Prof Blog

Prof's English Blog

      Home
15 September 2017
Trouble saying 'Yes'.

Have you noticed how many people struggle with this simple three-letter word? I was watching a TV interview where the studio anchor was interviewing a reporter in the field. Every direct question was answered with 'absolutely' or 'that's right'. It is almost as if there is a standing policy to make sure a reporter never utters the Y-word.

This may in fact be the case. Radio operators, for example, are taught not to reply with 'yes' but to use the polysyllabic 'affirmative' instead. This is because radio reception is often far from ideal, and a simple 'yes' can get lost in a wave of static. It is possible that the same sort of sound interference might affect a reporter covering a hurricane or a riot.

Yet even in everyday life, a simple 'yes' is rare. Ask someone if they would like a coffee and the reply will be something like, 'Yes, I would thanks.' or 'A coffee would be great.' A simple 'yes' seems to be considered abrupt and therefore rude. It is the sort of monosyllabic answer given when a couple are fighting.

'Are you okay, dear?'
'Yes.'
Are you sure?
'Yes.'

As a result we tend to extend our polite yesses by saying things like 'Yes, indeed' or 'Yes, I am', or by imitating TV reporters and replacing 'yes' with something else altogether. The modern favourite appears to be 'totally'.

This leads to some odd-sounding agreements - such as when someone recently phoned to ask if a colleague was in the room with us. The reply of 'totally' led to some speculation as to where his incomplete parts would have been if the colleague had not been totally present.
15 July 2017
What's in a name? Or before it?

One of the things that frustrates language learners is that there is a whole portion of the language that cannot be understood just by learning grammar and vocabulary. A foreigner can master both of these aspects of English and still not understand a conversation because of the sub-text which native speakers take for granted.

Consider for example the use of articles and identifiers before use of a name. Let us use the imaginary example of a committee looking at a list of candidates for a job. If someone mentions just the name without any preliminary ('Now we have Bill Smith') the assumption is that everyone knows who this person is, or alternatively, everyone will soon know who this man is.

But now change this opening remark to 'Now we have a Bill Smith'. The indefinite article before the name tells listeners that all the speaker knows of this person is the name. He is one of many possible Bill Smiths and the other committee members may or may not know him. You will often hear this usage when a receptionist phones through to announce a visitor. 'There is an Emmanuela Wetherspoon here to see you.' The use of the indefinite article here is not because the nation has Emmanuela Wetherspoons by the indistinguishable dozen, but because the receptionist wants to say that she knows neither the person, nor her connection with the individual whom she wants to see.

On the other hand, if either Bill Smith or Emmanuela Wetherspoon are household names in sport media or any other field of human endeavour, that person will be announced with repetition and a definite article. 'Now we have Bill Smith. The Bill Smith'.

While it is vaguely insulting to have oneself presented in the indefinite article, and very flattering to be awarded a definite article, both are usually preferable to the appellation 'that'. 'That Bill Smith' is the Bill Smith who was the subject of local scandal, either as the perpetrator or the victim. This is why teenagers shudder with horror at the thought of being known as 'That guy' or 'That girl'.

Yet the use of 'a', 'the' or 'that' before a name is only the start of our multi-layered approach to nomenclature. Again, it says a great deal about who is speaking and why if our Bill Smith is referred to as 'Bill', 'Mr Smith' or just as plain 'Smith' without any preliminaries. Perhaps the most scary of all for the individual concerned is when he is called 'Mr William Smith'. Among English speakers, the formal use of your full name seldom means anything good, especially when it is pronounced by mothers, wives or government minions.
15 May 2017
Westworld

Recently I've been hanging out with a bunch I've met on the internet. The 'net being what it is, it's not totally clear where this lot are from, but they are definitely of a western persuasion. There's a couple of idioms they've used that are worth sharing with a wider public, as they manage to cover a range of meaning that is hard to express otherwise.

'That dog won't hunt'. This basically means any idea that won't work, an inadequate excuse, or a tool that is not up to the job. For example, 'Nah, you can't fry an egg with a hair-dryer. That dog won't hunt.'

Another one I rather like is someone who is 'all hat and no cattle'. The basic idea is that a rancher wears a western Stetson, so someone wanting to be taken for a rancher might wear this headgear. Someone who is all hat and no cattle is all about appearance with nothing to back it up. 'Don't be fooled by that fancy car he's all hat and no cattle. And no money in the bank either.'

Finally if you are going to let things develop on their own and see how they work out, you can 'let that pony run'.

So putting it all together, I can imaging a mother talking with her friend in a coffee bar probably somewhere with a name like 'The Dry Gulch Cappuccino' - and saying, ' The girl wants to go off with him and set up an internet business. Well, that dog won't hunt, because any fool can see the boy is all hat and no cattle. Well, you know what? I'm just going to let that pony run. Some things a girl has to find out for her own self.'
15 March 2017
Double plus ungood

So, what does the average man in the street think about Christian names such as 'Skye' or 'Saffron'? Our forefathers preferred names like 'George' and 'Oscar' though the headmistress of one well known college suggested that 'Oscar' became less popular after the dramatist Oscar Wilde was jailed for homosexuality. These days mothers prefer exotic names, even though studies have shown that a person with a 'normal' name is more likely to become a chairman of the board, and 'Skye' is more likely to become a waitress.

You may assume that this is an article about names. But actually it means that I'll never work for Cardiff University since the above paragraph would have me subject to disciplinary procedure eight times for using banned words. As a quick challenge, see if you can spot all eight. No?

They were 'man' (in the street), 'Christian', 'forefathers', 'headmistress', 'homosexuality', 'mothers', 'chairman' and 'waitress'.

Now you might wonder what is wrong with apparently innocent words such as 'mother'. Well, it is not inclusive. It should be 'mothers and fathers' and not always in that order. There are other 'offensive' terms on the list including 'housewife', 'mankind' and 'man-made'.

The odd thing is that, were it not for purposes of demonstration I would not have written that first paragraph at all. Apart from not agreeing with the sentiments expressed, I have - for example - enough non-Christian friends to routinely say 'forename' rather than 'Christian name', and I care very little whether a fireman or firefighter pulls me out of a burning home so long as someone does it. However, the issue is not about use of language, but the idea one ought to control it.

My problem with Cardiff University's well-meaning attempt to create 'inclusive language' is that attempts at language control come rather close to thought control. Indeed, George Orwell believed this to the point where he included an entire appendix in '1984' on the topic. If Cardiff wants to control how we speak - and therefore how we think - for a good reason, that opens the door to others to do the same for very bad reasons.
15 January 2017
What is 'hate speech'?

Lately this term has been cropping up in news articles with increasing frequency. One of the problems with the expression is that those using it tend to give the term a very wide application. Since the use of genuine 'hate speech' can lead to legal sanctions against the speaker, it is worth considering what it actually is.

While every country has its own idea of what constitutes 'hate speech', in most places the bit that will get the speaker into trouble with the law are the equivalent of what, in United States legal system, are called 'fighting words'. That is, face-to-face insults specifically insulting a person's race, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

However, that's where legal sanctions end. In the USA which is very liberal (or lax, depending on your point of view) on this topic the First Amendment protects what most 'progressives' would call 'hate speech'. Indeed, even Canada up north, with its more progressive approach (or nannying interference, depending on your point of view) only makes hate speech criminal if it incites genocide against a particular group. Prosecutions of individuals who have on occasion used bigoted, racist and indeed, hateful words have failed to overcome the defence of free speech.

When we look at the standard definition of 'hate speech': 'Speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits'. We see that a person does not need to actually show much real hate to qualify.

This is often broadly interpreted to mean that if members of a group of a particular race, religion etc are offended by your disagreement, then, by their definition, this is 'hate speech'. Likewise, if these persons feel threatened by your speaking - or indeed, by a pointed silence this too is 'hate speech'. Since everyone has a gender (these days one might have several), and offence and threat can be inferred to the most innocuous of statements, we can see that the above definition of hate speech could have been crafted by Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

And that's the problem. We are all in favour of free speech so long as it agrees with what we'd like so say. However, by labelling those with opposing views as 'misogynist, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic bigots' (to give a selection of labels) it follows that their hateful words should quite justifiably be suppressed.

There's another hateful word that no-one wants to use. That is 'censorship'. For all their determination to do the right thing, those urging the ban of 'hateful words' (and the people who utter them) are getting very close to this.

page 1    page 2    page 3    page 4    page 5    page 6    page 7