Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Earlier today, cipherpunk made reference to a Boston Herald article about how Christie Vilsack, wife of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, made some remarks about African-American, New Jerseyan, Southern, and West Virginian speech patterns which a number of Democrats apparently found offensive. I read the pull-quotes, then read the article, and all I could think was, Here we go again.

Consider a quote like "I am fascinated at1 the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires." Any linguist, or indeed any undergrad who took a sociolinguistics class for a gen-ed credit and stayed awake for the lecture on William Labov, would take one look at that and say, "Aha! Code switching!" Because that's what it is: changing registers at the drop of a hat, moving from a covert-prestige mode to an accepted prestige dialect when the situation occasions it. This is a long-studied and well-understood phenomenon.

But the undergrads who skipped that day, along with all the grammar noodges who perpetually aced English but never studied a day's worth of our fair discipline, say "Huh? No, it's just bad!"

(I doubt a single one of them -- Christie Vilsack, Rob's mother, my mother, William Safire, take your pick -- has ever been taken to task by a stodgy old BBC doctrinaire who cannot abide this horrifying American perversion of the Queen's English. But I digress.)

Meanwhile, folks like the article's author, David Guarino, get all up in arms (some of my rural Southern relatives might say 'het up') about this perceived slight on the character of blacks, Northeasterners, Southerners, and indeed anyone not from the Land of the Free and the Home of the Radio-Neutral Dialect, my adopted home, the Midwest. Vilsack is eeeee-vil, y'see, because her opinions on speech must necessarily extend to people, right? Right, and people are only Good if all their opinions about other people are Good and otherwise they must be vilified in public in the hopes that they will renounce their ways and become Good again. (Ahem.)

I submit that every group involved has a different definition of "good." The prescriptivists know what the liberals' definition of "good" is, and they think it's wrong, and vice versa. The problem we face is that jack no one but the linguists knows how we define "good" ... and I rather doubt anyone's willing to listen.

"Good," for a linguist, generally falls nicely in line with the idea of "robustness." Can a language, no matter what it sounds like, convey between its speakers all the ideas that a speaker might want to discuss? It can? Righto, then it's a good language. That's it, end of story. C++ is a great language for what it does, but it's a "bad" language qua human language (it is certainly not natural), because I cannot communicate in it anything I bloody well please.2

Parallel to this, I often hear linguists use "good", in reference to human language, as synonymous with "interesting." If a syntactic mechanism is particularly quirky and hard to understand, if a set of OT constraints are especially descriptive, elegant and simple, this is worthy of much excitement and praise. "Russian has a genitive of negation! This is great!" Which means there are plenty of linguists who get righteously wet over AAVE3 because of its neato syntactic and phonological similarities to Bantu languages.

It is precisely this sort of geekery that prescriptivists are not geared to understand. (I say this having grown up with English teachers for mothers and aunts, having known an awful lot of English teachers over the years, and having spent a number of years as a newspaper copy editor; perhaps the prescriptivists you know don't think this way, but the ones I know do.) Your average prescriptivist, in my experience, is looking for one simple stand-alone system with rules she can memorise, enumerate, and rely upon. Linguists, by contrast, thrive on synthesis. We think it's cool that there isn't just "one English." It's not about tolerance; it's not about diversity; it's about the "Oooh, neato!" factor.

But these politicians and journalists are Serious, you see, because on the one hand this is an Education Issue, and on the other it is a Race Issue, and no one has room for the gripping hand at all. There is no room for "Oooh, neato" in Serious Debate. And so dumb things get bandied about on the DNC floor, and everyone goes round and round in circles once again.

That said, I have no quibble with Rob's point, which is that it is a Valuable Thing when language is understandable. The difficult thing is that mutual intelligibility is often a dearer (and more confusing) thing than anyone expects. English speakers are actually lucky that our various dialects -- Wilde's remark about England and America being two nations separated by a common language notwithstanding -- are as mutually intelligible as they are. Good bloody luck being someone who understands Classical Arabic and trying to get along in Egyptian Arabic (FWIW, as I understand it, most of the modern dialects are by-and-large mutually unintelligible too), or knowing both Cantonese and Mandarin and finding yourself somewhere in the rural Chinese countryside. Not too long ago, I did a bunch of research on an Austronesian language called Rukai, which is a minority language in rural Taiwan; it's spoken by fewer than 8000 people and has three divergent dialects. To add even more confusion to the mix, you also have the politically split languages that are still mutually intelligible, e.g. Norwegian and Swedish or Serbian and Croatian (formerly Serbo-Croat, now divided by lines on a map and lots of guns). America is big, as in "you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist" big, and it's not too surprising that some of our dialects may be difficult to recognise as belonging to the same language4 at all. So we do the best we can with what we have ... and sometimes, our best necessarily sucks.

But, hey, Christie? For what it's worth, code-switching fascinates the living hell out of me too. Screw Guarino and his types; you go on being fascinated, okay? Watch it, listen to it, study it, have fun with it.

And if you happen to find yourself fascinated by other aspects of speech and human behaviour, then I can happily promise you, we linguists will be waiting to welcome you aboard.

1 Perhaps this is a regionalism on my part, but I've always heard "fascinated with" or "fascinated by," never "fascinated at."

2 Someday real soon I should talk about the idea I had over dinner tonight about Universal Turing Machines, the halting problem, using natural language to solve just such thorny computational problems, and why this probably means that attempting to implement a perfect parser on a Von Neumann architecture is doomed, doomed, doomed.

3 African-American Vernacular English.

4 Don't believe me? Have a look at Gullah.


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 27th, 2004 12:35 am (UTC)
Wow - great post. You wouldn't happen to have any interest in guest-blogging (or permanent blogging) at The Audhumlan Conspiracy, would you? This post, for example, would fit in perfectly there. :: has been pondering guest bloggers after various discussions with people recently ::

"Someday real soon I should talk about the idea I had over dinner tonight about Universal Turing Machines, the halting problem, using natural language to solve just such thorny computational problems, and why this probably means that attempting to implement a perfect parser on a Von Neumann architecture is doomed, doomed, doomed."

You should - that sounds interesting.
Jul. 27th, 2004 01:12 am (UTC)
I would be happy to, and you are of course more than welcome to repost this there. My only reservation is that I tend to get overwhelmed with Real Life Stuff and forget to blog, as you probably remember with the poor late lamented Linguistiblog. But if you're willing to put up with that sort of thing, then sure, sign me up.

Re: NLP/VN-architecture/halting -- I plan to, but it'll have to be sometime after the end of the week, because oy, am I ever slammed with work at the moment. I like the idea but I don't have the math to determine whether it's provable or even formalisable; I'll probably end up writing about it in ordinary English, and look forward to your remarks when I get round to it. :)
Jul. 27th, 2004 10:00 am (UTC)
"My only reservation is that I tend to get overwhelmed with Real Life Stuff and forget to blog, as you probably remember with the poor late lamented Linguistiblog. But if you're willing to put up with that sort of thing, then sure, sign me up."

No problem - we have several conspirators who only post about once a month. It's the nice thing about a group blog - not everyone has to post often. I'll e-mail you a log in name and password to use whenever you have something you feel like putting up there.

> Re: NLP/VN-architecture/halting -- I plan to, but it'll have to be
> ...
> remarks when I get round to it. :)

Sounds good.
Jul. 27th, 2004 07:52 am (UTC)
You ever have at Hawaiian pidgin? The reason I ask is that when you mention code switching and it made me all misty eyed and nostalgic to talk da kine, Hawaii style. As the locals there were masters at this, I was familiar with the concept if not the term. Even haoles would get in on the act, especially military brats, to establish some street cred with newer haoles jus' off da jet. It was also a good way for a rebellious young punk or metalhead to actually succeed in pissing of their lifer dads who, unlike other parents, often saw the quasi-uniform of leather and denim and mohaws and long hair, and said to themselves, "you know he really is taking pride in his appearance, perhaps I'm being too hard on the boy." But take a Navy lifer from Mississippi or East Texas and let him see his kid and all of his white friends talking da kine and that would at least elicit an arched eyebrow. My old man never bothered about it too much, but that's another story.

But still that's more of an exception than the rule. And the pidgin picked up by brats can seem a bit dilletantish compared to some locals going at it.

You know, da kine.

Da kine?

Da kine.

Oohhhh, da kine. Fo' real?

Fo' real, da kine.

Fucking guy! You like go get one case of Primo?

And somehow each knows exactly what the other is talking about. I never could quite figure it out either.

But I remember when the Ebonics movement started up and it pissed me right off. Not because I had a problem with blacks or the way black people talked, nor even the code switching thing. But because I found it to be a dilletantish and pretentious. As if a bunch of black leaders saw how pidgin was, and the contraversy around it being taught in local (Hawaiian) schools, and said, "we want to be like them."

Perhaps I was mistaken and AAVE is simply not as evolved as pidgin, but give it a hundred years or so.
Jul. 27th, 2004 12:44 pm (UTC)
Well, AAVE's been developing pretty much since African slaves arrived in America, so it's been a work in progress for a couple hundred years already.
Jul. 27th, 2004 12:47 pm (UTC)
Oh, and I haven't looked at Hawaiian pidgin much, but I've studied other pidgins, like Tok Pisin, which is an English-based pidgin spoken in New Guinea (actually, it's reached the level of a creole, since there are now people who grow up speaking it; I'd hazard that the same is the case for Hawaiian pidgin).

A lot of theorists believe that AAVE is essentially an English-Bantu creole, which makes a lot of sense to me; their arguments draw on common features of creoles, e.g. reduced rulesets for case-marking, agreement and verb tenses, that kind of thing.
Jul. 27th, 2004 02:38 pm (UTC)
I hadn't known creole was a linguistic term. It helps clarify things so much. And yes, pidgin is considered a creole althoug I'm not sure what all the specifics of that definition are.

Having googled it, I found that there's a pidgin bible that came out this month. Although the spelling seems a bit anal retentive for pidgin, it's pretty much on the money.

Jul. 31st, 2004 12:00 am (UTC)
Interesting terminological problem: 'AAVE is simply not as evolved as pidgin' because AAVE is less divergent from standard English, thinking of language evolution in a tree model. But at this level the wave model works better: Hawaiian Creole came into existence 100 years ago, AAVE perhaps 300 years ago, and if it was originally a creole it's been significantly decreolized by contact with English to the extent that they're now mutual dialects.
Jul. 31st, 2004 10:26 pm (UTC)
good point. I really hadn't thought of it that way.
Jul. 28th, 2004 01:12 pm (UTC)
Merry, this is my favorite blog post I have read in *so long*, and I just felt compelled to tell you that. :-)

Sep. 2nd, 2004 07:01 pm (UTC)
Yes, you are a hacker.
I never knew I was a closet, amateur, almost-linguist until reading this article. This is awesome. Brightened up my whole evening, and I was in a good mood before...

Sep. 3rd, 2004 12:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Yes, you are a hacker.
Glad to be of service!

Not 100% sure how this makes me a hacker, unless you mean it's reasonably well in line with the hacker ethic, but hey, I'll take the compliment. :)
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

July 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow