{"id":797,"date":"2012-03-01T07:16:55","date_gmt":"2012-03-01T12:16:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=797"},"modified":"2012-03-03T10:43:04","modified_gmt":"2012-03-03T15:43:04","slug":"you-really-think-theyre-like-linguistic-pioneers-omg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/you-really-think-theyre-like-linguistic-pioneers-omg\/","title":{"rendered":"You really think they’re, like, linguistic pioneers? OMG!"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

[youtube=”http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ&feature=fvst”]
\nAre the Kardashians, Valley Girls or the Jersey Shores’ starlets pioneers of language? Or just inept, barely literate, somewhat dim young women of dubious talent? I tend to believe the latter. Writer Douglas Quequa suggested the former in the New York Times<\/a> this week. He opens with this line:<\/p>\n

“Whether it be uptalk (pronouncing statements as if they were questions? Like this?), creating slang words like \u201cbitchin\u2019 \u201d and \u201cridic,\u201d or the incessant use of \u201clike\u201d as a conversation filler, vocal trends associated with young women are often seen as markers of immaturity or even stupidity.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, of course, yes<\/strong>. If you speak like an idiot, people naturally assume you are one. Language conveys the speaker’s intelligence, education, upbringing, experience and communications skills. Anyone who sticks “like<\/a>” into every sentence does not come across as a particularly well-educated or even bright communicator. Anyone who thinks the Kardashians are brilliant orators is, like, oh-my-god, a moron.<\/p>\n

It doesn’t have to be women: men do it too albeit usually with different words and cadence (the affected pseudo-“homie” talk of young men is particularly painful to listen to), but the cultural stereotype of the mindless, barely literate babble has been rather unfortunately pinned mostly on young women. Sadly, a few, it seems, deserve the label:
\n[youtube=”http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww”]<\/p>\n

But linguists \u2014 many of whom once promoted theories consistent with that attitude \u2014 now say such thinking is outmoded. Girls and women in their teens and 20s deserve credit for pioneering vocal trends and popular slang, they say, adding that young women use these embellishments in much more sophisticated ways than people tend to realize.<\/p>\n

\u201cA lot of these really flamboyant things you hear are cute, and girls are supposed to be cute,\u201d said Penny Eckert, a professor of linguistics at Stanford University. \u201cBut they\u2019re not just using them because they\u2019re girls. They\u2019re using them to achieve some kind of interactional and stylistic end.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I agree that these verbalizations fulfill a stylistic function, but interactional? It’s difficult to interact properly with someone who peppers “like” throughout a sentence. When someone says “I’m, like, happy,” should I ask what being similar to happy means to them?<\/p>\n

If you mean “um”, say “um,” and not “like.” Basically both are an interruption of thought, but “like” has become an accepted stylistic form among some groups, spread like a virus, without deliberate effort. The abuse of the word “like” in speech is a bad gene on the language chromosome we need to expunge. Quequa writes,<\/p>\n

The same can be said for the word \u201clike,\u201d when used in a grammatically superfluous way or to add cadence to a sentence. (Because, like, people tend to talk this way when impersonating, like, teenage girls?) …while young people tended to use \u201clike\u201d more often than older people, men used it more frequently than women… The use of \u201clike\u201d in a sentence, \u201capparently without meaning or syntactic function, but possibly as emphasis,\u201d has made its way into the Webster\u2019s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition \u2014 this newspaper\u2019s reference Bible \u2014 where the example given is: \u201cIt\u2019s, like, hot.\u201d Anyone who has seen a television show featuring the Kardashian sisters will be more than familiar with this usage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Making it into any dictionary does not convey credibility or even acceptability. Dictionaries document use, but don’t make any effort to correct usage. They are tools for mapping the language, not arbiters of its use. Words also disappear from dictionaries, but not because they’re worthless. They may be expunged simply for lack of space. How many dictionaries still carry the word “mumpsimus”?<\/p>\n

As an editorial note, Quequa doesn’t qualify his statement as to how (or even if) his quoted sources, “once promoted theories consistent with that attitude.” We never get any inkling of what those those earlier theories say. Or even if they are theories (they could be mere hypotheses…)<\/p>\n

I suppose if I really wanted to be hip (wait, does that colloquialism show my age?) I’d write Valley “Gurlz” because the rage among the marketing and advertising illiterates is to replace a proper ‘s’ with a ‘z’ and pretend they’re actually the same sound (they’re not, but it’s like arguing cosmology with goldfish…). These are the same dimwits who brought us “lite” instead of light and “E-Z” instead of easy. Pay no attention to them and they will probably slink back into their caves.<\/p>\n

Girls and women in their teens and 20s deserve credit for pioneering vocal trends and popular slang, they say, adding that young women use these embellishments in much more sophisticated ways than people tend to realize.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh, puh-leez. That’s codswallop. That’s akin to saying my dog is pioneering veterinary treatments because she got better after the medicine. The spread of linguistic forms is often little more than mimicry based on popular culture and pressure from peer usage. It’s just like fashion and popular culture. Just look at Internet memes and viral videos. Pioneering requires someone or some group to actually do the pioneering, not simply repeat what others do. I am not a pioneer of the telephone simply because I use one.<\/p>\n

In the Sixties we talked about “rip offs” and said “cool, man”; in the Fifties it was “Daddy-oh” and “hipster.” Were we language pioneers or just parrots? These young women are products of their age and pop cultures, influenced by TV, the Net and movies to absorb these aspects.<\/p>\n

Every generation has its own language, its own slang. But slang and sociolects age like political humour, losing their relevance within a few years and get dropped. Who today uses terms that were once in daily speeeh in the 1920s<\/a>? Who says twenty-three skidoo or  see you later alligator?<\/p>\n

What Quequa overlooks is that the patois<\/a> of Valleyspeak<\/a> and its ilk are not evolving languages as much as they are variant sociolects<\/a> that have become a cross-pollinating meme. A sociolect, or social dialect, is, according to Wikipedia:<\/p>\n

…a variety of language (a dialect) associated with a social group such as a socioeconomic class, an ethnic group, an age group, etc… interaction in written and other media can also lead to sociolects, and many can be found in online communities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There’s nothing wrong with slang or sociolects; they’ve been around since language was invented. But there’s a world of difference between pioneering language forms and merely using them. And certainly a difference between pioneering and parroting.<\/p>\n

Language is a tool. It can be used with finesse, like a scalpel, or bluntly and coarsely, like a chainsaw. Girl slang is certainly closer to the latter than the former as a mode of communication. Shakespeare was a pioneer of language, introducing many neologisms and developing new forms of expression. I simply cannot countenance putting the Kardashians on the same level as Shakespeare.
\n[youtube=”http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0R54WzbS_JA”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Are the Kardashians, Valley Girls or the Jersey Shores girls pioneers of language? Or just inept, barely literate, somewhat dim young women? I tend to believe the latter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[6,73],"tags":[79,78,75],"class_list":["post-797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arts","category-language-grammar","tag-colloquialisms","tag-grammar","tag-language"],"a3_pvc":{"activated":true,"total_views":4416,"today_views":0},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=797"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":822,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797\/revisions\/822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}