"Lah, Leh, Lor"

The article by Geoff Nunberg delves on the topic of linguistic pet peeves. He casually introduces some commonly misused words, phrases and notions that both he and many other writers have regarding the English language. He appears to take a moralistic stance toward the whole issue, as he opines that we have no right to mar the language with our incorrect use, owing to the fact that the English language was here longer than the present day world.

As individuals, we all harbor our own set of personal and idiosyncratic annoyances. It can result in minor displeasure, or escalate into sheer rage if left unchecked. Often, language misuse is one of those things that drive people absolutely batty. An aversion to certain words might be the result of being chided publicly when young for incorrect usage and likewise, a preference for words can be the result of a stronger memory trigger in an individual, hence leading to a greater ease of recall. We begin with a definition of “peeve”, which is something that is particularly irritating or annoying. It is considered a relatively recent word though it originates from the 14th-century word, “peevish,” meaning disagreeable or unpleasant in demeanor (source: Wikipedia).

Pet peeves are a very personal issue that may not always have a root (even to the “peeved”); it often seems illogical to everyone else who does not share it. As a result, there is a large variety of pet peeves, ranging from the usual overuse of words like “I think”, to the more eclectic, like starting a sentence with “Again”. Pet peeves in word choice are similar to pet peeves in grammar usage, thus giving rise to the term, grammar Nazi. However, I believe grammar is more like a set of rules which do not change; this is as opposed to vocabulary and words which constantly evolve with the ebb and flow of time, culture, and beliefs. This consequently gives rise to new (and inevitably, archaic) meanings of words.

Moreover, given the widespread influence of the media, incorrectly used words can be spread virally. Social networks, internet forums and advertising exacerbate the damage on the English language with the use of stereotypes and misconstrued meanings. Take for example the word “chauvinism”. It originated during the time of Napoleon, and was used to characterize people who wildly estimated the excellence and importance of their own country while denigrating others. Following this, female activists in 1970 coined the term “male chauvinist” to label people who considered women inferior to men. Unfortunately, this was the context in which many people encountered this term, thus leading them to believe that this was the origin of the term without understanding its broader meaning. “Chauvinist” was soon a synonym for “sexist”, and still continues to be used like so today.

That said however, I believe that words which have altered meanings are not all that bad. They may not mean exactly what they did however many years ago, but the evolution of language is necessitated by the zeitgeist of times, and I am all for it. While the logos at work here clarifies some glaring mistakes in modern day English, the pathos helps maintain a flow throughout the essay, as readers find the article engaging. However, taking it at such a superficial level would be missing the point; Professor Nunberg’s approach to the whole issue appears contemptuous. For example, he talks about the adverb “gingerly”, where he declares that “I can take a quiet satisfaction in knowing that I’m marching to a more logical drummer than the half billion other speakers of English who haven’t yet cottoned to the problem”. Surely if these half a billion people had knowledge of their error, most of them would choose to correct it. Just because someone else is using a word incorrectly, that does not make one more logical than the other. This Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy devalues the author’s argument on the issue. Moreover, the comment by Pedantic Puffery that “oblivious to” could mean “lacking knowledge or awareness” further buttresses my point. If there comes a time where mistakes are made in the English language, education, not contempt, will always be the answer to this problem.

My personal pet peeves are words and phrases that are bombastic, and unnecessarily lengthy. For example, we have all heard “The fact of the matter is...” and “The point I wish to make is….” The use of flowery language likely stems from the image that the author wishes to project to his audience, and often, it is one of intellect. We are a society drowned in unnecessary words, circular constructions, and frilly jargon as it is fairly common for people to mistake length and clutter for intelligence. Being concise takes effort, but once we get over the notion that quantity is better, society will be better off.

Generally, I have a preference for words that take me a long time to understand, only because I frequently turn to them for practice. For now, “zeitgeist” is one of them, while “hitherto” is something I am having difficulty with. Also, coming from Singapore where we have developed our own English-based creole known as Singlish (Singapore Vernacular English), I find myself having to switch to American English to save myself from blank stares from the locals here. The use of Singlish back in my home country is a hot-button topic as it has been accused by critics that it denigrates the English language, and causes the young to lose the ability to compete on a global scale with their poor mastery of English. Back home, “lah”, “leh” (pronounced lay) and “lor” (pronounced law) pepper my speech as I code switch between Singlish and English based on the various situations. This is imperative as trying to speak in grammatically correct sentences whilst shopping at a market will draw disdained stares from everyone; your cavalier behavior will undoubtedly earn you the title of haughty upper-class person. In short, the author-audience relationship is an important factor to consider in your use of language. Before we write or speak, it is important that we understand the context in which we are doing so, and our audiences’ background, whether geographically or culturally. Sometimes it might be helpful to be understood, instead of being right.

Professor Nunberg’s article on linguistic pet peeves overlooks the fact that words frequently take on new meanings, and his moralistic and contemptuous stance toward its constant evolution only devalues his argument. Nonetheless, he does raise the salient point on the proper use of the English language when it comes to speech and writing, which I feel will always be important in formal writing.

(For those interested, “lah” is the ubiquitous Singlish tag, used like a full stop in a sentence. “Leh” is yet another Singlish tag, similar in usage to “lah” but adds a quizzical tone to the sentence. “Lor” on the other hand, acts as a tag that adds a slightly resigned or cynical tone to the sentence.)

Sentiments of Rhetoric

Geoff Nunberg effectively diagnoses different linguistic pet peeves in his article “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves.” Everyone has a certain word or phrase that negatively stands out to them and sounds like nails on a chalkboard. For Nunberg, the words “oversimplistic” is the definition of “simplistic,” so he sees no point in adding “over.” Utilizing rhetoric, more specifically Logos, the author breaks down his numerous pet peeves and explains the logically reasoning behind it. For example, using the word “gingerly” as an adverb is ridiculous because there is no corresponding adjective. Nunberg goes on to agree that over the years, the English language has changed. Words now have different meanings and usage than they did in the past. Culture shapes the way people use different words or sayings. Naturally, words changed with time. Sometimes words are compounded to sentences based on their appealing sound. It may not fit correctly in the phrase based on meaning, but it sounds correct to put it there. Kingsley Amis for example feels like it is incorrect to say “I was oblivious to the noise” but to me, this sounds like a proper sentence. Amis believes oblivious can only mean “forgetful,” but in this context, I think the word can be substituted for “unaware.” Most people would agree with me because when you look oblivious up in a dictionary, the words unaware, unconscious, unmindful, ignorant and insensible come up, but the word forgetful is not present.

Wording of sentences can also change its meaning. I agree with Nunberg when he explicates that “I made no money last year, I had to live in a dilapidated shack with a dirt floor with 10 other people” does not make sense. In today’s culture, people usually speak more casually than they talk, so when said aloud, this sentence sounds correct. However, the word “made” should be replaced with “earned.” The technical definition of the sentence “I made no money last year” means that one literally did not make any money, as in the sense of perhaps baking. You didn’t cook up or produce any money. Swap out made and insert earned and the sentence completely transforms into the version meant to be said. “I earned no money last year” confirms the fact that you are poor and explains the fact that you are living in a decrepit, dirty shed with multiple roommates.

Logos is the rhetorical technique that breaks down the text to find the logic and reasoning behind it. In every example which he presents, Nunberg first rationalizes his thoughts and then uses proofs and linguistic structures and definitions to logically explain why a certain word or phrase do not equate within one another.

All while incorporating the use of Logos, the main point of his article, “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves,” is to reveal how language establishes a connection with the audience. For the most part, the contents of this article stand true in the minds of the readers. While I read this, every time Nunberg gave another example, I completely agreed with him. Everyone has their certain pet peeves in writing and language. Mine are when people use “literally” to begin, add to, or end a sentence. There is not point to that word other than to sound absolutely annoying. A popular trend this year was to shorten normal words and just use their abbreviation in a sentence. I blame texting, IMing, Emailing and the overuse of technology. I cringe when someone says “dec” instead of decent. It is not a long word. Say the whole thing! With that, people think they are so cool when they say “legit” in replace of legitimately. Don’t get me wrong, I have said it too, but there are some people who say it as a substitute for “okay,” “sounds good,” “alright” and so on, and after two or three “legits,” you want to rip your hair out.

Nunberg’s validations of his pet peeves belong to Pathos, or emotional appeal, to the rhetorical situation. He uses logical to explain why they bother him and the reasons the words are grammatically incorrect, but his own personal opinions are the sentiments used to rapport with the audience.

The knowledge of Logos, Pathos and Ethos have aided and improved my understanding of rhetoric and the way language works. Before, I just thought people write to write and the entire prose was the author’s feelings. Now, I understand that an article is not solely consisted of emotions, but also logical reasoning and ethics as well. Geoff Nunberg successfully describes the list of his many pet peeves in writing by making use of all aspects of rhetoric to sell his audience on his personal thoughts and opinions.

Tricky Balance

Drake Bennett’s article sheds light on an intriguing topic that few of us have ever previously considered. We know, and at times even proclaim, we are lazy people and that we search for the easy path. However, the power of our lazy, or more appropriately, efficient, mind truly shapes how we view and react to the world around us. Rhetoricians can use this knowledge of cognitive fluency to carefully present an argument.
The key is finding a happy medium between cognitive fluency and disfluency, utilizing the best characteristics of both worlds. A fluent and easy to interpret statement provides several benefits. First, it makes the statement seem more familiar. By staying away from confusing word choice or format the statement will enter a person’s mind with ease. If someone has to really focus and think about what is being read or heard they will most likely conclude it is a challenging topic. Also, if they are presented a new format for something the brain must first decipher the layout of the piece and then it can focus on the written work itself. I know that I notice this problem whenever I open up a new text book. Each book is formatted in its own unique way. One might have the key words in bold and their definition placed within the reading itself, while others have them in the margins of the page or in the glossary in the back of the book. The fact that the formatting is different forces my mind to learn how to appropriately navigate through the text and become familiar with the layout before I am able to solely focus on the written information. If books were designed in a more familiar and fluent manner I would be able to focus on the reading material and learn what the text presents without being first confused and sidetracked by the awkward layout. Another example of the importance of cognitive fluency in text books is the word choice used by authors. All too often the topic of interest seems complicated simply because the author fails to write the book in more layman’s terms. Obviously the challenging read increases the brain’s ability to read and grow, but it would help a student understand the material better if, after the complicated jargon was used, there was a paragraph simplifying it. The paragraph might be used to explain it in less confusing words or to take a different, more easily interpreted, approach to teaching the material. I know personally that authors of text books who do conclude each section by simplifying the contents help me to go back and understand the, what at first seemed like challenging, material better.
Cognitive fluency may seem all fine and dandy but too much of it can create for a sterile and non-thought provoking environment. That is where the balanced use of disfluency comes into play. Elaborating on the first example above, what would be worse than each text book being unique is if each were exactly formatted the same. Yes, there would be great familiarity with them and the brain would know exactly what it is looking at, but there would be no thought provoked. Going from one text to the next would not be so noticeable and the brain would combine the subjects and not be able to separate what was learned reading one text book from what was learned of a different subject. Also, reading would become extremely boring because each and every page would look the same. Words would have less meaning due to their alikeness. By utilizing some disfluency authors help to make their work attractive, distinguishable, and thought provoking.
I agree with the author’s explanation of how cognitive disfluency can promote thought and critical thinking. If things are too similar and predictable the brain does not pay as much attention to them. We often forget days that we simply woke up, went to class, work, and studied. However, the days were there was some sort of disfluency we remember easier. Days where events are different stick in our mind because we think about the situations more and share stories about it with our friends and family. Disfluency can be used effectively to ‘spice things up’; however, over using disfluency and unfamiliarity confuses readers. As stated in the article strange fonts cause people to interpret the information as difficult to understand. Writers should be aware of this fact. If someone creates a blog with strange and unpopular font it is unlikely to become popular because readers want a sense of familiarity when they read. A disfluent and unfamiliar font causes the brain to uncomfortably have to interpret this and get used to it. This can be related to why people fear change. Changing situations and policies are often opposed due to the fact that they present a sense of risk and uncertainty. People do not know what to expect out of these new situations, this challenges the brain to work hard to predict possible outcomes. The brain would much rather know from past experiences what is most likely to happen in a particular situation. Discovering a comfortable balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency in our writing proves critical for its successful impact.
The author discussed the positives and negatives associated with cognitive fluency or disfluency, but he failed to engage in just how important the balance between them is. In the field of marketing this balance is crucial. Product names, slogans, and logos need to be simple enough so the consumer is not overwhelmed by their complexity. By creating a simple name or memorable slogan there is a higher chance the customer will find that product familiar and pleasing. If they see a familiar, and thus comfortable, logo that is most likely the product they will purchase at the store. A strange logo that is not understood will challenge the brain and give off a feeling of discomfort to the potential consumer and that product will stay on the shelves while the more generic and cognitively fluent product will be purchased. The balance cannot lie too far to the cognitive fluent side however. In marketing the idea is to get people to look at your product, stop and think about it, maybe talk about it with friends or family, and purchase the merchandise. If there is too much cognitive fluency this will not happen. By utilizing what we know about cognitive disfluency, a marketer can design a slogan or logo that will catch the consumer’s eye. They might stop and think about a certain product they never planned on buying because there is an amount of uniqueness to it. Interest is created and thought is sparked through using a cognitively disfluent approach. But if the product is too strange or has an extremely complex name that is not understood it will be bypassed for a more comforting and familiar designed product.
This balance comes into play in politics as well. When a candidate is running for office he or she needs to come across as a common, well understood American, and at the same time needs to seem educated and create public awareness and analysis. Using an extremely fluent approach in a campaign would have the benefits of looking like an average citizen. This could help gain trust compared to someone that uses a fancy, unique campaign that seems disfluent and different. Perhaps where the need for fluency comes into play most is in the candidate's name. Think about this last presidential election; the two final candidates where McCain and Obama. They were simple, short, and easy to pronounce. The fact that their names were simpler and easier to think about than, Huckabee, for example, lead voters to feel more comfortable giving them their support. An extremely simple campaign slogan might relax voters and help them support you, but too simple would not help your name or campaign promises stick in their head. There has to be some confusion through cognitive disfluency so that voters talk about you and the media analyzes what you say. If you are well understood the media won’t spend countless hours trying to break down and decipher your plans. Obviously, before any campaign starts it is crucial that everyone on the team knows what type of balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency will be used.
This article was the first time I have ever given thought to such a simple, yet influential, topic. People in various sectors of business and politics should be inclined to learn as much as they can about the dramatic impact of cognitive fluency. Their findings will be used to propel them into more prosperous and respected careers. Everyone needs to develop their own balance between cognitive fluency and disfluency to best utilize the resources around them.