Things that annoy me, part n
Dec. 8th, 2003 03:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
j4This week, two apparently conflicting things have been annoying me.
1. It annoys me when people linguistic standards for granted; particularly, when they take for granted that there's a "correct" way to spell/pronounce/punctuate which is completely independent from actual usage. Yes, there has to be some kind of consensus, and yes, usage which obscures meaning could be described as "wrong" in one sense (at least, if you believe that the purpose of language is to facilitate communication), but on the other hand meanings and "standards" shift and change like the sands in the desert. It's inevitable. (I suppose it's also inevitable that people will argue over these things while they're in a transitional period, but I don't have to like it.)
2. It annoys me when people object to native pronunciations of foreign names on the grounds that it's somehow "pretentious", and that it's absurd to be so "precious" about foreign pronunciations when there's a perfectly good English equivalent. This may, at a glance, seem contradictory to the above peeve -- after all, if there's no one "correct" way to pronounce something, what does it matter? Well, ultimately, it doesn't matter very much so long as people know what each other is talking about -- if (and this is a big "if") people don't attach any personal/emotional importance to the words for things. In reality, of course, they do; I'm sure I don't need to point out examples, or well-known Shibboleths. However, the way I see it is that if somebody tells me how to pronounce their name, or the name of something pertaining to themself or their culture, it's only common courtesy to follow their pronunciation.
The problem is, I get irritated, but then I don't really want to have the whole argument -- what I want people to do is to think, rather than just assuming and not examining the implications of their assumptions. I suppose this is terribly hypocritical of me; after all, I certainly need my thoughts prodding on occasion. But it does irk me that I keep getting into arguments about variations on these two themes, and I find myself wondering why they keep coming up.
At least in part, the underlying issues seem to be:
a) "It doesn't matter; you know what I mean."
Predictably, I'd dispute this, at least to an extent. On an everyday basis, yes, we have to take some things as read, otherwise we'd probably eventually lose all confidence in language as a medium of communication, and would have to resort to carrying things around with us and pointing at them. However, I don't think that necessary day-to-day detachment means that it doesn't matter -- it may not matter all the time, but I think it matters that we realise that it might matter. The way we use language affects the way others see us, the way they act towards us, and ultimately the way we think. And if the way we think doesn't matter, then I'd like to know what does matter.
I also believe that thinking about thinking matters. If we don't think about where our language, our meanings, our notions of "correctness" come from, then we're basing a lot of our beliefs on unexamined thought, probably to the extent that we don't even realise they are beliefs. Personally this makes me extremely uneasy. I don't want to have beliefs -- particularly beliefs which might result in a sense of my "rightness" and other people's "wrongness" -- which are based on anything I haven't thoroughly examined and worked through.
b) "English is my language too, so I'm right."
Well, yes, to an extent, this is true. The problem is, it's often expressed so as to be quite clear that it means "So I'm right and you're not." People often don't like relativism to cut both ways.
That aside, however, the issue with language is not so much what is "right", but why someone believes it to be right, and whether in fact they've thought about it at all, or whether they merely "know" something's right "because they've been told so". Again, yes, there's a line which has to be drawn where we agree to abide by a consensus, otherwise we disappear into chaos; but I think it matters that we should be aware that a line is being drawn.
Perhaps this is a personal thing, and I think it goes a long way beyond the context under discussion. Basically, though, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons. I'd rather be consistent; I'd rather think and act with integrity (and risk being "wrong") than blindly accept things without questioning and examining them. If I work things through for myself, I may make the wrong decision; but if I act without awareness of my motives and without remaining true to myself I don't believe that I can ever make the right decision except by chance.
Of course, I hope that sometimes I make the right decision for the right reasons. But who is the arbiter of rightness?
1. It annoys me when people linguistic standards for granted; particularly, when they take for granted that there's a "correct" way to spell/pronounce/punctuate which is completely independent from actual usage. Yes, there has to be some kind of consensus, and yes, usage which obscures meaning could be described as "wrong" in one sense (at least, if you believe that the purpose of language is to facilitate communication), but on the other hand meanings and "standards" shift and change like the sands in the desert. It's inevitable. (I suppose it's also inevitable that people will argue over these things while they're in a transitional period, but I don't have to like it.)
2. It annoys me when people object to native pronunciations of foreign names on the grounds that it's somehow "pretentious", and that it's absurd to be so "precious" about foreign pronunciations when there's a perfectly good English equivalent. This may, at a glance, seem contradictory to the above peeve -- after all, if there's no one "correct" way to pronounce something, what does it matter? Well, ultimately, it doesn't matter very much so long as people know what each other is talking about -- if (and this is a big "if") people don't attach any personal/emotional importance to the words for things. In reality, of course, they do; I'm sure I don't need to point out examples, or well-known Shibboleths. However, the way I see it is that if somebody tells me how to pronounce their name, or the name of something pertaining to themself or their culture, it's only common courtesy to follow their pronunciation.
The problem is, I get irritated, but then I don't really want to have the whole argument -- what I want people to do is to think, rather than just assuming and not examining the implications of their assumptions. I suppose this is terribly hypocritical of me; after all, I certainly need my thoughts prodding on occasion. But it does irk me that I keep getting into arguments about variations on these two themes, and I find myself wondering why they keep coming up.
At least in part, the underlying issues seem to be:
a) "It doesn't matter; you know what I mean."
Predictably, I'd dispute this, at least to an extent. On an everyday basis, yes, we have to take some things as read, otherwise we'd probably eventually lose all confidence in language as a medium of communication, and would have to resort to carrying things around with us and pointing at them. However, I don't think that necessary day-to-day detachment means that it doesn't matter -- it may not matter all the time, but I think it matters that we realise that it might matter. The way we use language affects the way others see us, the way they act towards us, and ultimately the way we think. And if the way we think doesn't matter, then I'd like to know what does matter.
I also believe that thinking about thinking matters. If we don't think about where our language, our meanings, our notions of "correctness" come from, then we're basing a lot of our beliefs on unexamined thought, probably to the extent that we don't even realise they are beliefs. Personally this makes me extremely uneasy. I don't want to have beliefs -- particularly beliefs which might result in a sense of my "rightness" and other people's "wrongness" -- which are based on anything I haven't thoroughly examined and worked through.
b) "English is my language too, so I'm right."
Well, yes, to an extent, this is true. The problem is, it's often expressed so as to be quite clear that it means "So I'm right and you're not." People often don't like relativism to cut both ways.
That aside, however, the issue with language is not so much what is "right", but why someone believes it to be right, and whether in fact they've thought about it at all, or whether they merely "know" something's right "because they've been told so". Again, yes, there's a line which has to be drawn where we agree to abide by a consensus, otherwise we disappear into chaos; but I think it matters that we should be aware that a line is being drawn.
Perhaps this is a personal thing, and I think it goes a long way beyond the context under discussion. Basically, though, I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons. I'd rather be consistent; I'd rather think and act with integrity (and risk being "wrong") than blindly accept things without questioning and examining them. If I work things through for myself, I may make the wrong decision; but if I act without awareness of my motives and without remaining true to myself I don't believe that I can ever make the right decision except by chance.
Of course, I hope that sometimes I make the right decision for the right reasons. But who is the arbiter of rightness?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Long response (part I)
Date: 2003-12-08 10:07 am (UTC)Of course they are -- if it is a choice. The problem is, a lot of the time it isn't a conscious and examined choice; it's a knee-jerk reaction. To take a specific example, it annoys me intensely when people tell me not to split infinitives "because it's wrong", and yet have no idea why it should be wrong. However, it doesn't annoy me at all when people tell me that they dislike the way split infinitives sound, or even that they want to try to stamp out the split infinitive because of this. I'd be interested to know whether it's just an aesthetic objection or whether they have other reasons; I might disagree with their aesthetics or their reasoning; but I like to know that they have some reasoning or else that they accept that it's a purely subjective judgement.
In a more general sense, my instincts suggest that the very belief that there is a "correct" form of language and departures from it are sloppy or vulgar or just plain wrong must itself be a significant force affecting the pace and nature of language shift.
Oh, definitely. But does that make that force any more "correct" than other forces affecting language change? Is it more "correct" for a rock to be eroded by wind or by water?
I've noticed before that linguists who've been taught about the naturalness of language change seem to take it so much to heart that they stop having any opinions about how they'd wish a language to develop, which bits they like and dislike
Did I say I didn't have opinions? :-) I have heaps of opinions about the English language -- from expressions and constructions which I abhor, to turns of phrase which make me feel positively excited at how neat and perfect they are. There are words, both new and old, which I think extremely ugly; there are words which I want to hoard away in a little velvet bag so that I can take them out and gloat over their shininess.
The thing is, I don't think my opinions are "right" in any objective sense. I may have strong opinions about the way a room should be painted; but at the end of the day maroon is no more "correct" than magnolia. And if the house is not solely owned by me -- as the language is not -- then I may find that my wishes are ignored, and that the house's owner persists in going ahead with mustard-yellow bathroom fittings, pink walls and lime-green venetian blinds despite my aesthetic outrage at the mere idea.
Re: Long response (part I)
Date: 2003-12-09 01:33 am (UTC)No, of course not; but it raises the fun possibility that if the effect of that belief is to push language change in a direction I happen to want it to be pushed, then my optimum strategy might be to work to maintain the belief.
>;->"The thing is, I don't think my opinions are "right" in any objective sense."
Fair enough then
:-)As long as you don't object to me having all the unreasonable opinions I can eat, I won't argue any further...