LANGUAGES 4 DAYZ

your weekly dosage of (interesting) linguistics

[acasuallinguist]

MYTHS OF MANNERS: A LITTLE POLITENESS GOES A LONG WAY

I cannot tell you how many—pardon my French—connards I have heard utter the statement:

‘X is a very polite language.’

My Japanese teachers spouted this sentence countless times. And similar remarks have been made by speakers of other languages with politeness discourse strategies[1].These misinformed connards or connasses may have even gone so far as to say ‘X is a very respectful language’, instead. But behind all that indirectness, deep down, we know what they truly mean–X language is more polite than English or, more precisely, English lacks a form of discourse which my language possesses. And dear reader, if you agree with that, then—would you, good sir/ dear lady, ever so kindly continue reading this article, if you please?

KNOW THE CODE

Linguistically-encoded politeness (or whatever you want to call it) can be broken down into three general categories: respect, formality, and humbleness. In some languages, these categories are very distinct in how they are expressed—different verbs, nouns, and/or pronouns per category (e.g. Japanese, Korean), while in other languages there is a considerable amount of overlap (e.g. English and most European languages).

For these three categories, I do not mean personal respect (e.g. my mother’s admiration for Bill O’Reilly of Fox News), personal humility, or personal formality (whatever that may be), but actually what a CULTURE requires people to express through linguistic means.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, WE LIKE THAT HIERARCHY

Linguistic respect is a system that applies to different people in different situations. It can be dependent on age (children, parents, elders) or status/occupation (those of ‘fame’ or ‘prestige’[2], employers, teachers, doctors). The language you speak might belong to a culture which requires you to use words/patterns/phrases that seemingly ‘gratify’ these respect-deservers (thereby expressing respect regardless of your opinion). And if you fail to use linguistic respect appropriately[3], you may be seen as either rude[4], ignorant, foreign, or a combination thereof.

Japanese has sonkeigo—a discourse used for gratifying respect-deservers: bosses, teachers, customers, doctors etc. When speakers use sonkeigo, they use a very different set of verbs, nouns, and pronouns to convey the linguistic respect required by Japanese culture for the situation at hand. Let’s look at a sentence in sonkeigo vs. ‘plain’ Japanese (a discourse for those of equal or unknown status, e.g. colleagues):

Sonkeigo: go-ran-ni-natte kudasai honourable-viewing-PARTICLE-become bestow.upon.me ‘Please have a look.’ Plain: Mitte kudasai. Look bestow.upon.me ‘Take a look’.

Wow! A whopping three syllable difference between these Japanese forms—have you ever heard such wonderful manners? Indeed, Japanese language students need to memorize tables and tables of different forms to master sonkeigo. (And as far as I know, Korean is similar in this matter).

WE HATE TABLES

But just because the English language does not have tables and tables of prescribed forms for linguistic respect, does NOT mean that we do not encode it at all. In fact, our way of encoding linguistic respect is far more subtle[5]. We do not simply substitute X verb for Y verb to denote a respectful way to speak (see ‘look’ in the example above). There are an array of strategies at the English speaker’s disposal:

Sir/Madam, have a look. [using the respectful form of address] Please have a look. [using ‘please’] If you have time, have a look. [this is called hedging, ‘if…’] Would you have a look? [question, using modal ‘would’] Sir/Madam, supposing you have time, and if you don’t mind, would you please have a look? [all strategies above]

POMP & CIRCUMSTANCE

Like linguistic respect, the categories of linguistic humbleness and linguistic formality are encoded with separate strategies in Japanese (cf. kenjyougo/kensongo and teineigo). However this is not the case for English.

SHOW SOME HUMILITY

Linguistic humbleness essentially puts the speaker down in order to acknowledge or ‘raise’ the status of the listener(s). Some (elderly) Japanese men, when talking about their wives, use gusai—‘my stupid wife’, to encode humbleness[6]. Similarly, in Old Chinese, speakers used ‘stupid’ to refer to themselves.

In English,although we have situations where context often requires a display humbleness (e.g. losing an election, stating an opinion ‘in my humble opinion’, making a fool of yourself ‘maybe this is a stupid question’) or a display of formality (e.g. making an appointment to see the shrink, speaking to the owner of an over-friendly dog in the park), we may use similar strategies as those listed above for linguistic respect.

IT’S JUST A FORMALITY

Linguistic formality[7] is when the speaker acknowledges that although they are not familiar with the listener, the 'matter at hand' needs to be discussed (this can be for a number of reasons). Many European languages encode linguistic formality explicitly through pronouns, e.g. tu/vous, du/sie, tu/usted, ty/wy, ty/pan(i). English once had such a distinction (thou/you) but lost it over time. Danish[8] and Swedish have also done away with formal you—but this was a conscious decision made by those governing bodies which oversee these languages.

That being said, English often encodes formality by avoiding contracted forms of modal verbs. Generally, the more contracted a form is, the less formal it is deemed. (Contraction can be seen as ‘loss of articulatory effort’ when speaking or ‘making something less understandable due to sound reduction’ and therefore informal—but this is a whole different topic in itself). Contraction also involves de-stressing vowels to become schwa (the ‘uh’ sound as in the final vowel of ‘wanna’).

I am going to… I’m going to… I’m gonna… I’m gon…  I’m’a… and Would you like to… Would/Do you want to… Would/Do you wanna… Would/Do ya wanna… D’ya wanna… Ʒa wan(na)…

WHADDAYA KNOW

The main difference between English and Japanese (and may be the case for other languages) is that English mixes multiple strategies (e.g. ‘would’, ‘please’, and ‘sir/madam’—just to name a few) for linguistically respectful, humble, and formal situations. Whereas Japanese has particular strategies for each category, and mixing of strategies between categories is more limited than English. Politeness is essentially a social tool used by speakers, it has a various linguistic realizations—some languages are more demanding than others, but that does not make one language more polite than another.

  For Further Information:

Brown, P., Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mizutani, O., Mizutani, N. (1987). How to be Polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times.

[1] Arabic, Korean, Tamil, Thai, Twi (Akan)—to name a few.

[2] For example: famous writers, researchers, Nobel prize winners etc.

[3] Or formality or humbleness for that matter.

[4] Rude, because you look like you are unrightfully implying that your ‘status’ is higher than the listener’s.

[5] Prosody a.k.a. intonation is often used. In formal situations, speakers might use a rising intonation make their statements sound like questions: [at the front reception of a doctor’s office] ‘I’m here to see Dr. Smith.’

[6] This is but one strategy, and a very outdated one at that.

[7] Linguistic informality is the opposite (cf. contractions in English). Often this is used to express familiarity with someone. Parents might use it when speaking to children. Older speakers may use it to assert their status in situations where they may be addressed with linguistic respect, humbleness, or formality. The ‘plain form’ of Japanese is the middle ground for this, e.g. equal status of all speakers.

[8] De (you formal) is still used to address members of the royal family.

.

[acasuallinguist]

LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX: THE FLACCIDITY OF GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUNS

Apart from Uralic (Finnish, Hungarian), Niger-Congo, and Austronesian languages, gender discrimina—I mean, gender demarcation is pretty rampant, especially for pronouns. Now, don’t get me wrong here, I am not talking about the linguistic/grammatical term gender[1](often described as ‘masculine’, ‘feminine’, and ‘neuter’ for many European languages—in Swahili there are fourteen ‘genders’—a topic for another post altogether) but the lexical gender or SEX of a person or creature: male vs. female.

When it comes to sex, the English language is not so particular. Lexical gender is only marked regularly for the 3rd person singular: she and he.  Other languages, however, require a regular sexual display. Polish marks gender for 3rd person singular (on, ona = he, she) and 3rd person plural (oni, one = they.MASC, they.FEM)[2]. In Thai—funnily enough—gender is marked for ALL pronouns, meaning, the speaker indicates THEIR OWN sex and must know the sex of whomever they are discussing. For those of you looking to plan a trip to the Land of Smiles, note: learning Thai pronouns does nothing to assist you in spotting ‘lady-boys’. According to my sources, most transvestites/transgender people in Thailand use the pronouns of the sex with which they identify most. Have fun!

LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT SEX

Finnish, Hungarian, and (spoken) Chinese are a few of the languages that do not mark lexical gender on pronouns. They use what's called an epicene pronoun--where EVERYONE’S AN ‘IT’! Though ‘he’, ‘she’, and ‘it’ all sound exactly the same in Mandarin, they are each written differently to show lexical gender—this change to the writing system started in the early 1920s. Don't ask me how people reading and writing legal documents coped before then.

Also, Spanish uses 'su' to refer to his/hers, and sometimes the gender is not obvious when the subject is dropped, e.g. habla Español.

ANONYMOUS SEX

But, what do you do when you don’t know the sex of the person you are talking about? Using ‘it’ sounds demeaning. Saying ‘he or she’ sounds formal or awkward. And referring back to the subject over and over is tedious.  Fear not, dear reader! There is indeed a very simple solution to this:

A: My friend is coming to dinner tonight. B: Will they bring pie? C: They’d better bring champagne.

And

A: I lost my tour guide’s passport. B: What’s their nationality?

THEY! Oh, right, forgot about him! …Wait.

Yes, people say ‘they’. This is called generic they. More old fashioned English speakers might say ‘he’ where gender-neutrality for an animate object is needed, but now most use generic they. It seems, native speakers completely ignore the fact that they is normally used for PLURAL. In fact, I would bet that a person wouldn’t even realize they are doing it.

BUT WE DON’T LIKE IT…or, uh, THEY! THEM?

Since the 1850s, for various reasons, loads of ambitious individuals, prescriptivists and feminists alike, have tried (and failed) to create a gender-neutral singular pronoun to replace generic they, namely, hu, zhe, e, peh, per, ze, xe, ve, thon[3] etc. Why these pronouns never caught on—if they ain’t broke don’t fix they!

FALSE HOPE

Esperantists—those who speak the man-made language of Esperanto—have grappled with gender-neutrality in their language too. Riism, a movement to make all pronouns and words in Esperanto gender neutral, never took off. Ironic, considering a made-up pronoun was unable to be introduced into a made-up language. Anyway, the idea was to use ri to refer to he/she/it. But there are obvious setbacks:

Ri petas  = she/he/it asks              vs.        Ripetas  = asking, asks

Ri gardas = she/he/it keeps         vs.          Rigardas = looking, looks

Those words would all sound the same. Confusing? Yes.

THE LAND OF IKEA (SORT OF) FIXED IT

In Sweden, there has been a relatively successful adoption of a made-up gender-neutral singular pronoun: hän. Apparently inspired by its Finnish equivalent[4], hän was first adopted by feminist groups, then later by people of the transgender community, and now it is used in some 'progressive' preschools and children’s books to promote gender-blindness (i.e. against gender-based prejudice). Unlike the English ‘it’[5], hän refers exclusively to humans. Hän is now an entry in the Swedish Academy’s official dictionary, but whether it will be adopted into the general populace’s Swedish remains to be seen.

A FUTURE WITHOUT SEX

Polish novelist, Dorota Terakowska, used only the neuter form (grammatical and lexical gender) to write her novel Ono (It)--the story of a woman explaining the world to her unborn child. Polish doesn't always allow for neuter (sexless) forms on verbs or words, so she had to get pretty creative! (Now imagine having to translate that novel into English).

Language reform can be especially difficult if there is 1) no motivation for change that has significant (read: popular) social support, or 2) already an alternative to the ‘problem’ pointed out by language reformists. Unless the transgender community and/or gender-blindness movement gains a widespread social acceptance in a majority of English-speaking communities, it does not look like English will be following Swedish any time soon. For now, generic they is probably the most common way we refer to a party whose gender cannot be deduced from context[6].

For Further Information:

Hellinger, M., Bussmann, H. (2003). Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, 1-3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[1] This term should actually be called ‘noun class’ (as it is for some African languages). People mistake linguistic gender with ‘sex’ leading to silly statements, e.g. ‘In Germany, we believe tables to be more masculine. Hence the gender of table is masculine.’ Oh yeah? Well what about the gender for the word mädchen (girl)? Do you believe girls to be more neuter too? Awkward… However, sometimes it does happen that feminine noun class will coincide with the intended sex of something, e.g. ‘girl’ in Spanish.

[2]When talking about a group of men and women, they.MASC is the default pronoun to use.

[3] See here for a complete list of English gender-neutral pronoun attempts.

[4] Note: Finnish is a Uralic language while Swedish is a North Germanic language. Hardly related at all.

[5] Though, English ‘it’ can sometimes be used to refer to children or babies, e.g. 'A child will immitate its parents.'

[6] Note: I am not saying ‘they’ is an acceptable way to refer to those who wish to not be identified by their gender. That’s where English might need to get a little creative.

[acasuallinguist]

JUST DONGING AROUND: UNDERSTANDING NONSENSE, A LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

‘The woman thammed her way through the slonging crowd, yilking at each elbow that swubbed her, and glathing fiercely at anyone who dared prevent her flisking off home’

I made up all six of those italicized words—that’s what a degree in Linguistics will teach you—but you, being the sharp reader that you are, probably got the gist of what I meant by them. First of all, our loyal inflectional friends –ing and –ed make understanding the above sentence much easier, you know right away that my neologisms must be actions. That being said, you still probably have an idea what sort of actions I was attempting to convey.

How is this possible? Did I really make up those words? (Yes). Are you a genius, dear reader? (Keep guessing). Do we, as language users, have an inherent capability to decipher unknown words and attach meanings to them? (Not quite).

If you look closely, all the fake words I used above actually have a little slice of meaning imbedded in them. There should be something familiar about these words despite their falsehood, like examining your reflection after plastic surgery. Why? Because of PHONESTHEMES (funny that most people are unable to ‘get the gist’ of this word just by looking at it—oh the irony).

But what are these creatures?

Telephones with themes, duh.

No, more like SOUNDS with THEMES[1].

Phonesthemes are essentially pieces of a word (or affix) that carry some sort of semantic connotation[2], like a fluid motion, an abrupt motion, a gradual change, a hushed sound, a piercing sound, a constant sound, a heavy physical movement etc. The list goes on.

Some languages use phonesthemes very productively. Most notably, Japanese, in which there are many action and (action) description words that involve phonesthemes. The origins of phonesthemes is much debated in Linguistics. Some claim that phonesthemes derive from onomatopoeic utterances: the speaker is using their mouth to imitate the world around them (e.g. producing sounds whilst rounding your lips to describe round objects or circular actions).[3]

Let’s look at the phonesthemes I used earlier. I will give my general interpretation of the fake word and you can compare it with your own understanding to see if it matches up.

Thammed, Phonestheme: th- A fluid but heavy physical motion. See: thump, thrash, throttle, thrall, thrust, thwack, thwap, My interpretation: to push forcibly through or on something Note: ‘-ammed’ could add ‘rammed’ or ‘slammed’ connotations

Slonging, Phonestheme: slo- A lackadaisical movement (possibly negative)[4] See: slow, slosh, slope, slop, slog, (and possibly by extension: slob, slovenly, or SLUT…maybe) My interpretation: to be churning or moving about randomly Note: ‘-onged’ could add connotations of a ‘throng’

Yilking, Phonestheme: y + VOWEL A piercing, screeching sound, not constant, but repetitive See: yip, yap, yikes, yell, yowl, yeek My interpretation: to cry out sharply (from pain or surprise)

Swubbed, Phonestheme: sw- A (quick and) fluid motion See: swipe, swing, swim, sweep, switch, swell, swift (and possibly by extension: swindle, swop) My interpretation: to jab or push aggressively Notes: ‘-ubbed’ could add connotations of ‘clubbed’ and ‘rubbed’ (also the title of my favourite adult film)

Glathing, Phonestheme: gl- Having to do with sight or luminance See: glare, glimpse, glance, gloat, glean, glower, glitter, glow, glisten (and by extension: glamour, glory) My interpretation: to look with loathing

Flisking, Phonestheme: fl- A passing movement See: flow, flutter, flee, flit, flap, flip, flop, flash, flicker My interpretation: to escape quickly Note: ‘-isk’ could add connotations of ‘whisk’

You get the picture.

It should be noted that the endings of words may have phonesthemic properties. Such words with similar endings may share characteristics. Slap, slip, drip, clip, and thwap—can be interpreted as having swift or sharp endings, and it could be argued that the bilabial stop sound [p] may convey this.

Like with everything in Linguistics, there are always exceptions. Except for universals—see, yet another exception. Phonesthemes do not apply for all words in English. As you know, the -gl- in the word ‘English’ certainly has nothing to do with ‘sight or luminance’. And phonesthemes are not at all regular (glue, gloop, gloom--sight? luminance? I think snot). This may be due to language evolution, adaptation of loanwords, and/or other historical reasons. But they do account for two important things: marketing (think: brand names) and your interpretation of Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll and anything ever written by Dr Seuss.

Further Information:

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., and Ohala, J. (1994). Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linguist List 9.1106

  [1] Greek for ‘sound’ + ‘perception’.

[2] I use ‘connotation’ here because I think ‘meaning’ would be too definite. Most phonesthemes have very broad interpretations that fall under an umbrella of meanings.

[3] Others might claim that phonesthemes gain their connotations from other words (cf. loanwords), but, this would have to be a language-specific process and not a universal for all languages. Also, both the borrowing process and the onomatopoeic processes could happen in one language. Borrowing would be something like English adopting the FL- phonestheme from the pre-existing word FLatulance. However, the general assumption is that the onomatopoeic form always comes first (historically).

[4] SL- phonestheme words generally indicate a (rapid) fluid or continuous motion: slip, slam, slide, slap, sleet, slither, slink, and maybe even sleep.

[acasuallinguist]

L WORDS: THE DARK SIDE AND BRITNEY SPEARS

From leprechaun to lesbian, English speakers are incredibly inconsistent with their choices...of pronunciation, that is. The average speaker may not realize it, but there is actually more than one way to pronounce the letter L.

More than Juan?

Yes, and two of these L sounds are relatively well-known, maybe even more so by those who learned English as a second language. They are called Light-L and Dark-L. (Those who already knew about these two, claim your cookie here). When, where, and how people use Light-L versus Dark-L depends on which variety of English they speak. But, there is another—a THIRD L sound, whose existence would not have leaped into the limelight had it not been for the lucky Britney Spears. Before we begin contemplating whether she truly is lucky (isn't she?) let’s take a quick look at Light-L and Dark-L.

For most speakers of American or British English, Light-L is what you get when you say loose, lean, laugh, or sing lalalala.

Unless you are a certain pop singer (more on her later), when pronouncing Light-L, you should find your tongue either 1) on the lump of gums behind your front teeth (a.k.a. the alveolar ridge), 2) a little further behind said lump (a.k.a. the postalveolar), or 3) touching the back of your front teeth (a.k.a. dental). Some speakers make use of all three places (not all at once) to pronounce any given Light-L, while others use the same place over and over. But, as any good linguist will tell you, it doesn’t matter where you put your tongue!  To the ear, it is INDISTINGUISHABLE if you make an alveolar Light-L, a postalveolar Light-L, or a dental Light-L.  The listener cannot tell how you move your tongue to make the sound. It’s your secret, Victoria!

Light-L is usually found at the front (or onset) of words in English, e.g. Little, Lame, and Lusty (also the title of my upcoming memoir).  Light-L can also be found word medially e.g. liLLy, aLLy, or luLLaby—the Queen’s English or RP enunciates this wonderfully.

When pronouncing L in the middle of a word, however, American speakers are most likely to verge on…

THE DARK SIDE.

Like all things evil, Dark-L is far more complex than its light counterpart. Dark-L is pronounced in the same three places as the Light-L (alveolar, postalveolar, or dental) but, unlike Light-L, the tongue MUST make contact with the throat or the back of the roof of your mouth. Simply remember:

Dark-L comes from the DARK depths at the back of your mouth.

I know, I AM just too clever.

Also, Dark-L’s infamous presence is often indicated through use of the double L in Standard English spelling, e.g. pull, ill, wallow, follow etc. This spelling trick is not regular, e.g. whole, coal, mail, pool etc.

Most Americans verge on the dark side, as American English allows for Dark-L both in the middle AND at the end of words. This middle Dark-L is optional and some speakers opt for Light-L instead. Scottish English speakers, however, have completely given themselves over. Every L in Scottish English is dark (aspiring accent imitators and Mike Meyers, please take note).

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Cockney and Estuary English (of the domestics in Mary Poppins, Nancy and the Artful Dodger in Oliver!, and the builders in London). These dialects defy the dark side completely. Where you would normally find the Dark-L in the Queen’s English, instead you get [w] (as in work) or [u] (as in loose) at the end of a word[1]. Roughly, BILL ≈ BI-OO, ALL ≈ AWW, and SALE ≈ SAY-OO[2].

BUT WHAT ABOUT BRITNEY?

Those raised on the West Coast of the USA (especially Southern California) are prone to say L through their teeth. Close to the pronunciation of TH. This is called an interdental L. Yeah, it’s like true. Linguists first started paying attention to the interdental L after watching Britney sing. Unlike the other L sounds, you can actually SEE when this L is pronounced. Speakers must open their mouth, expose their teeth, and stick their tongue between the upper and lower front rows of teeth. You will probably need to slow down any video clip to actually see this. And to answer your question, yes, most linguists spend their time watching Britney’s mouth in slow motion.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

Britney and her West Coast fan base aren’t the only interdental-ers. Try out an interdental L a few times yourself. After a while it probably won’t feel so alien. Why? It is common for most English speakers to use interdental L to stress or emphasize of a word[3]. Don’t believe me? Yell the following at someone nearby:

LARRY! STOP LOLLIGAGGING AND LOCK ALL LILLY’S LEMONS IN THE LAST ALLEY!

See?

If it didn’t work, try again. You can do it. With gumption this time: Damn it, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times [insert the above sentence here].

I believe in you.

Emphasis and Britney aside, speech therapists are known to instruct patients who have difficulty pronouncing L to master the interdental L instead. Since interdental L is easy to show and see, and therefore "easier" to imitate, it is considered a handy alternative to other L sounds.

So whether you’re a Valley Girl, the Queen, or a Scot, remember: it’s not about where you put your tongue, but how you use it!

For Further Information:

Bean, A. R. (2013). ‘Leaving the Dark to Find the Light: A Study of L1 English Acquisition of L2 Spanish /l/’. All Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3415.

Kortman, Bernd et al. (2004). A Handbook of Varieties of English. Mouton de Gruyter, 196

Yuan, J., and Liberman, M. (2011). ‘/l/ Variation in American English: A Corpus Approach’. Journal of Speech Sciences, 1 (2): 35-46.

Linguist List 15.1836 (2004).

[1] Polish has gone through a similar process since its Proto-Slavic predecessor. The Dark-L of Proto-Slavic has lenited (softened) to the /w/ sound of modern day Polish. Today, Polish orthography uses the symbol Ł (an L with a slash through it) to indicate where the Dark-L was once pronounced, e.g. Ładna [wadnǝ] pretty.FEM. [cf. Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (2006). The Slavonic Languages, New York: Routledge, pg. 691-2.]

[2] Linguists refer to this as L-vocalization.

[3] It is entirely possible that Britney Spears brought the interdental L to light through overemphasizing her lyrics while lipsyncing music videos.It should also be noted that Spears is a native of Louisianna, but despite this, linguists have found that a majority of speakers who use interdental L hail from the West Coast.

[acasuallinguist]

AND JUST HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? LANGUAGES THAT COULD SPEED UP COURT PROCEEDINGS

It seems that certain languages are especially suspicious--nobody is to be trusted, not you, your grandmother, or your teachers. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they are talking about, is called to answer the question: how do you know what you’re talking about? And this question is answered with the help of a little grammatical function called EVIDENTIALITY. So even if you are making profound philosophical statements, such as I think therefore I am or the dog pooped on the carpet again. You need to mark (somewhere in your sentence) just how you came to know this. Witnesses, lawyers, criminal suspects, and grad students beware!

Tariana, an Arawak language spoken in the Amazon, is one of these inherently suspicious and untrusting languages. Every verb in Tariana must be marked not only for tense but also for how you came to know what you just said, using a suffix at the end of the verb. The how is marked in the following five ways (demonstrated with English examples):

1. Visual Knowledge

The dog pooped-SEEN on the carpet again. MEANING: The dog shat on the carpet and I saw him do it.

The speaker has seen the pooping happen the EVIDENTIAL shows the listener how the speaker knows about the dirty deed committed.

2. Auditory Knowledge

Mrs. Wilson, our neighbour, is-HEARD a cougar. MEANING: I have heard Mrs. Wilson roar like a cougar. / I have heard Mrs. Wilson in the company of men far younger than herself.

This evidential tells us more than enough. Either the speaker has been listening in on his neighbour's private life, or Mrs. Wilson makes…uh, cougar sounds?

3. Guessed through Visual Clues

The dog is-CANT-YOU-TELL not house trained. MEANING: The dog shat on the carpet, I don’t see the dog do it, but I see his poop…on the carpet.

Based on what you have seen, you’re statement can be inferred. You’ve seen the signs and that’s how you know.

4. Someone Told Me

Scientology is-MOMMA-SAID-MOMMA-SAID a scam. MEANING: I am not a scientologist (phew!) but someone else has told me that it’s a scam.

Pretty straightforward. 

5. Common Knowledge

Sharon is-DUH not to be trusted. MEANING: Everyone knows Sharon is a bitch. How could you not? Do pigs fly? YES. Where were you in high school?

Based on loads of previous experiences (which evidential should I choose?!) you know that what you are saying is true—and if you’re speaker doesn’t know, this evidential indicates that they damn well should. That’s right-DUH, Sharon.

HOLD ON A SECOND…

As you may have already been thinking, there are similar ways to express what evidentials say in English, e.g. apparently, allegedly, in fact, I guess, I doubt, I hear that, reportedly, duh, they say…etc. But unlike English, in Tariana, you MUST use evidentials. They are just as mandatory as tense is for English. And like with tense in English, if you don’t use it, you sound like never learnt to speak the language properly. Not only that, but in many evidential language communities, if you don’t say the how of it, people will disassociate themselves with you, believing that you have nothing worthwhile to say, or that you are an arrogant liar (Aikhenvald 2004: 18).  Now, imagine answering those fun questions your parents asked you after a late night out…  

It’s easy to see how evidentials might speed up court proceedings—everyone knows how witnesses and suspects came about their information, and the questioning can go from there.  (Granted, not all languages that use evidentials have as many categories as Tariana)[1]. But, this does not mean speakers of evidential-using languages always tell the truth, they can fib just like the rest of us. And if you think about it, evidentiality adds another dimension to lying, because your statement can be true, e.g. the dog pooped on the carpet, but instead of seeing it, maybe you actually HEARD it instead.

I’ll leave you with that thought, Sharon.

  For Further Information:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[1] Some have as little as two categories, e.g. first-hand knowledge vs. second-hand knowledge

[acasuallinguist]

GIRLS ONLY: THE WOMEN'S LANGUAGE of JAPANESE

Contrary to the title of this post, Japanese women do not have their own secret language (as far as we know). But, what they do have is a separate set of words that most (straight-acting) Japanese men avoid in order to preserve their linguistic masculinity.

The so-called Women’s Language revolves around (surprise surprise) food and other domestic activities. Of course, men have words for these, but they use words that are decidedly more “masculine” and “crass” than their feminine counterparts.

But when and how did Women’s Language come about?

In the kitchen, obviously!

I kid.

Women’s Language, however, does actually stem from a secret jargon used by noblewomen from the mid-Kamakura (circa AD 1250) to the early Muromachi period (circa 1337). It was then adopted by servant girls who brought it outside the courts and palaces where it eventually was adopted as “elegant” and “feminine” speech. In the 14-16th centuries there were approximately 131 words recorded as Women’s Language, but by the 18th century it had already grown to 311 words. Many of these forms are still actively used today. They are derived from shortening words, reduplication (repetition) of sounds, adding extra words like mono (literally ‘thing’) and moji (literally ‘letter’), or adding the polite prefix o- (which shows respect).

Let’s take a closer look. To give you a better idea, here are a few words of feminine parlance along with their male equivalents, literal translations, and English translations:

MEN TALK    LADY SPEAK                                          

hara             o-naka (honourable middle)--stomach                               

tsukemono      o-koukou (honourable fragrant fragrant)--pickles                                 mizu                  o-hiya (honourable chilled)--water                                 kuu / taberu[1]     taberu--to eat

meshi                    gugo (emperor’s meal)--rice shio                       shiromono (white thing)--salt                                 koi                          ko-moji (small letter, ko-letter)--carp

umai / oishii            oishi--delicious

hutamono              o-huta (honourable cover)--lidded pans

yamai                   o-moumou (honourable listlessness)--illness

netsu                     o-nuruke (honourable tepidity)--fever

nerukoto        o-shizumari (honourable quieten down)--to sleep

  Even more interestingly, Women’s Language is made up of mostly pure Japanese vocabulary and NOT borrowed words from the Chinese language (a.k.a. Sino-Japanese words). Sino-Japanese vocabulary was that of the educated male population and involved sounds that were once not part of the (native) Japanese language. Therefore, women were encouraged NOT to use Sino-Japanese words—back to the kitchen with you, Winifred!—as men believed these borrowed words sounded awkward coming from female lips [see: Shibatani 1990].

Bear in mind, the Chinese language was the Latin of East Asia. People borrowed words from Chinese like it was going out of style (as Latin did). So, imagine an English equivalent of Women’s Language free from words of Latin (or French) origin. Let’s see what this Hillary Clinton quote would look like if there was a Women’s Language for English:

“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure[2] the integrity of our voting process.”

LATIN:

Voting: votum / Precious: prestiosus / Citizen: (derived from) citatem / Moral: moralis / Obligation: obligatio / Integrity: integritatem / Process: processus

Here is the Germanic, and therefore much more elegant and feminine, equivalent:

“Choosing by way of ballot is the dearest right of every yeoman and we have a worthy burden to ensure the truthfulness of our choosing by way of ballot.”

Well said, Hillary.

Now, you may be thinking: Wow, the Japanese language sure is sexist! But, Women’s Language is merely an old historical/linguistic artefact preserved for complex cultural reasons—not necessarily to oppress women (cf. how to tie a kimono). Nowadays, Women’s Language is more a relic of time than an indication of elegance. Languages are extremely fluid. Most study and documentation of Women’s Language seems to involve gross generalizations that may not be true for many female Japanese speakers today. Also, it is important to remember that jargons like Women’s Language exist in most languages, depending on class, ethnicity, economic background etc. whether it is a style of speech that sounds more X-ish (even if not all members of X speak that way) or a style of speech used for certain situations (job interviews, family picnics, fraternity parties, or discussing pickles with Japanese noblewomen).

So, next time a Japanese woman asks you to pass the honourable chilled, THINK: Wow, the Japanese language sure has some fossilized remnants of an ancient form of discourse!

Further Information:

Shibamoto, Janet (1985). Japanese Women's Language. London: Academic Press.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1990). The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[1] Men’s speech offers freedom of choice.

[2] From Old French, debatably of Latin origin, but I’ll let this one slide.

[acasuallinguist]

WELL HEY THERE

Beloved Readers,

Welcome to LANGUAGES 4 DAYZ! the blog where I use punctuation liberally to write about interesting bits of language, and you read, share, or join in on the discussion. For anyone and everyone who’s ever been curious about how and why languages work, you’ve come to the RIGHT corner of the internet. As the header says, I will be posting twice a week, so please subscribe and follow to stay connected. And if you have anything you’d like to add, feel free to contribute with a comment or note.

Not only am I writing this to validate my own (controversial) decision NOT to do a PhD in Linguistics, but also because I am just generally obsessed with language and I know many others who are pretty keen too. Sharing is caring! So do not join this party if you expect to read about specific-ass[1] topics, e.g. syntactic trees, Chomsky worship, theories of natural language processing, or formal semantics –you’re better off consulting the dark(er) side of teh internet (which I have linked here for your convenience).

And, without further ado, a well-deserved smattering of narcissism:

My name is not very important. I am from Los Angeles. BA Chinese and Linguistics at SOAS. Now, MPhil in Linguistics at the University of Cambridge.

Linguistic Topics of Interest: phonology, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, Chinese linguistics, Japanese linguistics, and constructed languages—just to name a few.

Non-linguistic interests: writing, photography, dark chocolate—and en dashes.

[1] This very special ‘ass’ construction will be covered in a later post.