Language Myths

[Porter]

So*, I'm finally reading Language Myths, which Jonathon was kind enough to loan to me.

I find it very interesting, but it's also bugging me a few ways.

For example the idea that English is better suited to discussing nuclear physics tha Maori is refuted with the basic argument "Poppycock!  You only say that because of its rich inheritence of words and phrases which make it easy to discuss scientific notions in general, and nuclear physics in particular."

Well, duh.  That's what makes English better suited to the task.

Of course, their real point was that English isn't inherently superior to the task -- over time, Maori could develop a perfectly adequate vocabulary just like English did.  This, to me, is something I'm perfectly willing to believe, but the author didn't seem willing to make any concession to the myth's POV.

Maybe it was for political/P.C. reasons that he was unwilling to do so.  In the introduction, IIRC, it equated considering one language superior to another with racism and sexism.  That struck me as really odd -- if it's true that one language isn't superior to another, why don't you just show it to me logically instead of trying to get me to respond emotionally with this talk of racism and sexism?

[Jonathon]

I believe that was one of the chapters that I found somewhat disappointing. I don't remember all the arguments, so I'll have to go off of what you said and what I remember.

It is true that it's harder to discuss something in a particular language if that language lacks the proper vocabulary words. For most ordinary discussions, this is probably not a problem, but for something highly technical like nuclear physics, you might very well have difficulties. You'd either have to coin or borrow new words or use a lot of circumlocution.

However, the root of the myth is that some languages—namely, those spoken by primitive tribes—are incapable of expressing complex, abstract, or nuanced ideas. This often goes hand-in-hand with the idea that such languages have no grammar (working under the assumption that "more grammar"—whatever that means—means more ability to communicate).

There's also the idea that languages are better suited to communication about particular subjects, as though they are people with their own unique talents. There's a great post on Language Log about that here. The idea that French is better for legal writing than German or English or any other language with a specialized legal vocabulary is pretty ridiculous.

[Porter]

However, the root of the myth is that some languages—namely, those spoken by primitive tribes—are incapable of expressing complex, abstract, or nuanced ideas.

Yeah, I got that -- I just thought his point was unfortunately weakened by extending it beyond credibility.

[Jonathon]

Agreed.

[Porter]

What?  I came in here for a good argument.  

[Jonathon]

Oh, so you think you can just show up on a forum and say, "Hey, monkeys, argue this topic for me!" Well, sorry to disappoint, but this monkey dances for NO ONE.  

[JT]

Of course, their real point was that English isn't inherently superior to the task -- over time, Maori could develop a perfectly adequate vocabulary just like English did. This, to me, is something I'm perfectly willing to believe, but the author didn't seem willing to make any concession to the myth's POV.

That's almost the exact opposite of the point that the Bill Bryson book about the English language makes.

[Jonathon]

Which one—Mother Tongue, or Made in America? I've heard bad things about the first, and I don't know anything about the latter.

Also, what do you mean by exact opposite? That English is superior because of its vocabulary?

Edit: I just read some of the reviews of The Mother Tongue on Amazon. Hoo boy. This book sounds like a disaster. But then again, it was written by a journalist.  

[JT]

Mother Tongue.  I wasn't positive that was the name, and I was running out the door to lunch when I wrote that earlier post.

Essentially, he makes the case that English is uniquely suited to be what it's becoming (the common language of the world).  Because of its versatility, longevity, and flexibility.  I'm afraid I can't explain it without screwing it up, but it's an interesting read.

I'd be happy to send it to you when I finish it, if you like.

[Porter]

Mother Tongue is one of the books to which, according to the introduction, Language Myths was written as a response.

[Jonathon]

Essentially, he makes the case that English is uniquely suited to be what it's becoming (the common language of the world).  Because of its versatility, longevity, and flexibility.  I'm afraid I can't explain it without screwing it up, but it's an interesting read.

Oh, gag. That really is akin to racism in a lot of ways. You could make equally valid arguments about why whites are uniquely suited to run the world—and you can easily make a lot of good counter-arguments to show why they're false.

I'd be happy to send it to you when I finish it, if you like.

Sure. I'll probably hate it, but I think sometimes it's valuable to read bad arguments to better appreciate the good ones.

Porteiro: I think I remember that now that you mention it.

[Porter]

That really is akin to racism in a lot of ways.

This analogy was one of the things that put me off with Language Myths, but I'm having trouble articulating exactly why.

It's not like I have a bone to pick -- if anything, I'd say that English is a pretty poor choice for a lingua franca if for no other reason than because of its irregular spelling.

[Jonathon]

This analogy was one of the things that put me off with Language Myths, but I'm having trouble articulating exactly why.

Perhaps because language is not something intrinsic to a person, as race is? That is, you can change your language (theoretically, at least), but not your race? If that's the case, then I'd agree. "Languagism" is not as bad as racism, but it usually goes unnoticed and is often celebrated or encouraged.

[JT]

Bryson says that the irregular spelling is falling out of style as we speak.

[Porter]

Maybe a little bit, but I don't anticipate seeing enuff accepted as a valid alternative spelling in my lifetime.

[JT]

What did you mean by 'irregular spelling'?  I don't think any language is immune to misspellings.

[Jonathon]

Irregular spellings and misspellings are not the same thing. A misspelling is simply spelling the word in a way other than the established one. Irregular spelling is spelling that is not phonetic (or at least not consistently so).

It's probably true that all languages have a little bit of irregularity in their spellings, but that's because pronunciation evolves and leaves the established spelling behind.

[Porter]

In Portuguese, the pronunciation and spelling have an extremely high correspondence.  Exceptions to this are rare, especially in comparison to English.

[JT]

That's what I thought you meant.  In that case, I disagree about enuff.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that as a valid spelling in my lifetime.

It chills my bones to think that, but the way l33t speak is going I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[Jonathon]

I wouldn't have any problem with a well-thought-out system of spelling reform in America (or across all English-speaking countries). I mean, it would be a difficult changeover, but I wouldn't think that English was going to pot or anything like that. Leetspeak is a different issue, though.

I also don't think spelling reform is going to make it very far. The handful of differences that separate American and British spelling are pretty mild in comparison to enuff. More recent attempts like thru and tonite failed pretty miserably.

[JT]

In what way have they failed?  Seems to me that they're still gaining ground.

I'm pretty strict about spelling, for example, but I use thru and tonite when I text message.  YMMV, of course.

[Porter]

Leetspeak is a different issue, though.

How so?

I also don't think spelling reform is going to make it very far.

I agree.  It just ain't-a gonna happen.

[Jonathon]

Perhaps they are gaining ground—I don't have the historical data to show one way or the other, though. But I do know that I never see them in edited works like newspapers or books. As long as that is the case, they'll be considered marginal at best.

[Jonathon]

Leetspeak is a different issue, though.

How so?

Leetspeak is the replacement of regular letters with other symbols or combinations of symbols. How is that in any way the same as spelling reformation that makes English spelling regular and phonetic?

[Porter]

OK, I agree with you there.  I was thinking of general IM-speak, not purposely obfuscated leetspeek, which I h8.