h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So not only Derrida, but Heidegger too? Ani.

>> I wonder what it is that makes us wince at 'incorrect' speech? <<

I think it's the shock of strangeness. We feel off balance when faced with unfamiliar things especially things that should be familiar like language. But you're right, when people speak incorrectly it can be felt like a blow to the body, very upsetting.

If we don't get a grip on ourselves immediately there looms the possibilty that further communciation will be difficult and probably embarassing. I don't so much wince anymore as swallow my pedantry and smile nervously, hoping to extracate myself quickly before it gets really confusing. I used to lose it completely and start lecturing and ranting like a true blue pedant.

But for the past few years I have been having long and thoughtful conversations with a well read friend who enjoys using new words he's found. His interests are varied, philosphy and history and politics and religion or whatever but he never had the opportunity to go to university to experience hearing how some words are properly pronounced.

He enjoys using his new vocabulary and has come to accept my correcting his pronunciation of new words. In fact he always tries them out on me because he knows I will correct him. In exchange I have learned patience and modesty, quietly interjecting my corrections without even really interupting him and he immediately picks up on them, repeating the new word correctly in the next few sentences to show he has cached the information. He can then use the words safely in other company who may not have learned the trick of pedant swallowing which I fear comes only with maturity.


~jwf~

And further to the person who struggled with 'proper' English as a child: perhaps a bit of Foucault and Artaud as well? I await your thoughts. Ani.

I'll have a look, Ani, sounds interesting!

<>

No, I was about to say I hadn't come across it - thankfully!

" it's even a fairly predictable swing towards regularity."

As Aldous Huxley pointed out, not all regularity (conformity?) is beneficial.

>>As Aldous Huxley pointed out, not all regularity (conformity?) is beneficial

I wasn't so much meaning 'social conformity' as the tendency to simplify language. Eg, English has all but lost its noun case markers, except in the case of pronouns...and of these, 'whom' is on the way out. Paradoxically, there is also a tendency towards invention and embellishment which irregularises language.

Anyway...(and excuse me in advance for a long posting)...I was thinking of some illustrations of the imprecision of language, even at a basic level, before we get anywhere near Derrida or Heidegger.

1) Let's assume there is indeed a subtle difference between 'violence' and 'violentness'. Now suppose that you say a sentence to me which includes the word 'violentness'.
a) How can you be sure that I understand the subtle difference?
b) How can I be sure that *you* do - as oppossed to using the two words interchangeably?
We'd have to establish our mutual understanding through context.

2) Antagonyms: Words which have two opposite meanings (see http://www.jimwegryn.com/Words/Antagonyms.htm)
How do we sort them out? By context.

3) So....let's take a nice, simple, precise sentence:
'I like cats'
Is this a simple statement about oneself?
Or is one contrasting onself to others?
And when one says 'cats'....
Is one including all members of the genus felis (lions, ocelots, leopards...) or just the domestic moggie?
Or does one mean the musical?
And is one refering to a particular thing that makes one happy?
Or contrasting 'cats' with 'dogs'
Or declaring that they are a child substitute (a common phenomenon!)
And when one says 'like'
Does one mean 'cherish'
Or 'enjoy eating, especially barbecued'
And taken as a whole, is one declaring oneself to be 'a cat person', with all the implied psycho-social baggage,
Or simply someone who finds them mildly appealing
........etc.

How can we unpack what was intended by this simple sentence? Why, by its context.


4) There are, granted, certain limited cases where language is tightly constrained to have unambiguous meaning. Legal language is not as unambiguous as we like to think, otherwise lawyers and judges wouldn't have such a fine old time debating the interpretation of statutes and contracts. The cases I can think of are shipping forecasts, air traffic control and military orders. Here context is pre-established (eg Here's Charlotte Green.....').

Slippery beggar, language. It gets more and more fascinating when we get beyond the idea that it's something set down in dictonaries and grammar text books.

(Incidentally...did I mention the origin of the word 'fascinating' in this thread or was it elsewhere?

I'm not sure about violence/violentness, but I think there is a subtle distinction between difference/differentness.

To my ear, 'differentness' carries a little more hint of diffrence compared to things in general, rather than difference compared to a particular thing.
"He had an air of differentness about him" doesn't leave the faint hanging question 'difference from *what*?' that 'difference' would do.

'Violence' seems inherently a bit more indiscriminate - someone or something violent in one context seems quite likely to be violent in many other contexts.

We know what you mean when you say "language is not precise, never has been" but that is more of a sigh than a statement (to quote A1024156 Ludwig Wittgenstein). Some language is extremely precise! Landing an aeroplane requires precision, and it is avaliable. There are all kinds of language after all.

Yes...but I refer you to point 1.

How can you be sure that I have a) remembered all the correct definitions and b) am working from the same context (and in b we touch on Derrida)?

It's not a sigh...it's a glorious inevitability. This is why we have to look at language as a social transaction, rather than as a mechanical process.

However...as I've said, there are some *limited* cases where precision is necessary and possible. I imagine that some philosophers would contend that they are writing with precision, have carefully defined their terms as they go along and expect their readers to apply the intellectual rigour to keep up. Frankly, they're on a hiding to nothing.

Edward. Re <>: Habermas.

Re <> A mite harsh, Ed. Ani.

Provocative rather than harsh, ani

I had to Google 'Habermas'. Do tell me more. I'm sure that my wife would be interested to know what 'visual criminology' might be, having just been awarded a criminology MSc.

Thinks: Should we maybe start up a 'Language and Lingusistics' thread? We're getting off the main topic somewhat.

Edward. <>

I agree. Your go?

<>

Always wise to include a smiley for 'provocative.'

Googling Habermas: Let me put this on the table just so that we are all clear about where I am coming from. My books were stolen. In my collection of books were my post-structuralist (and some pre-) writers as well as all my lit and lit crit texts. The thoughts I have posted recently on h2g2 and on ctmb are extrapolations from what I remember from these writers. Not having the source materials I cannot discuss things in any greater depth. I am waiting for my paycheck to come in so that I can start re-acquiring my books.

Having said that, this is what I remember from Habermas (and -- d-oh! -- I could be so so so very wrong!): There are 5 conditions for communicative action. D-oh! I don't remember what they are! Arg! I'll have to see what I have on my favourites list. Catchya later. Ani.

Here is what I have:

http://www.msu.edu/user/robins11/habermas/

http://www.helsinki.fi/~amkauppi/hablinks.html

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/habermas.htm

And, yes (whew) he did write 'The Theory of Communicative Action' (2 volumes), 1981.

At the back of my mind I thought vaguely that Habermas was not exactly Post-Modern. It seems that he was not and in fact debated (against the likes of Lyotard, Gadamer, and Foucault) for Modernism as an 'incomplete project.'

In deference to the others on this British English thread, I am not going to post anything more on this subject until either you and I start a new thread. Catchya later. Ani.

Language and linguistics thread now started. Is this how you link to threads?: F19585?thread=Language and linguistics thread now started. Is this how you link to threads?: F19585 All welcome. Cross-postings not a problem. No deep knowledge of linguistics required. Just hang around if you enjoy those strange buzzes and pops that we make with our mouths.

F19585?thread=508032 will get you there

That's a great site, Edward (I've bookmarked it. Thanks.)

<>

I am reading a grammar book at the moment (I need to keep up with actual or potential students) - this one is a "jokey" one that grew out a website. It's entertaining, but it's also annoying because it is very American! (There's nothing wrong with being American, it's just that he assumes that the way they do things there, is the way they're done everywhere!)

>> I'm not sure about violence/violentness...<


Violentness strikes these old ears as the worst kind of language abuse. Perhaps because I'm old enough to remember when adding "-ness" to words was a joke, a running gag, a mocking reference to late 50s early 60s beatnik-speak ambiguities.

The advent of TV brought a sharp rise in pop culture awareness and beatniks were the target of much derision and laughter. In particular their inability to express their ideas in a traditional academic way, instead finding 'cool' new words and 'hip' new phrases.

Beatnik speak became a running gag and comedians could take any old word like 'water' and add '-ness' to get a laugh. The point being that you could have just said 'wet' but adding -ness implies a deeper intellectual appreciation for specific qualities and properties of a thing. Even plain old water.

Soon everyone was doing it. The Hollywood-ness of a stage production for example. The Dylan-ness of a Beatles song. Besides being good for a laugh it also was used by those who did not understand that -esque (as in Dylan-esque) was already available for summoning comparitives that might engender a deeper understanding and appreciation of a thing.

In the context of the times and the nagging possibility that these beatnik philosophers might be on to something, adding -ness actually began to clue the mind to considering a thing beyond one's normal perception of the thing. It seemed to refer to the transcendental qualities of a thing. The thingness of a thing. (Not the quintessence, that's something even deeper and more essential, but the 'aura' of a thing as perceived by pot smoking beatniks prone to wax philosophically in demonstrating their 'understanding' of things.)

For several years one could get a smile, maybe even a laugh, simply by adding -ness to any unlikely word. And yes, it sometimes was an aid (but only a temporary conversational aid) to understanding. But now I see 'violent-ness' being used as a legitimate word and I'm not laughing, barely smiling.

I couldn't begin to use it in a sentence and am fearful that it is an attempt to philosophically distance ourselves from the horror of real violence by creating an abstraction of the concept. It fails to do so.

Violence is violent. There are no subtle shades of meaning to be explored or considered. I would never say violent-esque and I'll be damned if I can say violent-ness. It defies understanding except as a wimpy euphemism for something that should never be euphemised.

~jwf~

Now that we are onto wimpy euphemisms: politically correct speak drives me into a psychotic rage. But I am too tired to post anything at length. Good night. Ani.

I remembered another -ness word: Agression -> Aggressiveness (a neo-con said the latter on TV last night.

A Beatnick walks into a fast food joint and says 'Hey, hit me with a burger, daddio!' The guy behind the counter says 'The burgers are all gone.' The Beatnick says 'Crazy! I'll have two!'