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.)
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.)
I like this response because it reminds me of my own personal pet peeves. Your pet peeves of using long phrases such as “the fact of the matter is…” and “the point I am trying to make is…” make me think of clichés, I am aware that these are not clichés but they have the same effect as clichés. What I mean is that clichés are overly used phrases that don’t hold much meaning anymore and require little thought in order to understand what they are saying. Clichés are overused to the point that the metaphor that they make does not hold as much depth as an original metaphor. I think this relates to your point of preferring words or phrases that make you think instead of ones that overly wordy or shallow. Coming up with original metaphors would mean more because it causes the reader to think about what you are explaining and for them to fully understand the depth of the point you are trying to make as opposed to just glossing over a cliché because it takes absolutely no thought to understand.
ReplyDeleteI think you would appreciate the article “Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan. It is all about having another “language” with which does not always allow you to communicate with everyone, and people’s perspective of you because of the type of English you speak. What I think you and Amy Tan both have in common is your ability to write very well and fluent, but yet talk about how you use a “different” English when speaking.
In response to the article, it is very relatable because I think everyone can agree that there are some things that bug them in terms of grammar or word use. These are words, phrases or grammatical mistakes that you just really do not like and cannot stand to hear them said. As I said before I really dislike the use of clichés, it is more in writing then in spoken language, but I really believe if a little thought is put into it a better phrase can be used. In addition to disliking clichés I also do not like the use of the mispronunciation of certain words, for instance when people pronounce espresso as expresso or saying heighth instead of height and finally samwich in place of sandwich. I think this article discusses language pet peeves in a little bit different way and that is the use of words where they do not belong however are commonly used in the wrong way. And I agree with your comment about how these words have evolved from their original meaning. People use certain words incorrectly based on their original meaning, but in the evolution of our language they are being used correctly and so it is all based off of your perception of what we should use, the original or the evolved version.
The author begins his analysis of ‘Equation’, ‘Gingerly’, and Other Linguistic Pet Peeves with an examination of what a pet peeve is and how they vary from person to person. Nobody shares the same set of pet peeves, and I praise the author for pointing this out at the onset of his post. By stating this simple, yet important, point he includes all reader’s opinions regarding what words or grammatical errors push their hot buttons the most. The range of effects a pet peeve has on a person could be small or greatly irritating. Once again, by highlighting this fact early in the post, the author helps comfort the reader’s concerns that some of their pet peeves spark a greater emotional response than others. Also, the reader knows that they are perfectly normal for having a range of pet peeves, some that make them just shake their head in mild displeasure and others that make them want to punch a wall they sound so absurd. Thought the use of effective opening paragraphs, that work to capture a diverse audience, the author sets the stage for the remainder of his analysis were he begins to sprinkle in his own opinions and critique Nunberg’s.
ReplyDeleteThe author proceeds to explain to the reader how quickly words can change and have their new meaning spread rapidly through technologies of the Twenty-First Century. Now days more than ever before, if a word’s meaning is skewed into something else it spreads to speakers of English around the globe instead staying local or regional. I definitely agree with the author’s opinion regarding how altered meanings to words are NOT a bad thing. The English language is alive and when used correctly can create beautiful symbolism. Whether to express how we feel or advance an argument, the words we choose possess tremendous meaning and can impact our audience’s beliefs and understanding. For the most part the English language is stable and predictable. Large will mean the same tomorrow as it does today. However, the flexibility people use to adapt a word to their experiences and current time period help spice up our language and keep it modern and useful to the current generation’s needs. The word expectorate used to mean “to cough up phlegm from the chest”, but does that historical fact bear any importance now if we simply use it as a synonym for spit? The word’s meaning has evolved because English speakers recognized a more practical use of this word and the majority of us bought into the new meaning. In my opinion, holding on to a definition that is several generations out of date is less logical than adapting the word and its current meaning to your time period. Words evolve for a reason, people create a more functional use for them.
Since the author included some of his pet peeves in the post, I might as well share mine. I find the word got irritating. It holds little meaning, and there is always another, more descriptive, verb that would fit in got’s place. Take, for example, the sentence, “The dog got a stick.” By substituting retrieved, “The dog retrieved a stick.” The reader can conclude someone probably threw a stick and the dog retrieved it and brought it back to his owner. The first sentence is vague, and the reader faces a challenge when trying to clearly picture what is happening in the scene. Another pet peeve of mine, because I say it a lot when I tell stories, is like. Like is such a common filler for me that my audience points it out and ridicules me for saying like, like, like… like.
The author’s conclusion is extremely impressive. He takes his opinions and clearly states them, leaving the reader with a well defined last impression. The take home points are easily understood, words take on beneficial new meanings and proper use of English is more important in formal speech and writing.