Charles Dickens' Amazing Language

Should I really read Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol again this holiday season?  I've been making that activity a Christmas tradition for more years than I can remember.  I know every character, every plot twist, every description, and I can even quote some of the lines.  Could Dickens still enthrall me?

I picked up my well worn paperback copy and decided to read just a few pages this year.  I was hooked. And it wasn't so much what Dickens said as how he said it.  Unlike many modern books that encourage lighting-speed reading to find out what happens next, Dickens slows down my frantic reading pace so that I can savor his language.  I want to share with you some of Dickens' language that still sends a thrill up my spine.

Photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorenjavier/3558739760/">Loren Javier</a> / <a href="http://foter.com/">Foter.com</a> / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/">CC BY-ND</a>

"Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner!"  Every time I am not as generous at Christmas time as I should be, I think about that string of adjectives.  I wouldn't anyone to substitute my name for Scrooge!

"He [Scrooge] carried his own low temperature always about him;..."  Can't you just picture it?  A person who gives off such negative signals that he succeeds in driving away the world, which is exactly what he wants to achieve.

"The city clocks had only just gone three but it was quite dark already-it had not been light all day,,,"  Even in El Paso, Texas, I notice darkness stealing away the light starting at about 3:00 pm.  I think that has a profound effect on a person's psyche.








When the boy Scrooge is going home with his sister, Fan, the schoolmaster invites them to his very chilly parlor to partake of "...a decanter of curiously light wine, and a block of curiously heavy cake."  The description of those refreshments always brings a smile to my face.

And how I would like to have attended the Fezziwigs' Christmas celebration to meet the participants.   "In came the three Miss Fezziwigs, beaming and lovable.  In came the six young followers whose hearts they broke."







I would have enjoyed shopping for Christmas dinner at the fruiterers where there were "...great, round pot-bellied baskets of chestnuts, shaped like the waistcoats of jolly old gentlemen, lolling at the doors..."

But the future turns darker.  Dickens describes the two children under the Ghost's robe, Ignorance and Want as "yellow, meager, ragged, scowling, wolfish..."  The last of the Spirits leads Scrooge to a graveyard and points to a gravestone with Scrooge's name.  Scrooge wants to know if he is doomed.

 

  "The finger pointed from the grave to him and back again.
   'No, spirit!  Oh, no,no!'
   The finger still was there."


A Christmas Carol  is available free online from many different sources.  Thanks for letting me share some of my favorite Dickens' language.  Do you have a favorite scene from A Christmas Carol?

Happy Holidays to all.  See you the week of December 30th!

Do you make statements into questions like Valley Girls do?

'Uptalk' may no longer be just for California Valley Girls.  Have you noticed English speakers using a rising intonation at the end of statements instead of questions lately?  I have, and I must admit I have broken the cardinal rule of descriptive linguists: Accept language as it is currently being used rather than criticize usage. But that new use of  rising intonation has been bugging me!

These thoughts came to me after reading the article, "More men speaking in girls' 'dialect,' study shows" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25232387.  First I was intrigued by what a girls' 'dialect' might be.  As I understand it, linguists don't agree on the question of whether men and women speak differently. But the raised pitch at the end of all sentences has been identified with young women in California and Australia.  (Why Australia, I asked myself, but that is a topic for another time.)

In English, our pitch generally rises when we want to speak a question.  For example, the statement "The children played" can be transformed into a question by letting your voice rise on the 'played.' So a rising intonation for statements as well as questions is a new ( and therefore controversial) feature of the English language. 

If you are not quite sure what rising intonation is, see if you can identify at least two instances of  a speaker making a statement sound like a question in this YouTube video.

California/Valley Girl Accent 

'Uptalk' has been criticized for making the speaker appear to be less than credible.  Adjectives like 'airhead' and 'ditzy' come to mind.   But how about the use of   'uptalk' by the young lady in the video?  I think she made statements into questions as part of a communication style that attempts to involve the listener.  She appears to be seeking the understanding, and possibly the confirmation of her ideas, by the listener.  And isn't that what we females often do? Ask a question to involve the other person?

The article states that women are often trailblazers in language, coming up with innovations first, with the males following later.  And the article states that more men are now using 'uptalk.'  I had always viewed women as the more conservative gender in speech, but that may be changing as well. 

I'm going to start listening for more instances of 'uptalk' now. And I am going to be really embarrassed if I find myself using that language device. I would be interested to learn if you or your acquaintances are now into 'uptalk.'   

Something Got Lost in Translation

My home in El Paso, Texas is a living laboratory for language use.  El Paso is a bilingual community on the Texas-Mexico international border.  I constantly read every written word in sight and eavesdrop on as many conversations as I can without being obvious. So, I  keep myself well entertained in life by analyzing why a language expression  is just a little off as we attempt to express ourselves in English and Spanish. 

Take for example a sign that has popped up recently in our neighborhood. "We install Xmas lights. Elegant and fine." I am usually doing my 20 minute a day constitutional when I see it, so I have plenty of time to consider why that sign strikes me as a bit odd.   Does the sign communicate? Yes, of course, but it's the word 'fine' that interests me. 






Even though the Merriam Webster Dictionary lists 'elegant' as a synonym for 'fine', my instinct as an English native speaker is otherwise.  I can imagine a holiday light display as being 'elegant', but I probably wouldn't describe it as 'fine'.  Ah, but the Spanish word 'fino' carries a sense of being refined, classy, well-executed. I think this is a case of translating 'fino' as 'fine' (the two words being cognates), but the range of nouns that are described by the two adjective is a shade different.  Is this a big deal?  No, just something to ponder as I huff and puff around the neighborhood park.

Another example.  Recently I overheard a conversation in a local pharmacy waiting area that went something like this:
Customer:  We have been waiting for a long time for our prescription.
Employee:  What is your last name?
Customer:  Smith
Employee:  And your name?
Customer:  Do you mean my first name?
Employee:  Yes.
Customer:  Susan.

What led to the momentary confusion?  I think it was the fact that in English, the general concept of 'name' divides into 'first name' and 'last name'.  But in Spanish, the division is made by using two different words, 'apellido' (last name) and 'nombre'  (first name).  So the employee did a quick translation of 'nombre' to the English 'name' and didn't quite communicate.  A good example, I think, of the complexities of a bilingual society.

And lest you should think I am being overly critical, let me confess a serious language mistake I made when I was young, trying to communicate in my second language, Spanish.  I was still in college, teaching Spanish at an institute run by a elderly, refined gentleman.  I had occasion to write him a note about a visitor who had come to see him, and I used the word 'hombre' instead of 'señor'.  It was the equivalent of calling the person  a 'man' instead of a 'gentleman'.  I didn't lose my job, but I did get sufficiently chastised to not make that mistake ever again.

Have you had similar language experiences with something that got lost in translation?  I would love to hear about them.

 

New words. Do you love them or hate them?

When you hear a new word in your language, do you have a reaction? Are you intrigued or offended by additions to language? Several readers of last week's blog chose the origin of words as an interesting subject, so this week I'll explore the topic of new words. (For language nerds, 'neologism' is the technical term for a new word.)    

What is a word really?  Although the definition of the word 'word' seems like a no-brainer, it is not a clear cut concept. We can visualize a written word in our minds, with the letters close together and a space before and after.  But in spoken language, words are often not separated by pauses.  If you have studied a foreign language, you may have experienced frustration because the oral stream of language is not neatly marked. How did I know, for instance, that in French 'Comma ta lei vu' (sic) was really 'Comment allez-vous?"  

Small children just learning their first language have a similar problem.  "Let's go bye-bye" probably sounds like one big word to them. As a matter of fact, in Swahili, the romantic sentence "I will love you" is 'nitakupenda', with a whole English phrase appearing as a word (to us, at least) in that language.

But we all have a working definition of 'word' at least. (We'll leave it to  linguists to provide an iron clad definition.) What is of more interest to me is the effect that new words have on speakers of that language.  I myself am delighted by new words.  It's a challenge to figure out how the word was formed.  Then it's intriguing to follow a new word to see if it is being widely used and by whom.

Take the new word 'selfie'.  It was named as the 2013 Word of the Year by the publishers of Oxford English Dictionary.  Click below for definition and more information about 'selfie'.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/word-of-the-year-2013_n_4296009.html

'Selfie' was formed by adding the suffix -ie to 'self''.  It sounds familiar, like 'hippie' and 'yuppie'.   Since I first became aware of  'selfie', I have heard it numerous times on  radio and TV.  I haven't encountered it yet in personal conversation, probably because my friends and acquaintances (myself included) are still trying to figure out how to take any type of picture using these new-fangled devices.  The Pope appearing recently in a 'selfie' probably did much to promote the new word.  I  recently heard a talk show host make a joke that people were now talking about 'ussies', cell phone pictures of more than one person.  

Do you see 'selfie' and similar new words adding to the richness of the language or depleting it?  I would love to hear your opinions on this important matter!   

It's not your grandmother's grammar!

Grammar!

A vaguely unpleasant word for most people,  I would imagine. Disturbing images come to mind. Fill-in-the-blank worksheets.  A strict high school English teacher.  A heartfelt written essay returned bleeding red ink.  A momentary doubt as to whether to use 'lay' or 'lie'. Do I say, "It is I." or "It's me"? And all those rules in grammar books!  Even if a person could memorize them, applying them in the right circumstances would take more time than we have in today's rush-rush world.

But a few of you out there may have already joined the ranks of the Grammar Police.  To this enforcement agency, it is a matter of pride to study traditional usage rules, and, more especially, to use them to correct everyone who doesn't follow them.  Isn't the world "going to hell in a hand basket" if  a preposition ends up at the end of a sentence or an infinitive gets split?  Maybe not.

It may surprise you to know that in Linguistics, the scientific study of language, the type of grammar described above is of minimal importance.  It is labeled as "prescriptive grammar".   This traditional view of grammar "right vs. wrong" belongs to the world of copy editors, English instructors, and overzealous parents (not to mention a few acquaintances who want to prove that they are smarter than you are).

I would like to introduce you  to a much more challenging view of grammar, known as "descriptive grammar". As the name implies, linguists describe the language that real people produce in real circumstances and use it as material to explore what may be happening in the human brain.

Take for instance the sentence "I ain't goin' to do nothing for nobody." Did you just take out your red pen for correction?  Yes, those of us who have gone through the American educational system know that 'ain't' is not acceptable in polite society, 'going' needs a 'g' at the end, and that "doing nothing for nobody" means that you are really going to do something for someone because two negatives equal a positive (in mathematics at least).  So a prescriptivist merely labels the sentence as WRONG.  A descriptivist, however, looks more analitically at the sentence.

The much maligned 'ain't'' is a modified contraction of "I am not". After all, there is nothing unacceptable about "he isn't" or "we aren't.  Do some speakers prefer 'ain't' because it is a natural extension of the subconscious (in the brain)  rule that allows us to combine a form of the verb 'to be' with a negative word? Do some speakers pile up negative words ('not,' 'nothing,' 'nobody') for emphasis?  Speakers of Spanish and Portuguese string negative words in sentences without compunction.  (No voy a hacer nada para nadie.  Eu não vou fazer nada para ninguém.)

So the next time you hear a grammar "error," it may be an opportunity for some deeper thinking.  A linguist's view of grammar opens up a whole world of discovery of the workings of the human brain.  It  is definitely not your grandmother's grammar!







 

Does the term "Linguistics" scare you?

Linguistics.  Are you scared?  If so, you are not alone in the world.  The majority of people who ask what I do in life give me very strange looks when I say that I am interested in and teach courses in Linguistics.  A few are brave enough to ask, "What's that?"  Most just proceed to a more approachable topic.

Several weeks ago, I submitted an application to teach at a lifelong learning institute sponsored by our local university (under 50 years of age need not apply).  The first draft of the course description read like a watered-down version of a university introductory course in Linguistics (the science of language) that I taught for some years. It was stiff and contained unusual (some would say 'nerdy') words like 'syntax', 'morphology', 'phonology', and 'pragmatics'.  With an unusual flash of intuition, I realized that very few normal people out in the world would enroll in this course.

So I changed my approach.  Almost everyone in the world has the capability to communicate using language. The delivery method of language varies, but language still has to be  formulated in the brain.

Here are some questions that I imagine most people will want to know about language:

1. How did language begin?
2. Are we the only living beings that use language?
3. How are we able to find two different meanings in a sentence like "She texted her boyfriend with an iPhone."
4. Should we reject all new words that come into a language? 
5. Why do I have trouble making some sounds in other languages?
6. Is slang to be avoided at all costs?
7. Why do people speak with an accent different from mine?
8. Are certain areas in the brain essential for language?
9. "Can you pass the salt?"  A question or a request?
10. Can adults acquire a second language, or is it all downhill after age 14?

Which is these questions interested you most?  (You can just respond with the number).  I'm still in the planning stages for the new course, now called "Exploring Language", so your opinion is very valuable.

How about Joining the Slow Reading Movement?

Living more slowly has been getting some good press nowadays.  Slow Food is a movement to combat the fast food craze.  Slow Eating is supposed to do great things for your health.  Norway is experimenting with Slow Television. with a new nine hour broadcast about knitting. How about adding Slow Reading to the list of movements?  Foreign languages can encourage you to become a convert.

Do you read too fast in your native language?  I do.  The years I have spent attending classes and working in education have encouraged me to "skim and scan" almost every piece of written material I pick up.  My husband Wayne voices his annoyance when I finish the morning paper before he even reads the sports page.  He says I don't pay enough attention to detail, and I must admit he is right.  For me, it's hit the main idea and move on to the next article.

Reading in another language though.  Now that is a different experience. I have always known that I like to read in other languages, but I never analyzed why.  A few days ago I downloaded Au Bonheur des Dames by Émile Zola ( for free!) on my Kindle Reader. I have become addicted to the Masterpiece Theater production by PBS, "The Paradise." which is based on that novel. Since my French language ability is still in the recovery stage, I had no idea that I would be able to read the 19th century French novel.  But I can! Slowly!  And I am enjoying the reading because I have to concentrate and think about the meaning of the words.

The reading skill in foreign languages has a checkered past.  Before World War I, most foreign language education programs were based on producing students who could read and write in the new language (much like Latin had been taught for years).  In the second half of the 20th century, the primary goal of studying a foreign language became communication, with a heavy emphasis on being able to understand and speak the language.  And I heartily support that goal.  One of my great thrills in life is having a conversation with a native speaker of another language in that person's language.

But let's look at foreign language skills in a more practical manner.  Take my interest in French, for example. Realistically,  I'm probably not going to encounter enough native French speakers at this stage of my like to truly develop French speaking ability.  So should I give up on French study?  Not if I have a new goal, which is being able to read in French.  I can spend lots of happy hours immersed in French articles or literature.  

Here's what I am now reminding myself about reading in other languages.

• Be sure to read something I'm truly interested. Travel stories, yes; sports scores, not so much.
• Develop Stephen Krashen's "tolerance for ambiguity."  I'm not going to understand everything.
• Find a quiet place to read so that I can concentrate.  Foreign language reading takes a little more concentration.
• Do the reading in small doses.  Like about fifteen minutes.

Now I'm not feeling quite as guilty about not chatting up strangers in French on our recent trip to Canada. I'll keep telling myself that at least I can read Émile Zola in the original.