gender, 1st ed., Oxford, Blackwell pp 81-99

ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 1st ed., Oxford, OUP

FAIRCLOUGH, N. (1989) Language and Power 1st ed., Singapore, Longman

GODDARD, A. and PATTERSON, L.M. (2000) Language and Gender, 1st ed., Abingdon, Routledge

GRADDOL, D. and SWANN, J. (1989) Gender Voices, 1st ed., Oxford, Blackwell

MALZ, D.N. and BARKER, R.A.(1982) A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication. in Coates, J. (ed.) Language and Gender, 1st ed., Oxford, Blackwell pp 417-434

SCOLLON, R. and SCOLLON, S.W. (1995) Intercultural Communication, 1st ed., Oxford, Blackwell

All of these use, to a greater or lesser degree, sociolinguistic jargon but that's OK they are reference works intended for people familiar with the appropriate terminology. I really fail to see why using terminology that is suitable for your intended audience rather than suitable for everyone seems to be such a bugbear for you.

quote:

I really fail to see why using terminology that is suitable for your intended audience rather than suitable for everyone seems to be such a bugbear for you.

If you are commenting on my dislike of the use of the word "dyads" then I would say that, to my mind, it is a stupid word to use for any audience. In the sense it is being used it means, no more and no less, than the word "pairs". So why not use the simple and unambigious word rather than a little-known specialist term that adds absolutely nothing to the the communication - apart from a frisson of excitement on the part of the writer who will feel proud that he knows how to use such difficult words.

Unless, of course, the writer was trying to apply a measure of BBB*

*Mouse over for translation

*Bullshit Baffles Brains

I agree that's an old rhetorical trick; I do not agree I used it.

I was thinking of the last time when you refused to discuss Pullum's article, but concentrated on his vocabulary and sentence structure. I remember asking you directly about his thesis at that time but never got an answer. I'm sorry that I assumed that this thread was just more of the same old same old.

You could criticize the findings of Dovidio, et al., which Liberman cites in the first blog entry I linked to above, because they told you what he did and give you numbers. Brizendine baldly states numbers, but never tells us her sources, so you have no way of determining whether it even took place.

dyads

Seems more specialized than pair to me.

quote:

we must be far more "animal-brained" than most people believe.

One of the problems of people denying evolution is that they try to solve problems thinking that we are a "special creation." We may be, in some ways, and I don't want to get into a theological discussion, but that creation was clearly built on an animal prototype.
If psychologist, linguists, clergy and other non-biologically oriented disciplines that study human behavior would start with the premis that we are animals, they would make more progress. They are biased and so their research is biased.
From time to time, you will see me make a comment that comes from the direction that we are animals. Very interesting animals, but animals.

quote:

use of the word "dyads

"Dyads" is used in science. e.g. in chemistry, a bivalent elment (combining value of 2.)
Amongs other things it refers to a pair in a relationship such as doctor-patient or husband wife.
But Richard, aren't we in this group because we like to use words that we can't use with the people around us without sounding like snobs? We are hobbyists with words.

There is a built-in linguistic bias in the very word, "animal," since it derives from the Latin word that's most often translated as "soul," whether rightly or wrongly.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
dyads

Seems more specialized than pair to me.

That's the point I was trying to make and I don't think Richard has addressed it yet, has he?

There is a built-in linguistic bias in the very word, "animal," since it derives from the Latin word that's most often translated as "soul," whether rightly or wrongly.

Right you are, Asa. Latin anima does get translated as soul, but its primary meaning is air. Secondarily, it has come to mean breath (of life), élan vitale. The adjective animābilis could therefore be translated as breathing, which animals do do.

That's the point I was trying to make and I don't think Richard has addressed it yet, has he?

No, nor will he.

quote:

If you are commenting on my dislike of the use of the word "dyads" then I would say that, to my mind, it is a stupid word to use for any audience. In the sense it is being used it means, no more and no less, than the word "pairs". So why not use the simple and unambigious word rather than a little-known specialist term that adds absolutely nothing to the the communication - apart from a frisson of excitement on the part of the writer who will feel proud that he knows how to use such difficult words.

I don't want to make this a "pick on Richard" thread, but allow me an opinion. First, you called "dyad" a "stupid" word. I had used the word "stupid" above and later apologized for it; it wasn't accurate for me to call the study "stupid" and I am sure you don't really think a word is "stupid." But also, I know you, Richard. You like the precise use of words. Why look at your own sentence above...you used the word "frisson." How many people would understand that word, do you think? Yet, what a fine word it is! The study's use of "dyad" was not only accurate, but "pair" wouldn't have worked. It would have needed further explanation.

It really is okay to be wrong here. I admitted that I was wrong in this very thread. I just wish others would do so more often.

On a more humorous note, I do like that word bugbear, Bob.

According to the link given, "...A dyad (from Greek dýo, "two") in sociology mostly refers to parents and friends, occasionally to twins...." There is more, of course, speaking of even more specialised relationships.

I am happy to admit I am wrong when I am but I don't think I am here. The word dyad does not mean the kind of relationship when two randomly selected people are working together on a simple and short project. They are working as a couple, pair or group.

I called the word "stupid", not because it is, per se, s stupid word but it is a stupid use of the word. I do not agree that its use in the report conveyed any more information than would the word "pair". The sentence used was "...We randomly paired the subjects, who were not previously consociated, in mixed-sex dyads..."

It is a sentence that is understandable to those with a higher than average level of knowledge of the English language - but why use arcane words when normal ones would have explained what had happened perfectly well? I'd have written:

"...We grouped the subjects, who did not know one another, into mixed-sex pairs..."

Please tell, me, what additional meaning is given to the sentence by using the words "consociated" and "dyads"? Tell me too, did every one of us reading this sentence, understand it without having to check the meanings of the words? I knew dyads but I had to check consociated (which actually means "Brought or came into association or action").

Kalleh criticised me for using the word "frisson"; maybe I could have used a different word but I did want to find one that had the sense of a slightly guilty or underhand moment of pleasure, and I could think of no other that would do (I suppose I could have consulted my Roget's, but I didn't think it worthwhile).

As I have said elsewhere, I think it is a wonderful thing that we have such an abundance of words from which to choose in English and think it only right to use a word that precisely coveys the meaning we want to express. But to choose a word simply because it is arcane is not, to my mind, an effective use of the abundance we have.

quote:

I am happy to admit I am wrong when I am but I don't think I am here.

Please see my PM.

quote:

I called the word "stupid", not because it is, per se, s stupid word but it is a stupid use of the word.

Richard, I can only go by what you wrote and not "what you meant." You had written: "...it is a stupid word to use for any audience." In other words, one should never use the word "dyad." That's what you wrote, but apparently not what you meant. I am sorry that I didn't know what you meant.

quote:

Kalleh criticised me for using the word "frisson";

Kalleh said: "How many people would understand that word, do you think? Yet, what a fine word it is!" Is that a criticism? To me, it's a compliment because I love the rich use of our vocabulary, especially when the words are particularly appropriate, as I think "frisson" and "dyad" were.

Yet, in each case the authors could have use less than specific terms. The investigators could have merely used the word "pair," and then gone on to explain the pairs; Richard could have merely said, "apart from the excitement on the part of the writer who will feel proud that he knows how to use such difficult words."

BTW, I don't really think "dyad" is all that difficult of a word, but perhaps I read too much sociology, I don't know. However, everyone here knows that I am no word scholar; a word student maybe, but no scholar. I will admit publicly, for instance, that I had to look up your "frisson" word. I should have known it, but I didn't; having looked it up, I think it is a lovely word.

Anyway, I think zmj makes a good point that sometimes (and I include myself here) we take the easy way out by criticizing the use of a word or a grammatical or spelling mistake, or a particular book (Bryson & Wikipedia come to mind in the thread about numbers of words), etc., when we could actually be debating the substance of what was said. I suppose that's human nature.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

BTW, I don't really think "dyad" is all that difficult of a word, but perhaps I read too much sociology, I don't know

How did you get on with "consociated"?

Of course, any word is easy if you know its meaning - but I am surprised at your not knowing "frisson". I have seen it used many times; maybe it's more common in UK English. I could have used "excitement", of course, but frisson conveys rather more than simple excitement. There is an undertone of naughtiness to it that is missing from simple excitement.

I do not think that excuse could be made for "dyad" as used in this passage; it meant no more than "pairs". That it could have meant more doesn't alter the fact that it didn't and thus had no business being there.

quote:

I do not think that excuse could be made for "dyad" as used in this passage; it meant no more than "pairs". That it could have meant more doesn't alter the fact that it didn't and thus had no business being there.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's not intended for you, it's intended for a small community of researchers who share a common jargon. I'd agree if this were an article in the Guardian, but it's not. When I write tech reports I have to use "Orbiter" instead "Space Shuttle" and "launch vehicle" instead of "rocket" or I sound like an idiot. In a previous life I had to use "globe" instead of "eyeball" and "orbit" instead of "eye socket". I used these words, sans frisson, not as an affectation, but because they are what the intended readers would understand. Everyone that paper was intended for understands what a dyad is, and would wonder why the hell he was using "pair" when he meant "dyad".

quote:

Everyone that paper was intended for understands what a dyad is, and would wonder why the hell he was using "pair" when he meant "dyad".

We are, I fear, going in circles. In the sense in which dyad was used it meant pair. It didn't mean, "...an operator which is the combination of two vectors...". It didn't mean "...a pair of people involved in a significant relationship...". It didn't mean "...a relationship in adolescence - most notably, romantic and sexual relationship..." (or if it did then I would be surprised that much talking took place) and it certainly didn't mean "...a special pattern of gemeinschaft...community of spirit...."

It meant a pair of people working together on a project. And nobody, not even a sociologist, would have wondered why the author was using the word pair to describe the composition of the group. The word pair could have been substituted for the word dyad without affecting the author's intended meaning one iota.

Incidentally, I have been taken to task for saying it "...was a stupid word to use before any audience..." I was wrong to to say that. What I meant was that it was the wrong word to describe what was happening in this particular experiment, not that the word itself is stupid.

Edited for typos.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Because of its roots, dyad accentuates the number two. I would consider using "dyad" especially appropriate when you are trying to accentuate that you were using groups of two when other options were available. Pair and dyad may be synonymous, but that does not mean they necessarily convey exactly the same meaning at an emotional level to the reader. Personally, I also get less sense of prior attachment from "dyad" than from either "pair" or "couple". The latter two words are often used to describe two people already involved together in a social relationship.

I suspect that this is one of many words which specialist groups are trying to give a particular meaning, although one it doesn't actually yet have.

I remember some years ago having a discussion with my university lecturer about the difference between the word "competences" and "competencies" - which he claimed had different shades of meaning. In the end I wrote to the then editor of the COED who told me that, in his opinion, both words meant exactly the same and were just different ways of making a plural of the (normally uncountable_ word "competence". He also expressed the hope that the two words did not acquire different meanings - but I suspect that, in the world of HR academe, they will already have done so.

Similarly dyad, in spite of the fact that it already has several specialised meanings, may acquire yet another meaning as a synonum of pair - but a pair that's not a "special pair". I don't think it needs such a meaning but I know that my own views will have little effect on the word's development. But I shall never use it as a synonym for pair.

"When I use a word, it means exactly what everyone else wants it to mean." - the Anti-Humpty.