Archive for the ‘Language’ Category

John Leo and the deep dark secret of language (or) “Code words”

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

There has been some hullabaloo of late over Glenn Beck urging Christians to leave churches (read congregations) that preach social justice. Did Jesus not preach social justice? Is Glenn Beck against Jesus?

Please understand I am not a fan or critic of Glenn Beck. Do not watch his show although have seen parts of it a few times. Would say I have a mixed opinion of him. Did watch his entire presentation at Conservative Political Action Committee. Parts of it were very well done. Parts of it were hunh?

But this is not about Glenn Beck. This is about language. Readers of this website know I have a strong interest in languages and how people use words. I have begun to share (when preaching or teaching) a “deep dark secret” of language.

Words do not have meanings. They have uses.

(Not completely sure where I picked that up. Think it was when attending a pastor’s conference in Kerala in India. The Indian pastors got into a friendly argument over English translations of the Bible and concern over translations that change(?) what the Bible teaches. During which Dr Kunjumun Chacko asserted “words do not have meanings they have uses”. He was defending dynamic rather than literal translation.)

John Leo has a piece at National Review Online about how Glenn Beck was “tripped up” by the rhetoric of the social-political-cultural left.

In plain English, “social justice” is a goal of all churches and refers to helping the poor and seeking equality. As a code word, it refers to a controversial package of goals including political redistribution of wealth, gay marriage, and a campaign against “institutional racism,” “classism,” “ableism,” and “heterosexism.” Beck was wildly off base linking “social justice” (of either form) to Communism and Nazism, but he was correct to note that the term is often used as a code.

Leo goes on to discuss further the use of code words on American university campuses such as secure livelihoods and strong economies and especially sustainability.

Now to be fair conservatives and those on the right sometimes do the same thing. Although I confess do not have many specific examples. Family values comes to mind.

Strangely appropriate in light of the new Tim Burton movie “Alice in Wonderland”.

George Will – The evisceration of language

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Which is more troubling? The direction that the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress are taking this nation? Or the way they are doing it?

In all honesty – I say the latter. We have to do this immediately or else there will be catastrophe or – and I can hardly believe the president would say this – permanent damage to our economy. And we are not allowed to raise principled objections because that would constitute “politics”.

What on earth is politics except debate and dissent and the freedom to raise objections? These attempts to silence shut down and marginalize any and all opposition are what I find most offensive. What exactly does it mean to “transcend politics”?

Today, again, we are told that “politics” has no place in the debate about the tripartite stimulus legislation, which is partly a stimulus, partly liberalism’s agenda of social engineering, and partly the beginning of “remaking” the economy. Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale College notes that the size of the stimulus — the House-Senate compromise bill is $789 billion — is just slightly less than the amount of all U.S. currency in circulation, and is larger than the entire federal budget was until 1983. Yet it is said that in the debate about this encompassing legislation — which concerns what government can and should do, and ultimately what kind of regime America shall have — people should “transcend” (so says Larry Summers, the president’s economic adviser) politics. What, then, would be left for political argument to be about?

It is said that the negligible Republican support for the stimulus legislation means that bipartisanship is dead. But what can “bipartisanship” mean concerning legislation that concerns almost everything?

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

A significant portion of the American population thinks the president and Congress are making a bad situation worse. I say they are attempting to rewrite the basic guiding vision of our nation. But we are not even allowed to say “now hold on a second”.

Rhetorical despotism and the "race issue" on National Public Radio

Friday, October 31st, 2008

I feel bad for Columbus Ohio whose mayor Michael Coleman was invited to speak about race and the presidential election on the National Public Radio program “Talk of the Nation” yesterday October 30.

Michael Coleman mayor of Columbus wearing an LSU shirt

Early in his remarks he said:

The election of Barack Obama he and this country will overcome the issues of race, and that’s one of the good things about this election, is we are overcoming the race factor.

Even in context (especially given what he says later) it is not entirely clear exactly what he means. A harsh interpretation is that the election of Sen Obama will mean the United States has finally gotten over race. (And if you do not vote for him – then you are perpetuating race as a problem.) At first this is what I thought he was saying and was pretty annoyed at the presumption and what can only be described as a kind of moral blackmail. (Vote for my guy or else you are a racist.)

But he continued to suggest race will still be a factor in American society no matter who is elected. So perhaps a more generous interpretation is that race is a factor in this election but Sen Obama is able to overcome it (that is – it will not prevent the success of his election bid). Fair enough.

What really frosted my mug was his next remarks which represent racial rhetorical despotism. Mayor Coleman argued that some things said against Sen Obama represent “code”.

I do think some folks around John McCain have used code words that frankly I think display some racial insensitivities.

The interview (to his credit) pressed for specifics.

“Risky.

(Hold on. Swallow your coffee. Don’t hit your computer.)

I hear commercial after commercial calling Barack Obama a “risky candidate”.

The mayor then drew on his own experience when he ran for election as mayor in which his opponent labeled him as “risky” and this somehow was code language with racial (racist) undertones.

While it {such language} is not a direct assault it does underlie some underpinnings getting people to think some thoughts privately “what does that mean, ‘risky’?”

Mayor – no offense with all due respect(?!?)… no. And what you are engaging in is rhetorical despotism.

What does risky mean? The word risky has racial overtones? For Sarah Palin to suggest Sen Obama loves America less than she does has some “bothersome underpinnings”? (I wish Gov Palin would not say things like that but in what sense do such comments have racial over- I mean undertones?)

So if someone is a cipher, does not (at least according to that politician) have much hard experience or qualifications for a particular job, we cannot trust him as much, do not think he would do as good a job in office, and you call that “risky” that is somehow an appeal to racist attitudes? You have got to be kidding me.

Out of curiosity – what is a non-racist non-”code” way to say “risky”? If “risky” (and other such terms that you assert are code words) is unacceptable do be so kind as to provide us with an acceptable vocabulary for political discourse.

No? You will not? Because this is not about code or really about terms with bothersome racial undertones. This is about silencing the other side with unprovable assertions and guilt. “I am a member of ethnic group x. With the sole power of my own personal authority I declare that you are not allowed to use those words against the candidate I prefer. Because when you say tomato I assert unilaterally that what you really mean is orange and orange is racist”.

This is racial rhetorical despotism. Not to mention – and this is not a very polite thing to say – genuinely stupid. We need to stand up to this sort of arrogant foolishness.

I hope he is a better mayor. (According to my research – he is.)

For the record – some McCain supporters have sometimes said (or published) attacks against Sen Obama that are in my opinion genuinely racist. Yes I can show you specific examples. But spare us please this “code” nonsense. All that does is try to shut people up with fear and guilt.

A radical proposal concerning the alphabet

Monday, July 14th, 2008

During out time in Upstate New York visiting my mom and extended family I had an idea not unrelated to ideas I have had concerning how we count in English.

Consider that every letter in the English alphabet is spoken with one syllable. Ay, bee, see, dee, ee, eff, gee, aych, eye, and so on. With one exception.

Double-yoo. Three syllables.

My proposal is to change how we speak the letter w to one syllable – perhaps something like way. So that when we give out web addresses we no longer slog through double-yoo double-yoo double-yoo dot yahoo dot com. Instead just way way way dot yahoo dot com.

It gets better.

Have you noticed how often in English when we spell a word people have to ask “Wait – did you say em or en? See or zee?” Too many letters in English are too close in pronunciation that – especially over the phone – we are not sure. (This is why the military comes up with those whiskey-foxtrot-tango systems. No ambiguity at all.)

And those crazy Canucks and Brits and Aussies and the rest say zed instead of zee – which is why they never get confused over the phone. At least between c and z. You can laugh (and Weird Al pokes at this in his song “Canadian Idiot”) – but it makes sense. I wonder if we resist changing over because of that pesky “ABC Song”.

So why stop at way for w? Why not look at all the ambiguous letter-pairs and change one so that there is no more ambiguity?

Instead of bee and pee perhaps bee and pay. (I believe one finds this frequently in how foreign languages say their alphabets.) Instead of the always confusing em or en we get em and nay. And so on.

Coming up – why we need to do this with how we count numbers.

DailyHebrew.Com

Friday, June 27th, 2008

Keep your Hebrew fresh and sharp. Just three verses per day – which is more than I usually read at this stage of my life. (Not good considering how many years I spent studying biblical Hebrew and how much of my published work is on its historical development.) Thank goodness for the gift of and service provided by DailyHebrew.

Now… if only there could also be a DailyEgyptian, DailyAkkadian, DailyUgaritic, DailyNorthWestSemiticInscriptions, DailyAramaic, DailyArabic, DailyGerman, and DailyFrench as well. Not asking for much am I?

Dune and Rhetorical despotism

Monday, June 16th, 2008

God Emperor of Dune

I have been rereading later books in the Dune saga by Frank Herbert. In God Emperor of Dune I came across this exchange between the God Emperor Leto II and his majordomo Moneo:

“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism,” Leto said. “Before the Bene Gesserit, the Jesuits were the best at it…. You learn enough about rhetorical despotism from a study of the Bene Gesserit. Of course, they do not begin by deluding themselves with it…. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities.”

“This… rhetorical despotism, Lord?”

“Yes! It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil…. It feeds on deliberately twisted meanings to discredit opposition,” Leto said. (emphasis added; New York: Ace, 1981; 116)

I wonder what examples of rhetorical despotism one might find if we look closely at the religious organizations with which we are most familiar.

Climing the ladder of pretension

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

Woo hoo! We graduated! Wait – does a website want to be easier or more difficult to read? Why assume that the more difficult to read the more intelligent it must be? In my car I have been listening to some lectures from a recent conference at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary. One of the presentations was an address from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Having taught writing to college freshmen I am a little extra sensitive to how people say things. There was one sentence (in an enjoyable and brilliant paper – do hear that) that was a string of nominalized as well as agentless passive verbs. Mr Former-Freminar-Instructor here mentally rewrote it to create a sentence made up mostly of active verbs with clear agents. Basically the same words/roots/terms – just written in a way that is much easier to read (and hear).

Why assume that more difficult to read means more intelligent?

blog readability test

Movie Reviews

Readability

Friday, June 6th, 2008

Should I be pleased or disappointed?

blog readability test

TV Reviews

"Frankenputer" – Neologisms, Part I

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

On a Baptist discussion board a most excellent friend of mine posted the following:

I recently purchases a new PC to replace my last new PC (purchased in Feb. 1999). I had upgraded the software, the optical drive, the harddrive, memory, power supply (mostly from scavenged machines), and was looking buying a newer motherboard, graphics, and sound card when it became obvious that just purchasing a new machine would be more cost effective. I really, really wanted to start from scratch and build a frankenputer but DELL had a better deal. Plus, I want to pass my new machine down to my kids in about 6 months (with plans to purchase a similar level machine so they can both have one).

Frankenputer?!? I thought that was pretty dang funny – it’s alive! – and just had to share it with you all. Truly a brilliant and worthy addition to the English language.

When foreigners know our language better than we do

Monday, April 21st, 2008

One of the delightful things about my work is to hear people who (a) English is not their first language and/or (b) have little to no religious background show that sometimes they understand (a2) our language or (b2) the Christian faith better than we do.

For now let me share an interesting example of (a2). When foreigners know our language better than we do.

Two Friday nights ago. English Conversation. My lesson focuses on “green companies”. Part of the lesson is to spot hyphenated words. There are three. I point out that even native English speakers sometimes have trouble understanding the rules governing hyphenated words. That includes me.

One of our Chinese friends notes that there is a consistent pattern. Each hyphenated word (or expression) combines words that are not adjectives to form a new word/expression which functions as an adjective.

So “diseases borne by mosquitoes” becomes “mosquito-borne diseases”. You see? A noun plus a passive verb(?) now equals an adjective. Cool hunh?

I am a native English speaker. I have taught writing to university freshmen and taught English Conversation to internationals for several years. And I never noticed this. Sometimes “outsiders” see things more clearly than we “insiders” do.