Although I've attempted to accept the non-prescriptivist position of the linguists here, I am left wondering about the Orwellian reconfiguration of words and phrases typical of our political and military powers. Torture is, in political terms, "enhanced interrogation," wanton destruction of forests is "wise use," etc. How can we be descriptivist in the face of such atrocities made palatable by language manipulation? Descriptivists have a valid point in that overusing apostrophes isn't fatal, but euphamising murder is.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
How can we be descriptivist in the face of such atrocities made palatable by language manipulation?

I don't think any descriptivist would disagree that language can be used to manipulate.

Linguistics is a science. Linguists study language like anthropologists study human behaviour or like physicists study particles. Just because we study it doesn't mean we condone every way it's used.

There are some euphemisms I don't like. But it's important to remember that language is full of euphemisms that are so common now that no one notices. disease started as a euphemism: dis + ease. But no one would argue that people turn a blind eye to disease because of this. So I'm not convinced that using a euphemism to refer to an atrocity will automatically make the atrocity palatable.

Also, if I'm remembering 1984 correctly, the government created Newspeak in the hopes that it would change how people thought. But it didn't work.

But I disagree with Orwell's stance not because of his point about euphemisms, but because he knew so little about language. Maybe this isn't his fault, after all the field of linguistics wasn't very well known in the 40s. But he made outrageous claims like "the English language is in a bad way" or that using words that Orwell doesn't like will turn you into a machine.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Although I've attempted to accept the non-prescriptivist position of the linguists here, I am left wondering about the Orwellian reconfiguration of words and phrases typical of our political and military powers. Torture is, in political terms, "enhanced interrogation," wanton destruction of forests is "wise use," etc. How can we be descriptivist in the face of such atrocities made palatable by language manipulation? Descriptivists have a valid point in that overusing apostrophes isn't fatal, but euphamising murder is.

Just take a step back and think for a moment what we mean when we say "descriptivist".

What I mean by it is "someone who describes how a language is used" whereas by "prescriptivist" I mean "someone who says how [he believes] language SHOULD be used".

Your argument against this particular type of euphemism is neither pre nor de- scriptive.

I don't like these politically motivated euphemisms any more than you do but from a purely linguistic point of view both

We used enhanced interrogation techniques.

and

We used torture.

are grammatically well-formed sentences.

The purpose of a linguist isn't to consider meaning it's to consider structure.

Now if we move your objection out of the "linguistics" section of the bookshelf and into the "semantics" section we can discuss the meaning where I don't think you'll get much disagreement. Not from me anyway.

One man's torture is another man's S&M.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
The purpose of a linguist isn't to consider meaning it's to consider structure.

I disagree. Semantics is one branch of linguistics. And linguists study euphemisms, for instance Euphemism & Dysphemism: Language Used As Shield and Weapon by Allan Keith and Kate Burridge.

I view them as separate but related disciplines.
If I can find a downloadable copy of the book I'll read it.

Disregarding for a moment the semantics of my post how do you feel about the rest of what I was saying?

I, too, was going to argue against the only purpose of a linguist being to consider structure, at least from what I've read and seen while on WC. It certainly seems to me that linguists also consider meaning. Just reading Language Log illustrates that.

I found that link to Orwell (thanks, Goofy!) a non evidence-based way of touting one's views. Statements such as "Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way..." are only opinions. I'd need some evidence for that big assertion.

That is similar to Rick Santorum's views of America being in the midst of moral decay; it's an opinion that is completely non evidence-based. Some evidence arguing against that, however, is presented in this article by Steve Chapman. I am sure there are similar evidence-based articles that would counter Orwell's ridiculous assertions.

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

The purpose of a linguist isn't to consider meaning it's to consider structure.

This used to be the case, especially in the Bloomfieldian structuralism of the '40s and '50s, as well as the early generativists (Chomsky et al) of the late '50s going forward.It's not really the case much anymore. Lexicographers and philosophers of language have always studied meaning.

Orwellian blather

Euphemism and dysphemism are a lot like metaphor. I'd find it hard to imagine language use without them. D. & p. are two approaches study language. Another two approaches that actually go a longer way in demarcating the two endpoints of the spectrum would be: anti-changists and philo-changists. The anti-changists are a kind of conservative for whom the purity of the language must not be sullied with any sort of change; the philo-changists embrace change as the fundamental nature of language.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Disregarding for a moment the semantics of my post how do you feel about the rest of what I was saying?

I think I disagree with it as well. Prescriptivists don't just concern themselves with grammar, they complain about euphemisms too.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I found that link to Orwell (thanks, Goofy!) a non evidence-based way of touting one's views. Statements such as "Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way..." are only opinions. I'd need some evidence for that big assertion.

Exactly. He even pulls out the "I don't have facts to back this up" line when he writes

quote:

I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

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

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
Prescriptivists don't just concern themselves with grammar, they complain about euphemisms too.

And do you believe that to be a characteristic of prescriptivists? I know people on both sides of the language fence who say that kind of thing. I'd say it's a characteristic of people.

As I said to Geoff I also don't care for politically motivated euphemisms. Though it is the motivation rather than the euphemism that irks.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

And do you believe that to be a characteristic of prescriptivists? I know people on both sides of the language fence who say that kind of thing. I'd say it's a characteristic of people.

Your point seemed to be that arguing against euphemisms is neither prescriptive nor descriptive. But I think it's prescriptive. If you're saying that a certain euphemism is bad, then you're making a judgment about how language should be used, right? So I guess I'm saying that everyone is prescriptive sometimes.

Well that was my point. You are right, I am arguing that complaining about euphemisms is neither pre- nor de-.

I guess we are just drawing different conclusions from the fact that everybody does it. I draw the conclusion that it isn't a trait of one or the other, you the conclusion that we are all sometimes prescriptivist.

quote:

the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

Does Orwell explain anywhere what he means by deteriorated? A language will be different, yes, but does it really deteriorate? That's a very emotive, and subjective, word. One person's deterioration is another's improvement.

I suppose Italian, German, and Russian, plus umpteen other languages, are "deteriorated" forms of Indo-European. Does that really make them worse?

Speaking of people making unverified (and unverifiable) statements, here's Prof. Geoff Pullum railing on Language Log against a particularly idiotic comment made on one of his posts on the Lingua Franca blog:

quote:

Passive writing breeds passive thinking and behaving, for this reason I completely disagree with Professor Pullum.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Does Orwell explain anywhere what he means by deteriorated?

Have a look at the essay. He lists several things he doesn't like: dying metaphors (metaphors that people use without knowledge of their meaning), operators or verbal false limbs (phrases he doesn't like), overuse of passive, pretentious diction (mostly long Latinate or Greek words), and meaningless words (I don't understand this one). But nowhere does he give evidence that these constructions are more common now than they were in the past, or more common now than they need to be, and he doesn't explain (to my satisfaction, anyway) how there is anything wrong with these constructions in the first place. I think he needs to do all of this if he wants to show that English is getting worse.

And he's constantly making outrageous assertions about how language influences thought and vice versa. For instance

quote:

A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine.

and

quote:

[English] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

Plus, this essay, which warns us to avoid overusing the passive voice, uses more passives than most periodicals.

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

The same thing happens, goofy, with E.B. White's writing. He argues in Strunk and White not to use the passive voice, but his wonderful books are full of it.

Yet more examples of "Do as I say, not as I do"!

Or it could be viewed as first needing to know the rules so that you can effectively depart from them.

Something occurred to me recently: We are fewer than one hundred generations from the English of Chaucer, and not much over a hundred from Beowulf. With that in mind, language does indeed change in one helluva hurry. The best prescriptivism can do is to briefly impede the inevitable - to act as a damper on the springs on the buggy hauling us into the next phase of our language. Without dampers, the ride gets awfully rough.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Or it could be viewed as first needing to know the rules so that you can effectively depart from them.

It could, but that argument has never made sense to me.

Shouldn't we look to good writers to discover the best ways to write? If good writers aren't following a rule, then what is the point of the rule?

And why are only good writers allowed to break the rules? Does that mean the rest of us must strive for mediocrity?

quote:

Shouldn't we look to good writers to discover the best ways to write? If good writers aren't following a rule, then what is the point of the rule?

Yes, I agree with that. And E.B. White should have known better. Strunk probably didn't.