Blackout effective times:

• 18th January (Wednesday), 08.00 to 20.00 hours EST (USA)
• 18th January (Wednesday), 03.00 to 15.00 hours GMT
• 18th January 20.00 hours to 19th January 08.00 hours Hong Kong time

Learn English or Starves believes that, if SOPA/PIPA ever get passed into law, the people who will be enforcing them won’t be up to the job and won’t have the requisite moral professionalism.

Why this now? No special reason. WordPress is asking.

I would’ve ignored it, but since the nice folks at WordPress had (a) asked nicelyand (b) offered a protest option via the dashboard, I figured why the heck not?

WordPress had already sent out a post about it. Get the memo!

One fine day, you’ll be using a keyboard for the crippled like this one.

(Apologies to the disable for using the word ‘crippled.’ Trying to make a point.)

We do apologise for the temporary lack of lulz, depraved pron, blatant piracy and other forms of professionalism during the blackout.

* * *

“If you tolerate this, your children will be next.” — English proverb

© Learn English or Starve, 2012. Image via apina.

Dear all,

No big surprises, really, but Learn English or Starve is on a dark-coloured theme until 4th January 2012.

Just so you can watch the WordPress snowfall.

Thanks all — and don’t do anything we wouldn’t do.

Yours faithfully,

Learn English or Starve

*hic*

The day before was Thanksgiving Day in the USA. With all the stuffed turkey, out-of-wedlock relatives and their embarrassing antics, the prospect of having to spend cold hard cash the next day and whatnot shoved down our American cousins’ throats, anyone would end up being a curmudgeon.

What’s a curmudgeon?

A curmudgeon [ker-muhj-uh'n, IPA: kɜːˈmʌdʒən] is a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person — a surly or misery person: a grouch, crank, bear, sourpuss or crosspatch.

The adjective is curmudgeonly.

To cut a long story short, a curmudgeon is a flippin’ pain in the butt to be around with. He (usually a he) is always pissed off, always arguing or wanting to have the last word, always something eating him inside out. The acid lives inside him.

The British ‘street-cred’ description is perhaps the best: someone who has got a nuclear warhead shoved deep up the arse.

Old and unexplained in origin

Curmudgeon is an old English word of unknown or disputed origin. Most dictionaries date its first appearance from around 1577.

Samuel Johnson suggested it may have originated in the French expression coeur merchant (‘evil heart’) but this is no longer taken seriously by etymologists.

Current thinking has it that the first syllable in curmudgeon may have come from the Middle English word curre (1175-1225) meaning a mongrel dog, especially a worthless or vicious one.

(Curre itself was probably related to Old Norse kurra, to growl.)

Beyond dictionary meanings

Curmudgeon is not as widely used in writing or in speech as the adjective cantankerous [kan-tang-ker-russ, IPA: kænˈtæŋ kər əs]. Two possible reasons:

1. Curmudgeon is one of those Victorian-sounding English words (although it actually dates from 1570-80) that you could never be sure whether it means something good or something awful, especially the homely sound of curmudgeonly.

2. Cantankerous, even without knowing the meaning, sounds jarring enough to the ears anyway and you could infer it is something not quite nice.

I noticed that curmudgeon is used more often by Americans and Canadians, and cantankerous more by the British and their cohorts. Google Ngrams hasn’t been helpful on this score (and I’m not bothering to use the other usual linguistic tools).

For the benefit of our ‘foreign-speaking’ readers, curmudgeon in other languages are:

• Chinese (Mandarin): 倔老頭 (simplified: 倔老头) jué lǎotóu (‘stubborn old head’)
• Filipino: masungit na tao
• French: avare (‘miser’)
• German: Querkopf (‘cross-head’)
• Greek: στραβόξυλο (stravóxylo)
• Italian: musone
• Japanese: 扱いにくいやつ atsukai nikui yatsu
• Korean: 심술궂은 구두쇠 simsulguj-eun gudusoe
• Latin: parcepromus
• Malay: orang kikir (‘parsimonious man/individual’)
• Russian: скряга (skryaga)
• Swedish: bitvarg
• Turkish: cimri tip

Cantankerous in other languages are:

• Chinese (generic): 過敏的 (simplified: 过敏的) guòmǐn de (‘over-sensitive’)
• Chinese (generic): 脾氣古怪 (simplified: 脾气古怪) píqì gǔguài (‘eccentric’)
• Chinese (Cantonese): 倔頭倔尾 gwut tau gwut mei (literally, ‘blunt headed, blunt tailed’)
• Chinese (Cantonese colloquial): dook hau dook bei (literally, ‘poke mouth, poke nose’)
• French: acariâtre
• German: streitsüchtig
• Greek: στρυφνός (stryfnós)
• Italian: irascibile
• Japanese: 旋毛曲がり tsumujimagari (‘perversity’) / 気難しい kimuzukashī (‘grumpy’)
• Korean: 심술 궂은 simsul guj-eun
• Latin: difficilis
• Malay: cepat marah (‘irritable’ or ‘irritability’)
• Russian: сварливый (svarlivyĭ) /придирчивый (pridirchivyĭ : ‘hypercritical’)
• Swedish: grälsjuk (‘quarrelsome’) / elak (‘malignant’)
• Turkish: huysuz / hırçın (‘combative’) / geçimsiz (‘out of tune’) / inatçı (‘stubborn’)

The short version

The short version: a cantankerous person is a quarrelsome or irascible person. Broadly speaking, this is how Americans understand it. In their mind’s eye, a curmudgeon or a cantankerous person would look like one of these two old farts:

Muppets Statler and Waldorf are typical American curmudgeons

Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes also comes across somewhat curmudgeonly (albeit well-intentioned) to most Americans (and the rest of the world):

The long bloody version

In the long version, the adjective cantankerous (hence curmudgeon) has a wider meaning: peevish, contentious and rancorous (that is, bitterness and/or with rankling resentment or ill will = spite) — qualities that make such a person disagreeable to deal with.

British version, har-dee-har-har: the nuclear warhead is in there somewhere

In other words, a cantankerous person is a quarrelsome person who is peevish, bitter and spiteful.

That is how many (if not most) British English speakers understand the word cantankerous (therefore curmudgeon).

Like curmudgeon, the word cantankerous has a disputed origin. The current theory from etymologists is that cantankerous is a blend of contentious (belligerent, argumentative) and rancorous (bitter, spiteful). But, really, nobody knows for sure.

Origins don’t matter. What matters is that  both words describe a pretty awful attitude. It boils down to the way that person regards the world and the people around him or her, making that person such a f@#king disagreeable git.

The British curmudgeon seems a helluva lot more unpleasant than the American curmudgeon, although your experience might say otherwise.

In real life

First of all, curmudgeon and cantankerous are often associated with senile old farts elderly people. This is not strictly accurate. Many younger people (even youngsters) are curmudgeons and cantankerous.

Curmudgeons or cantankerous farts, whatever their age, are usually the type who have uptight, anal-rententive personalities — the kind with just wee too many dissatisfactions, aversions and disinclinations about everything. In other words, they’re a f@#king ray of sunshine to put up with.

One German writer describes cantankerous people well:

“Examples come to mind a lot when thinking about unpleasant people, like that neighbor across the street from your childhood home who complained about just about everything you did to your parents or that nasty landlord with the millions of rules about things like how many pictures you could hang before in the apartment to avoid undue damage to the walls.”
(“Funny word, cantankerous,” American Culture Explained, 13 Feb 2011 | Link)

Broadly speaking, curmudgeons are bloodyminded in mentality and behave like douchebags, but often living to a ripe old age — which explains why the words curmudgeon and cantankerous are often linked to old people. It’s not an age condition. It’s a character trait, okay?

It is not nice to describe anyone as cantankerous or call someone a curmudgeon because that will make them behave exactly like one.

© Learn English or Starve, 2011.

Images: Muppets Statler and Waldorf via Doseng ♦ Andy Rooney demotivational poster via MotiFake ♦ British version of curmudgeon via iStockPhotos.

Value of a college degree | Reddit | 03 Nov 2011
http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/lydb8/value_of_a_college_degree/

The thread is longish, but worth the read.

A selection of the most apposite (to the point) comments (below).

Image by greenforall.org via Flickr

On what happens after graduating from your expensive degree:

“Kind of funny since this post I feel applies directly to my life:

• Graduated in May 2011
• Earned 2 degrees, one in biology and one in Spanish
• I am bilingual (English, Spanish)
• I am currently employed at McDonald’s

“Life is just one big ray of effing sunshine isn’t it”

On our warped perception of having a college/university education:

“What pisses me off is this idea that just because you go to college, you won’t have to worry about employment & finances, that you CAN live the American dream. Sure you can, but there are caveats.”

On the existence of alternatives that are not told to you:

“I’m still, to this day bitter [that] no one even mentioned the idea of going to a trade school. I’d be so much better off right now if I had gone to a trade school. Likely own at least one home, zero debt. Would be nice. I’m just now getting on my feet, working a great job that pays well that I enjoy, but that ~5 years of food service was hell.”

On the myth that you’re too good for certain things:

“EXACTLY. I recall teachers implying that we were too good to go to trade school, too good to go to community college. Many of us believed it. I stupidly attended a private university for my BSW & then grad school for my MSW. I am lucky to be making 30k-35k a year.

“My cousin never really learned to read [and] managed to graduate high school. He now makes over 100k a year welding. I enjoyed my college years. I’m glad I have an education but seriously, FML.”

On the ultimate effect of carrying an education debt load:

“Exactly. I would like to start a family one day, own a home or even a vehicle. However all these things are on hold until I have more financial stability. Many of them will be on hold for quite a while.”

On the artificial stigma of a non-university qualification induced by academic wankery:

“This is something that has always interested me about Americans. It always seems to be commonly assumed that you must go to college. In Australia, university (roughly similar to college) is only for people who actually need it. From the school I went to I would roughly estimate about 45% went on to attend university, 45% entered apprenticeships/trade schools and about 10% are doing nothing/working full time.

“There was absolutely no stigma attached to these choices. Being a tradesperson (builders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, landscape gardeners, etc…) is not seen as a consequence of not being good enough to go to university. To me, it makes absolutely no sense for somebody that wants to work in these professions, to waste time at university/college. Is this true or do American movies and TV overplay the societal pressure to go to college?”

Image by greenforall.org via Flickr

On the rising trend of needing work experience for every job, no matter how menial:

“Entry-level job: 5 years’ experience required. lolwut?

The full article is here:

Going on a Which Hunt | Daryl L.L. Houston | The Daily Post | 27 Oct 2011
http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/going-on-a-which-hunt/

* * *

Summary of the article

— Many people often use that and which interchangeably, but the two words are not exactly interchangeable.

— People “will use which when that is more appropriate” mainly because of a belief that which seems to have a “more formal or fancy tone” or force of expression.

— Use that for restrictive clauses [dependent clauses].

(A restrictive clause is where a part of the sentence is important to the whole meaning of the sentence. A restrictive clause is therefore highly essential to overall meaning. A missing restrictive clause will change the meaning of the sentence or make it meaningless.)

— Use which for non-restrictive clauses [independent clauses].

(A non-restrictive clause is where a part of the sentence is optional [unimportant] to the whole meaning of the sentence. A missing non-restrictive clause doesn’t change the meaning of the rest of the sentence.)

— Use a comma before and after a which-clause or which-phrase.

— No commas for a that-clause.

— Use of which in restrictive/dependent clauses tends to be more common in written British English than in American English. This is mainly because which is historically more common in British speech for restrictive clauses than in American speech. The British speech influence helps carry which over into writing.

— In nearly all cases, deleting both which and that actually improves sentence structure. Reading your text aloud is a good-enough check whether to use which or that, or leave them out altogether.

* * *

My comments on the article

On what the article ultimately points to:

“This is a good, concise post about that vs. which. But I am a bit saddened by it too — in that so many people STILL haven’t figured out such a basic thing as this — a sad reflection of the state of our education.”

On why ‘which’ is more common in British English:

“I know exactly what your saying. It is true that ‘which’ is more common in dependant clauses in British English than in American English. (I’m a British English speaker, by the way.) In many cases, the so-called American usage is actually correct, mainly because it WAS correct British usage until the British education system completely mashed things up back in the 1960s. Another influence is that ‘which’ is commoner in British speech for dependant clauses than in American speech, so it carries over into writing. But I would have to wonder what kind of writer you had to deal with who never heard this rule.”

On the need for recasting:

The article give two examples:

Vampire bats that don’t drink blood often go hungry.

Vampire bats, which don’t drink blood, often go hungry.

Peruvian vampire bat (via Wikipedia)

“Not to put too fine a point on things, those two examples given are in that typical ‘academic’ or grammarbook style of examples — and people endlessly and needlessly go on a rampage of interpreting their meanings because of that. The better deal is just to completely recast them (as I usually do in my editing work) — after ringing the author up to find out exactly what the heck he/she is trying to say. Choice of recasts to fit any bill:

(1) Non-blood-drinking vampire bats often go hungry. (1st example’s meaning)

(2) Vampire bats do not drink blood, and they often go hungry [because of...]. (2nd example’s meaning)

“Broadly speaking, it’s more efficient (and more in keeping with the Anglo-Saxon manner of expression) to lash two independent clauses together with some sort of conjunction rather than shove a dependent/independent clause into the middle of a sentence (as is typical in a Latinate manner of expression). Of course, all this depends on the general style of the writing, as much as on the subject matter. Assuming/presuming the writer was talking about vampire bats as a naturalist, most probably it would be better to go for the more concrete-sounding Anglo-Saxon manner of expression than a Latinate one. Overuse of ‘which’ clauses make for insecure-sounding text. Frankly, we’ve got enough problems trying to understand our clients as human beings without having to figure out their writing as well.”

Anglo-Saxons sound more concrete than the Latins (Photo: Helmet from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, England, image via Wikipedia)

© Learn English or Starve, 2011. Images powered by Zemanta/WordPress.

(Or why your brand of English makes you sound like a criminal)

bureau de change (n)

[Pronunciation: BEW-roh duh shawnzh, IPA ˈbjʊərəʊ də ˈʃɒnʒ, for both singular and plural]

A bureau de change is a place or business where foreign currencies are exchangeable. The plural is bureaux de change and pronounced same as the singular.

A bureau de change makes profit and competes by manipulating two variables: the exchange rate (a.k.a. cross-rate) they use to calculate transactions, and an explicit commission for their service.

Bureau de change of Siam Commercial Bank at Suvarnabhumi International Airport, Thailand (via Wikipedia)

This is what the Far East Asia calls a moneychanger (or money changer). Wrong!

(Read on to know why nowhere else in the world would use moneychanger.)

Although originally French, the term bureau de change (literally, ‘office of exchange’) has been completely absorbed into the English language as a bona fide English term for this type of business since 130 years ago.

The term bureau de change is widely used throughout Europe, and travellers can readily identify these facilities anywhere in Europe by their characteristic sign saying ‘Exchange’ or ‘Change’ or ‘Wechsel’ (German, ‘change’) or ‘Cambio’ (Spanish, ‘change’).

Alternative terms

For those who for some bizarre reason can’t possibly live with frenchified English words or expressions — like blond/blonde, brunette, bureau, gaffe, genre, naive, retard, etc, right? — try the other proper (albeit older-fashioned) English term money exchange, which may sometimes still be seen in the UK.

A: “I think using French words in English is pretentious.”
B: “Did you know that retard is a French word?”

Americans (and that includes Canadians and even Alaskans) usually use the term currency exchange instead (plural: currency exchanges).

Strictly speaking, a currency exchange is a forex-trading exchange or clearinghouse — rather like a stock exchange but dealing in bulk currency trades instead. But it doesn’t matter: it’s still better than moneychanger.

The International Monetary Fund (a.k.a. the Invisibly Misappropriated Fund) officially recognises bureau de change, casa de cambio (Spanish), exchange house and exchange bureau to mean this type of business (IMF Glossary: English-French-Spanish (2002), term E-304, page 111).

Show your money, not your ignorance

Apparently, the lamefags in the Far East Asia never got the memo about bureau de change, so the term moneychanger (or money changer) is usually used throughout Asia.

Ticket touts at the Beijing Olympics 2008 (Photo: Ben Beiske/Flickr)

Moneychanger is an abomination — it also means tout (noun, since 1350-1400).

Originally, a tout (rhymes with ‘out’) is someone who spies on a horse in training for the purposes of betting (usually to influence the outcome by illegal or improper means: fixing it).

The other, more usual meaning of tout is a scalper (ca. 1300s) — someone who solicits (business or employment) or hawks (merchandise) in a brazen (shamelessly open) or importune (persistent and annoying) way.

So a ticket tout is someone who resells tickets unofficially (usually for a heavily booked event) at higher-than-official prices. He’s that Adam Henry (see Glossary) who pesters you to buy his bleeding concert tickets three times the normal price.

A moneychanger is therefore THAT unsavoury, oily-looking tout just round the corner who changes your money on black-market rates. And then knifes you in the back.

In Ulster province of Northern Ireland, a tout also means a police informer — otherwise known in North America as a snitch (in the criminal world) or ‘deep throat’ (in the political world). That kind of tout also knifes you in the back.

In other words, a moneychanger is someone most probably with criminal tendencies and whom you definitely shouldn’t want to deal with. (Unless you’re a knifing tout yourself.)

Other funny meanings of ‘bureau de change’

Bureau de change can be a euphemism for unlawful or immoral activities too.

'Scene in a Brothel' by Andries Both (1613-1642) (public domain via Wikipedia)

The first situation is not really a euphemism: an actual bureau de change business establishment can be used as a front for money laundering. This is particularly the case in countries where currency exchange is lightly regulated. Customers bring in illegally obtained money in return for legally obtained (i.e. laundered) money. (Sometimes it works in reverse.)

The second situation uses the term bureau de change as a euphemism: it means a brothel [bordello, whorehouse, cathouse]. Kind of like the term massage parlour, where the ‘massage’ isn’t really massage, if you see what I mean.

Nobody said English wasn’t a bit of a gamble.

Nerd factoids

The funny thing is that moneychanger has a longer history of use than bureau de change.

Google Ngrams scan of books between 1800 and 2000 has it that moneychanger (money changer) came into [written] use around the early 1800s, whereas bureau de change came into being some 80 years later around 1880.

The reason for this apparent anomaly is that moneychanger has long carried a negative undertone in the English language.

Well before the 1800s, money exchange had mostly been carried on by the [criminal] underclass — touts and bankers (no kidding!) long on knives and short on scruples. By the 1800s, banking and currency exchange became commercially and socially respectable business lines because of general industrialisation, and the more respectable bureau de change came into being to replace the unlovely moneychanger.

Protip: Broadly speaking, exchanging money at a bureau de change is more expensive for you than an ATM cash withdrawal (even in a foreign destination) or paying directly by credit or debit card. Obviously, this depends on the type of card or account and the card issuer.

Protips for the natively non-native speaker

How do you stop a retard?
Use a retardant.

Step 1

Forget moneychanger and start using bureau de change all the time, every time. Now — from now on — for ever more.

SUCCESS…
People will more likely see you as a native English speaker (since you so yearn to speak like one).

SUCCESS…
To the culturally and educationally unwashed, the mere fact that French-sounding words can actually come from your pursed lips actually creates the impression on them that you’re cultured and learned, and be seen in a more positive light.

Failure…
You’d be roundly seen as a pretentious prat for using frenchified words — especially when you get the pronunciation and intonation wrong.

Step 2

Pretend you’re deaf or blind whenever and wherever you see or hear moneychanger. Just bull-charge ahead and use bureau de change regardless — as though everybody else around you understands the term as perfectly as you do. (And you refuse to even use money exchange in lieu.)

SUCCESS…
The knowledgeable are apt to think you must have been to or grew up abroad for merely using bureau de change.

Failure…
Those who actually grew up overseas (or came from there) and have been using bureau de change all their lives will be able to suss you out if you used it the wrong way or in an unconvincing manner.

Step 3

Don’t even bother to correct others (or explain to them) why moneychanger is wrong or undesirable. If they don’t know by now, they’ll not likely to want to understand.

SUCCESS…
Your constant use of bureau de change will have provided enlightenment to your unwashed, smelly acquaintances that “there is something not quite right” about moneychanger, and you will have done the world a massive favour.

Failure…
Your constant use of bureau de change is seen by your washed and unwashed acquaintances as (a) a snooty, insensitive denigration and (b) refusal to accommodate one inch to the pragmatic needs of the ‘English with [state your locale] Characteristics.’ Prat you are.

Step 4

To show that you are a perfect user of bureau de change, you never italicise it (notwithstanding what has been done in this article). You never boldface it either.

SUCCESS…
True user through and through if you use bureau de change in roman type.

Failure…
True copycat if you italicise or boldface it — obviously you copied the style in this article by skipping this Step 4.

* * *

(hat tip to this Facebook thread for inspiration, 27 Oct. 2011)

© Learn English or Starve, 2011.
Images powered by Zemanta/WordPress. Ngrams chart by author.

Dear readers,

The post you just received (“Vocabularily, it isn’t ‘moneychanger’) is an unedited version. Please disregard it.

The finalised version will be released in a moment. Please stand by for hilarity (if the unedited version wasn’t enough already).

With apologies,

Learn English or Starve

(You’re fired for lack of standards. Learn publication control or starve. — Editor)

You now have empirical proof of the astoundingly high quality of Learn English or Starve and its readers. Quality of life just improved by knowing this. Srsly.

* * *

Perception of own culture affects perception of outside cultures affects language uptake and language performance, resulting in social blunders

“Diving into the comments about race a bit, I’m reminded of the time a good friend of mine came to visit me in Beijing. She’s Chinese American, both of her parents having emigrated to the United States from Guangdong in the 1970s. I’ll call her Lucy.

“When my girlfriend and I introduced Lucy to my friends and co-workers, everyone immediately began speaking Mandarin Chinese to her, as if to quiz her or attempt to trigger some vestigial (non-existent) knowledge of the language buried in deep within her subconscious.

“NEVER MIND THE FACT that I had just informed them that (a) she’s American and she speaks English and (b) her second language is CANTONESE, not Mandarin.

“Of course, this didn’t stop them from telling her that she ‘speaks English very well.’ This same situation was even worse to experience when we were out in the city interacting with strangers who refused to believe that our friend couldn’t speak Mandarin. Take for example, this conversation I had with a cab driver in Mandarin while our friend was visiting us:

Me: Hey, can you take us to this place near the International Club?

Them (staring directly at Lucy): Where do you wanna go?

Me: Sorry, she doesn’t speak Mandarin. We really need to go to the address I gave you … we’re meeting someone there.

Them (continuing to stare at Lucy): Of course you speak Mandarin! What kind of joke is this?

Me: She’s American, but her parents are from Guangdong.

Them: American?! She’s not American, she’s Chinese!

“And so on, and so on…”

LEOS writes:

If I were to meet Lucy knowing she’s the daughter of Cantonese emigrés, my automatic reaction would be to speak to her in … English! C’mon, Lucy is American — am I going to be naff [BrE: stupid, lame or unpalatable] and speak to her in French or Lebanese Arabic???

Mandarin speaking in China (via Wikipedia)

(Okay, okay, maybe Cantonese after the requisite introduction, smalltalk and a couple of glasses of Chianti.)

That scenario very precisely and effectively highlights the perceptual hangup that most Chinese mainlanders have about born or raised overseas Chinese — and in many ways also highlights the perceptual problems mainlanders have about the world outside their land.

I make no apologies for saying this, but the fact of the matter is the 1,300 million souls of China live in a small cultural bubble. (We all know the hows and whys of this, so I shan’t go into it.) Without even delving into the overweening sociological crap about Chinese society, everybody who’s lived close enough (or inside) China knows Chinese social culture is pretty uniform throughout the country. Thirteen thousand million porcelain tiles of one or two shades does not diversity make.

Even language-wise, there’s a steady stream of hot air about Chinese being a ‘big’ language (and, lately, an ‘important’ one too). That’s a little misleading, since the assertion rests solely and exclusive on the strength of 1,300 million Chinese people ‘speaking’ it (99% of whom live inside China).

It depends what we mean by ‘big,’ doesn’t it?

We could spin the roulette wheel and wait for the marble to fall either on big by numerical superiority or on big by extent. (Business studies and linguistics majors may choose to describe same as scale vs. scope, if that helps.)

When a country that cuts off 99% of the World Wide Web from its people and turn it into China Wide Web, we just have to wonder if their ‘big’ has the same meaning as our ‘big.’

Sinitic languages (via Wikipedia)

Chinese is a small language. It’s just one bunch of people (the Chinese) who speak Chinese. Japanese is a small language — only the Japs speak it. Thai is a small language. Vulcan is a small language — only Trekkers speak it (if at all).

By contrast, English, French, Spanish and Arabic ARE all big languages — all manner of strange cattle round the world speak, write and otherwise ‘use’ them on a daily basis for work, rest and play — including while getting laid.

Rainbow-coloured Yanks speak English (mostly) and Spanish (semi-mostly) in the USA. The Lebanese, Algerians, Moroccans and nearly half of deepest, darkest Africa speak French as they ‘daytime’ first language. Spanish is spoken everywhere in Central and South America (even in Portuguese-speaking Brazil) — and they’re a bunch of rainbow-coloured people as well. Arabic is spoken in half the known world by many odd shades of people who are and are not Arabs (some are not even of the human species, I’m sad to say).

Oldtimers in Somalia can handle Italian like your icky ice-cream-gulping mafioso down in Sardegnia (English: Sardinia). Even older oldtimers in Indonesia speak Dutch, like they are still on the payroll of the Dutch East India Company.

Just to be über-topical and a little bit racist, I actually know quite a handful of homegrown Taiwanese old fogeys who are excellent Mandarin speakers but wouldn’t dream of speaking anything at home with their 60-ish children and 40-ish grandchildren other than old-fashioned Japanese (which is actually more Korean than Japanese).

People who talk about this, that or the other language being ‘big’ need to get a grip on their understanding of the word big.

As a twist the scenario, I’ve actually witnessed decidedly out-of-this-world scenarios like my German-born/bred Singaporean-Chinese friend meeting a Hong Kong-born German — Singapurina spoke German and the Sauerkraut comes back in Cantopop. Warp Factor 5 Mindf@#k just occurred just by knowing this actually exists.

* * *

Reverse ethnic sanitisation, if you can, when you can

“It’s amazing because when you’re in China you’re constantly hearing about China’s 56 ethnic groups. For anyone who’s done any sort of guided tour in the Celestial Kingdom, you’re bound to have seen them trot out the ‘ethnic’ performers in their pretty costumes accompanied by their ‘strange’ music. ‘China is very diverse,’ they’ll say. This idea of cultures and nation-states being diverse immediately dives off a cliff whenever someone from another multi-ethnic society is met.

African American: “Are you from Africa?”

Chinese Canadian: “How is your English so good?’

Dutch Korean: “They sounded strange. I think maybe their English is not so good.”

“Side note: I’ve also heard this said about white Brits and Europeans who speak English fluently:

Native Americans (or First Nations): “Huh?”

Mexican American: “You mean like the Mexican Wrap at KFC?”

Foreign Service Brat who grew up in China: “Wow, you’re very clever!”

Just to be incorrectly political and politically incorrect, I dub those reactions the sociocultural version of erectile dysfunction.

It’s a kind of reverse ethnic cleaning, isn’t it?

In the blue corner, we have hard-sell of ethnic diversity (in a sea of same-looking, same-behaving, monkey-see-monkey-do Mark II robots). In the red corner, we have it that everything ‘outside’ is lumped into the one-size-fits-all specification. We’re diverse; y’all the same bunch of lamefags.

Mandarin dialects (via Wikipedia)

Truth be told, this business about Chinese society being ‘diverse’ with several dozen ‘ethnic groups’ is like a bad joke fermented the wrong way — anyone who’s anyone with some knowledge of Chinese language and experience of Chinese society can tell us that the ethnic groups are culturally quite uniform as the mainstream ‘Han’ group right across China. It’s like reverse engineering and calling Muslims an ethnically uniform bunch of people.

(Only the sociologist or the sociolinguist would dispute the uniformity. But then again, sociologists and linguists are uniformly retards anyway and have an academically acquired inability to pay attention to published information not ‘academic’ in nature or in academicspeak (see Glossary).)

For the life of me, I see no ethnic looksin those ethnic actors and actresses — lovely and fetching as they usually are with their brilliant, TV commercial-quality white teeth, Farrah Fawcett-straight noses and Katy Perry-esque cleavage. To me, they just look like any other Han Chinese but for their fairer complexion and a sexy film of almost-porn-quality fuzzy blondish fur on their skin. Brrrr! Rawr!

Honestly, I too can go ‘ethnic,’ don a burqah, and look every bit like a Muslim housewife doing fundamentalistically Islamic groceries in downtown Cairo. The only difference I see ethnics vs. Han is the ethnics all seem to speak better Putonghua than the Hans! WTF.

Right now, memories of grandpa come flooding back to me. He once told me many of these ethnic groups are semi-fictitious anyway: their factual origins go no further back than the 1600s or 1700s (during the Ching dynasty). That’s what grandpa said. True or not, 56 ethnic groups does sound a bit sparse. The Philippines have literally 100 such groups, India and Indonesian several hundreds each, and Papua New Guinea has around 2,000.

Having done biology to hospital labtech level myself, the huge Han group seems somewhat suspect because, if you look at the Han gene pool and genomic expressions, the Han is actually less homogeneous than it’s officially pitched. That’s diversity, right?

* * *

The prodigal son returns … to be dissed by kith and kindred

“Notice that when people of Chinese descent grow up with English as their first language and go back to the country of their ancestors to study or work, their native English is immediately suspect, as if there was some trick to becoming fluent that they were hiding from everyone. ‘What classes did you take? How often did you study? How could you possibly speak English that well?’ Whereas the foreigner who speaks Chinese fluently because they’d grown up in a similar situation is ‘clever.’ ”

“Even though there is mounds of evidence to the contrary, people still seem to believe that Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc, are all white and that those who aren’t are somehow an aberration that should be ignored rather than appreciated.”

All the scenarios above happen quite a bit too in Hong Kong (albeit in not so naff a way) — a bilingually educated ex-colony whose people’s exposure to foreign stuff is higher than high than the rest of Asia.

(Image by infomatique via Flickr)

If that happens in Hong Kong, we can bet the perception difficulties will be more accentuated in a basically monolingual, unicultural society like China’s or Korea’s or Japan’s.

Japan and Korea are open societies so that helps their not reinforcing cultural difficulties, whereas locked-down China is.

Indeed, some Chinese guy back in the 1970s whose name escapes me now wrote a book or two about this ‘Chinese’ problem, but he got revolutionarily binned for it because it ain’t nice to take about one’s own country like that. See what I mean now?

* * *

(hat tip again to NiubiCowboy for the comment)

© Learn English or Starve, 2011. Images powered by Zemanta/WordPress.

N.B. The subscriber’s comment relates to Chinese learners and about learning English, but the theme of the comment is valid for all nationality of learners and the learning of any language.

I have to say, the comment was brilliant.

* * *

On what non-native speakers can do to achieve native fluency (not just in English, but any language):

“It’s strange because many of the non-Chinese people I’ve known who have studied another language intensively throw the book out the window almost immediately, preferring instead to learn language that is current and useful. I did the same, for the most part.”

LEOS writes:

Like I explained in the original article, people still believe in the mad idea that anyone could achieve native fluency just by instruction — and instruction well after early formative years. People like that need to relearn the meaning of the world ‘native.’

This crazy idea is more strongly developed and reinforced by dint of history and culture among the Chinese than any other nationality.

Education systems worldwide also reinforce and perpetuate this madness because, ultimately, it provides for teaching jobs and help garner income from fee-paying students in the private sector. It’s mostly a matter of economics more than of education, linguistics or language acquisition. No kidding.

In those places with multiple national cultures and national languages (such as Europe), people quickly wise up to the idea that the language being learnt must be useful, useable and current. (‘Current’ is not quite the same as fashionable or trendy or ‘hip,’ although lots of brain-damaged people think it means that.)

The Chinese (or all Asians, for that matter) need to take a leaf from ‘foreigners’ about how to learn a language. After all, especially in the case of Europeans, they speak more languages on a daily necessity than do the Chinese/Asians. *Snorg*

* * *

On the hidden dangers of learning a foreign language through one means and one register:

“Whenever I spoke Mandarin and encountered a word that my friends, neighbors, and co-workers told me sounded strange or overly formal in the context within which I was using it, I would immediately dump that word in my mental recycle bin. As we discussed before on Tom’s blog, many of my colleagues learning English, on the other hand, would constantly second guess my advice and would choose the often laughably outdated textbook as the final arbiter in any language-related question.”

It is amazing and astonishing that the Chinese could correct you about Chinese with such commonsensically good practice — but simultaneously be in a state of semiconsciousness about themselves when it comes to their learning of English.

I myself have encountered the exact same situations before — I spika dah lingo, I outtake such an outdated textbook as the tiebreaker, I upstand and proclaim whatever the hell is in the textbook, and hey-ho! they say mah book’s a shambles and irrelevant for modern usage.

Odd that they could do that on foreigners learning their language, but can’t do it for themselves about the foreign language(s) they’re learning.

It isn’t a case of hypocrisy — more a case of retardation and retardedness.

* * *

On the mesmerising quality of ‘native fluency’ (or how the words ‘native fluency’ turns you into a naïve rube):

“Regarding native fluency, I can’t begin to tell you how frustrating it was talking about ‘fluency’ with my colleagues and friends. I remember one meeting involving a discussion on how to improve the fluency and accuracy of the employees’ American and British English accents. You could taste the disappoint[ment] when, after hearing them give extremely brief presentations, I announced that absolutely no one had sounded even remotely like a native speaker.”

This is a very common reaction from Chinese, Korean and Japanese learners. Paradoxically, we get less of this kind of ‘disappointment’ from those same learners for French, German, Spanish, Russian or other European languages.

There’s something about English that just shakes and rattles them not being able to sound like a native speaker.

Linguists (as in the perverse field of linguistics) have never been able to explain why Asian learners of English as opposed to other European languages would react this way. There’s nothing in psychology on it either. In that sense, then this area is ripe ground for groundbreaking linguistics or psycho research that could bring fame and fortune for the researcher to the level of linguistics luminaries like M.A.K. Halladay.

Gratuitous self-promo: Whatever little French, German and Italian that I could manage, I speak them with a decidedly English accent — even having lived in those countries during my formative years. The funny thing is that people (mostly Chinese) wondered why it doesn’t bother me to ‘achieve’ native fluency in those languages:

• Duh, ‘cos I’m no native from there.
• Duh, ‘cos I never stayed long enough to speak like their natives.
• Duh, ‘cos I do fairly okay listening to those people already.
• Duh, ‘cos itsa bitta too late for me at my age to wasta mah time on achieving dah impossible.
• Duh-uh.

* * *

On being told that communicability trumps accentability:

“But, I assured them, as long as they were able to communicate effectively and make themselves understood in another language, I didn’t care how they sounded, I told them as bluntly as I possibly could, ‘You’re learning English in China, so you’re going to have a Chinese accent.’ Indians speak English with an Indian accent, but they make themselves understood just fine. Australians, Canadians, Brits, Kiwis, and Americans all have different accents, but they understand one another just fine.”

This is perhaps the worst-possible answer these people (especially the Chinese) ever hoped to hear.

It’s also the one response I love to lay on these people — exactly because they don’t want to hear it. Their poe-faced expression is pricelesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

Truth be told, even when a John O. Chinaman is learning another Chinese dialect, the idea that (say) a Mandarin-speaker can’t handle (say) the Cantonese accent 100% is shameful — deserving to be stigmatised as an irrelephant (see Glossary) in the Chinese mind.

This ‘One Hundred Percent or Bust’ mindset even amongst the most liberal-minded Chinese carries over to their learning of ‘outside’ languages like English, etc.

Again, it comes back to their warped understanding of the word native.

“I tried to help them understand that, once you leave your country of origin, your accent of English is often your identifier when you encounter people abroad. Americans sound American because they’re from the United States and Chinese people sound Chinese because they come from China. They don’t expect me to sound like 53-year-old pot-bellied, cigarette-smoking, Erguotou-swigging, man-purse-carrying Beijing native, so why should I expect them to sound like June Cleaver?”

Again, it comes back to the Chinese idea of ‘One Hundred Percent Or Bust.’ My own observation has been that, when a homegrown Chinese person wants to learn (say) English, said person DOES NOT want to be identified as a Chinaman speaking English.

Those who have a smattering of second-hand understanding of popular psychology can readily see there is an inferiority complex going on here.

Not to put too fine a point on things — after long living in this part of the world (the Far East) more as a local homeboy and less of a (semi-)expat — I have to say most Asians would actually prefer to sound like June Cleaver than June Chi-sin (chi-sin being Cantonese for ‘bonkers’). Which is pretty chi-sin any way you look at it.

* * *

On the ‘facts’ and factuality of authentic language acquition:

“I’ve forgotten how many times I tried to explain the most basic ideas of first and second language acquisition. Children acquire languages when they’re young or, to borrow a linguistic term, are in the middle of their critical period of language acquisition. I never went to class to learn how to speak my own language, I simply acquired it by being immersed in the pre-existing language environment.

“But for many Chinese parents, with their emphasis on classes, classes, classes and keeping up with the Wangs, telling them that language acquisition happens on its own through exposure to a foreign language is the equivalent of sitting in front of the fire and divining the cracks it makes in a tortoise shell.”

Those are good and commendable intentions, and it shows a genuine helpfulness and forthrightness. However, faced with the attitude of ‘every vision is met with an equal and opposite revision’ from bozos like that, it’s obvious the effort to set the record straight is — how shall we say? — wasting your breath.

Despite the seemingly introverted disposition of most Far Easterners, they are not particularly insightful about themselves, I have to say. The Chinese and the Koreans have numerous blindspots about themselves. It’s no f@#king ray of sunshine living with these people’s attitudes to language learning.

By contrast, the Japanese are relatively less stuck — and less stuck up — about ‘chasing after native fluency’ than the Chinese are. Once they realise native fluency can’t be learnt, the Japs are surprisingly comfortable with the ‘Japaneseness’ of their English. It’s mainly because of the much tighter cohesiveness of Japanese society than Chinese society. The gaijin don’t understand us, so we don’t need to understand or speak to the gaijin so well. The Japanese value their Japaneseness more than scoring high in native fluency in some gaijin lingo.

That self-realisation of the Japanese that they speak Japlish with a Japanese accent actually tidies up a lot of time-wasting blindspots for them. The Japanese psyche is ingrained to cultivate or nurture creativity and resourcefulness (notwithstanding its highly regimented social order). So they channel their energies more usefully into discussing highly complex ideas using highly simple English — it doesn’t always work, of course, but they try. The Japs want to get the message in first: the Chinese want the language, then the message.

Reality check: 19 Japanese Nobel prizes vs. 12 Chinese Nobels (4 being for non-Chinese born in China born pre-1949, and 6 for homegrown Chinese also born pre-1949).

The biggest limitation of the Chinese mentality language-wise is their attitude: with 5,000 years of civilisation under their belt, who are we laowai/gweilo/gaijin/mun-oehan/orang luar/tagalabas/bahari/chaw tang chati to lecture them on how to learn a language — especially a 700-year-old one like Modern English?

* * *

An insight on the effortless effort to dispense with common sense and go for total abdication of parental responsibility, language-wise:

Being the resident foreigner in my neighborhood, I’ve had this conversation many times:

Parent: Why isn’t my child speaking English? He has English classes at school AND we enrolled him in night and weekend classes, but he never speaks English!

Me: Do you speak English with him sometimes at home? Maybe a few hours each week?

Parent: No, of course not! My English is bad.

Me: But you’re speaking English now and I can understand you just fine.

Parent: No, don’t be so polite, my accent is very strong.

Me: How will your child learn English if he’s conditioned to think of it as the language he speaks during English class at school and/or the language he speaks with white-faced foreigners?

Parent: I don’t know, that’s their job.

You wouldn’t believe how common THAT dialogue occurs even in a bilingual English/Chinese place like Hong Kong! The last line from the parent is stark naked reality. Zombie parents like that are childish and irresponsible, and don’t deserve to have kids, if you ask me.

“As long as a child is receiving positive input in the target language and is in an environment in which they feel comfortable enough to produce language, there’s no limit to how much they can learn. Many of the younger foreign children in my complex attended local schools where the language of instruction was Mandarin. Given that they’re living in China, they’re encountering Chinese absolutely everywhere, so, naturally, after a few years they’re basically native speakers. They’re completely immersed in a Chinese-language environment AND their parents make sure to speak to them in Chinese as well.”

Precisely. There are loads of ‘white’ kids here in Hong Kong who speak perfect, unaccented Cantonese because they were born here, grew up here, schooled here, lived here, hung out here and pretty much be part of the life here. I know thirtysomethings who are for chris’ sakes whiter than the whitest snow and can bang out the localest of local Cantonese — because they grew up here. And in return, their English is not so hot. You win some, you lose some.

“Another example of this would be the millions of Asian Americans, Asian Canadians, European Asians and ANZ Asians who have acquired English as their first language, but have also acquired their parents’ or grandparents’ native language as their second language, making them multilingual at a young age. In both cases, their fluency was mind-blowing for many people, who would marvel at the child’s language ability and typically ask, ‘What class did they take? Where we can we sign up? How much does it cost?’ ”

The overriding factor affecting many locals’ perception is that these kids are Asian-blooded after all. Because of that (so their warped mindset tells them) these Asiatic kids must have ‘achieved’ native fluency through classroom learning or somesuch nonsense (like YouTube!).

It completely escapes these retards that these ‘Asian’ kids are nothing of the such — they’re actually Yanks, Canucks, Eurofags, Pommies, Aussies, Kiwis, etc, who just happened to be Asian by blood. Indeed, they just don’t get it that Yanks can be rainbow-coloured.

If blood really is linked to language acquisition, then I’ll just take take off now and get a blood transfusion from a linguist (a polyglot: not someone from linguistics).

Shameless self-plug: I myself spent a lot of time growing up in several different countries, invariably in boarding schools and almost invariably the sole Chinky-looking face in the school population. My sole talent in my miserable life is my ability to speak Chinese fluently and flawlessly even after years-long stretch of speaking nothing but English, French, German, Italian, Arabic or whatever.

The moment I come off the plane back in Hong Kong, and I’m hit in the face with derogatory remarks like, “How come you cannot read Chinese? But you ARE Chinese by blood after all, aren’t you?” As if my Chinese blood (or cat fur on my head, or ponytailed hair, or size 8½D cowboy boots) actually contributes to my ability to automatically know Chinese writing.

Just for the lulz (see Glossary), I’ve learnt to respond to these people about classes, etc, with a flippant remark, said with a seriously straight face:

“It’s very expensive and takes a long time. You need to have
lots of money and own a time machine. You need to send
your kid abroad, and also back in time, so that he/she may
grow up there and live a proper, easygoing childhood
among those foreigners to get that skill — and also to get laid.”

Naturally, I’m not very popular with those people just about that moment. But then, they’re douchebags to me anyway, so there’s no love lost.

“A few years ago I read an article on CNN detailing a Chinese adoptee’s trip back to China to visit his biological parents and their family. They were stunned that he couldn’t speak Chinese. Although they were from the countryside and they had had little in the way of education, I’ve found the idea that language is inherently connected to race (in this case Chinese) oddly prevalent even among modernized, middle-class city-dwellers.”

Totally proves my point above. Yes, I too believe ‘One Hundred Percent Or Bust.’ It’s just that my 100% ain’t their 100%.

Language-through-race is oddly prevalent too in a modern, bilingually educated place like Hong Kong, despite our schoolchildren and regular people have the highest exposure to any kind of foreign language than any other Asian country.

* * *

On how to be a smart aleck the dumb way:

“Unfortunately in China at least, English students spend far too much energy memorizing reams of useless vocabulary and grammar rules, running through accent reduction exercises, and attempting to quantify what little English they do know (‘I know 15,000 words, how many do you know?’) with an air of authoritativeness that grows annoying over time, rather than seeking to acquire a language they can actually use.”

That is 101% abso-effing-lutely true.

Honestly speaking, though, I can’t blame people for doing courageously stupid things like that. After all, there is a penchant (especially among the Chinese) — nay, a requirement — that an unending piss-stream of words, adverbs, adjectives, phrasal verbs, idioms and metaphors must be splattered over the place in order to ‘achieve’ that socially acceptable aura of being ‘cultured and learned.’ (Like the sentence just now.)

Oddly enough, this kind of faggotry is quite common in Hong Kong too, even when the average Hongkonger already gets the most amount of formal English-language instruction than any other Asian country (and that includes Australia, New Zealand and Singapore!).

In Hong Kong, English instruction starts right at nursery or kindergarten level (around 3-8 years old), working its way to primary school (8-14) and secondary school (14-19). During the 10 years’ free secondary education guaranteed to all bona fide Hong Kong residents/citizens, the average brat gets a consistent diet of 8 hours a week of English instruction at secondary level. That comes to around 8 hours/week × 40 weeks = 320 hours a year — or 3,200 hours over the entire 10-year span of schooling for the average acned brat. No other non-English-speaking country comes this close.

After thousands of hours of English instruction, with shabby English to show for it, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to explain to us that the whole mentality the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese have taken on about language learning is just what it is — Deadsville.

Another shamefully shameless self-plug: Some years ago, my own English vocabulary had been officially tested (hopefully, objectively so) at 10,000 words. (I can’t remember or search for the actual name of the test anymore.) Ten thousand words basically puts me in the top- or second-top-tier editor ranking (which I was before I went rogue and gone over to printing instead).

I get quite a fair bit of the “N number of words” attitude as well. The smug look on their faces makes me want to stick an ice lolly in their eyesockets. Being a motorcycle-riding wuss that I am, here’s a flavour of my comeback (real convo, from memory):

Barnacle Breath: I achieved 10,000 words in my vocabulary in written and oral English.

Me(smirking): Oral???

Barnacle Breath (switching to Cantonese): How to say it then in English?

Me (in English, changing the focus): How long did it take you to ‘achieve’ 10,000 words?

Barnacle Breath: I achieved my vocabulary all my life during my education in school.

(See what I mean about textbooky English?)

Me: You — 10,000 words. Me — only 700. But I can USE every single one of those 700 words — and I can use them without thinking. Which you can’t because I see you’re running rivers.

Barnacle Breath: Rivers?

Me: See what I mean?

* * *

(hat tip and bows to NiubiCowboy for the comments)

© Learn English or Starve, 2011.

Images: Bricks as binos via Seth Goldstein ♦ ‘I sound so fluent’ via Scholastic ♦ ’100 or Bust’ via Squidoo ♦ The French They Never Taught You via Canadian Scholars Press ♦ Venn graph of fluency factors via University of Texas at Austin.

Image by Tim Riley via Flickr

YOU CANNOT READ anything in sociology (and, extension, the perverse field of linguistics) without constantly bumping into a plethora of pretentious, meaningless words.

Those words are what we normal people call padding.

The more offensive term is gratuitous padding.

Both terms come under the general heading of soloing techniques (see Glossary).

If you’re in sociology (or actually doing something in it, like studying or being employed), you ought to think about what LEOS is about to tell you.

The main trouble

The main trouble with sociology is this:

Everyone in sociology writes sociology ‘like sociology.’

Corollary:

Everyone in sociology writes about sociology in a state of selective amnesia about the ultimate subject of the field of study: society and the people in it.

It comes from a sense of superiority combined with insecurity that are readily encountered within the various specialisation factions within that ‘discipline’ (field of study).

On average, sociologists are often so wrapped up in words (and, tragically, also mesmerised in their own words) that they don’t necessarily realise how (a) unintelligible, (b) comical, (c) tragic and (d) apologetical they seem to the rest of us. Sociology (and, by extension, also linguistics) is shit tier anyway (see chart below).

But (a), (b), (c) and (d) become even funnier when we consider that the ‘discipline’ per se (‘itself’) is ultimately about people and society.

And sociologists — as scholars of people and society — cannot even do THAT properly through that simple means of using words.

You (as a sociologist or something akin to that) may laugh and snigger at those who you don’t [care to] consider to be within the ambit of your ‘discipline.’ Yet you have no inkling of how comical (not to mention arrogant) you seem to the rest of us.

* * *

The List

(This could be YOUR ‘words to avoid’ list — if you’re not faint of heart, sociologically speaking, that is.)

The prime reasons for cutting down on buzzwords can be summed up in just one sentence:

Are you guilty of sabotaging your own job search along with
the opportunity to earn more money?

You shouldn’t need to ask why now.

(In alphabetical order: for those who can ALMOST figure out things on their own)

“actor”

Do us a favour: remain in the world of reality. A good historian is someone who is good in history. An actor (fem. actress) is someone in the thespian profession. You’re using actor to mean a person who does something — a participant — and clearly you don’t think a participant does anything.

“backdrop”

As in a backdrop against which — which is probably one of the hackneyest phrases you can get in sociology, word for word.

“comparative analysis”

So comparison (which involves analysis) and analysis (which involves comparison) just don’t cut enough ice for you anymore, it seems. Think!

“in its conceptual phase”

Learn the bloody difference between conceptual phase and concept phase, please.

“concrete”

If you’re going to lay it on in a concrete way, don’t fly off the handle at a tangent and prattle on with fuzzy, convoluted, abstractionistic verbiage. Whenever and however you [claim to, try to] present something in a concrete way, do so by using smaller, shorter words. It’s a technique called staging the audience — giving the reader or listener those all-important cues that you are about to ‘talk concrete’ and the discussion is going to ‘concretise’ things in a concrete way based on concrete ideas with concrete usefulness. Don’t gable it with retronautical prognosticatory pronouncements derived from asymmetrically referential proto-comparativistic deconstructionist ideations. See also LATIN below.

“in context”

How thoughtful we might have thought of you if you had actually bothered to tell us what the context was when you use the words in context? The are countless reams of sociological writing in which the context had been mentioned once or twice early on, but never to be mentioned again — whilst in context gets plastered all over the place. Verily, the words in context should really, always, invariably be used in context.

“contextual”

As in geographically contextual, globally contextual, etc. Have you tried the word related at all? No?

“creators and joiners”

“critical-practical perspectives”

“crucial”

It is clear enough from even a cursory reading of sociological writings that sociologists are, by and large, an illiterate lot. They have yet to learn that crucial means involving an extremely important result or decision. A crucial experiment is one whose result is highly important for some purpose. Otherwise, stop being so melodramatic.

An important experiment is an important experiment. It’s a crucial experiment because the data obtained will be used by [x] in policymaking for [y] and [z].

You just can’t describe something as ‘crucial’ without mentioning the ultimate reason or purpose that makes it so crucial.

See also DECISIVE.

“cultural consciousness”

“cultural sociology”

This is the sociology of culture — Pierre Bourdieu’s stuff, you idiot. Avoiding the word ‘of’ to save a word or two here and there is pointless. It doesn’t make for easier reading.

“curate”

To cut a long story short, you cannot curate your own stuff. You can only curate someone else’s stuff. Read the LEOS feature article about this word | Link.

“decisive”

Decisive means having the power or quality to put an end to controversy. Sociologists use decisive to mean indisputable or definite — highly brain-damaged. I’ve actually had the misfortune to read (and hear) “a decisive theory” — how can a theory be indisputable or definite? What theory (even in sociology) is so good that it can be indisputable and able to end controversy?

“dehumanisation”

“depth interviews”

You mean in-depth interviews. Try probing interviews for a change. Be bold, and use penetrating interviews once a while. You might become famous once in a while for using them.

“discourse”

It’s not what you think it means.

“draw(s) on”

As in the overused phrase the article draws on classical resources like [x].

“empirical”

Please get this word right, above all else. Empirical is a highly abused and misued word. It doesn’t mean objective, if that’s what you’re thinking. The actual meaning of the word empirical is that which depends upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory.

The word is historically and pre-eminently a word of medicine. In the world of medicine, that which is empirical is something that is provable or verifiable by experience or observation.

Many (if not most) sociologists tend to argue that empiricism is (or has to) equal to objectivity — and this pattern of response comes through time and time again. (This observation is empirical for it is based on careful observation of recurring behaviour for a known set of subjects and known variables.)

Empiricism is not objectivity, although it does [sometimes] provide one or several objective foundations for designing a hypothesis. Learn your philosophy of science, please.

“empirical examples [that] discuss”

No, you dumbarse, examples (of any kind) are supposed to show something. *facepalm*

“examining [x] from a more [constructivist] perspective”

“explained in rational terms”

O rly? You’re the only one capable of doing that, are you? Do you realise just how ARROGANT you sound saying this? Do you even know the concept of REPHRASING? Do you know what ‘offensive’ mean?

“foster”

An abomination, especially as in to help foster: see LEOS’ article here.

“garner”

Often in the stock phrase garnering success. With all due disrespect, stop using journalistic words like garner — especially when you’re not speaking or writing journalism.

Protip: Be very specific when you talk about success, especially your own.

Which of the sentences below sound more pleasing and forthright to you?

Academics usually use garner like this:

John has garnered success from the four corners of academia
for his seminal work on social class structures. (1)

Correct way (at a pinch):

The seminal work on social class structures by John
has garnered success from the four corners of academia. (2)

Both (1) and (2) are unbearable and illiterate, but at least (2) doesn’t come across comical.

A person doesn’t garner success — it’s the thing that a person did that garners success for that person, idiot. Some ‘thing’ garners success FOR you.

Much better to recast the whole thing:

John has achieved important success in the academic world
for his seminal work on social class structures. (3)

John has received important recognition in the academic world
for his seminal work on social class structures. (4)

The academic world recognises John’s research on social class structures
as a seminal sociological work. (5)

If you ask me, (5) is a helluva winner. The active voice makes it highly memorable because it is so close to being normal speech — people are highly likely to circulate this sentence word for word to others. It homes in up front and early who is doing what to John for why — scoring a perfect bull’s eye. All in all, it’s the power of advertising without appearing as advertising. (Unfortunately, most people are not very good at focusing on the real point of importance in their writing.)

“gender”

Gender isn’t the same as sex (as in male or female). The word comes from genre, ultimately from genus, meaning kind. An ultra-correct example (not one exactly favoured in real life):

John is male but it’s obvious he belongs to
the feminine gender because of this psychological makeup. (6)

“gender-sensitive”

“globalisation”

You’d be surprised at how many academics (not just sociologists, but the whole shebang of academia) are still using this 1980s-vintage buzzword/idea like it’s still something new.

“hegemony”

For chris’ sake, stop using this word. Hegemony merely means predominance or supremacy. Why inflict this highly charged word of communist/socialist politics on us?

Had you just tried to use something more readable or speakable like:

aggression or expanisionism by [large nations] in
an effort to achieve dominance (7)

— which, for a change, makes you sound as if you actually know something the rest of us didn’t — you might have become famous once in a while.

Alas! Whilst you so hunger for fame and fortune, you are too gormless to break out of your herd mentality. In other words, academia has succeeded in exercising hegemony over your ability to think for yourself.

“innovative”

See POTENTIALLY INNOVATIVE below.

“interdisciplinary”

Scroll down to where this article talks about INTERDISCIPLINARY LEARNING.

“intersection between collective memory and autobiographical memory”

“intersectionality”

*Facepalm* Try reading this: Kathy Davis, ‘Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a femnist theory successful,’ Feminist Theory, April 2008, volume 9, number 1, pages 67-85 | Link)

“judgmental”

Stop being so prejudiced all the time. Make no threatening statements that describes something as ‘judgmental.’

The word judgmental is considered defamatory in law, and you could be sued for using it. No kidding. (Be safe: have your writeup lawyered before publication — or be sorry.)

If you’re in Oklahoma, USA, you might scrape through and get away with calling something or someone ‘judgmental’ (per the Oklahoma case of Allred vs. Rabon 572 P.2d 979 [1977]). For the rest of the world, it’s professional malpractice. You have been warned.

See also OBJECTIVE vs SUBJECTIVE.

Latin or latinate expressions, latinate prose style

This entry so totally deserves its own extended article (forthcoming). To cut to the chase, as it were, Latin and latinate stuff are basically

“the desire to sound grand but which often merely creates jargon.”
(Scitext Cambridge, A Short History of Science Writing, 2000)

John Dryden (often called the father of modern English prose) 300 years ago condemned the overuse of latinate phraseology in English.

Some Latin words are well-established in English and are as English as pork pie, guinea fowl, roast potatoes and lentil soup: a.m., e.g., et al. (only for citations: try using an others in the body text), etc, i.e., N.B., p.m., P.S., pro bono, pro forma and q.v. (‘see’).

Best avoid anything Latiny or Greeky, such as per se (‘itself’), ipso facto (‘by the fact itself’), a priori, a posteriori, viz. (‘namely’) and stuff like that.

Side note: An a posteriori argument derives theory from evidence collected because a posteriori means from the particular (experimental data) to the general (theory). So don’t get overly smart that a theory must come before data. In the hard sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology), it’s often data first, theory second.

It seems commonsensical (to say nothing of defensibility) that, if you have never taken Latin or Greek in school, or less than two years of them if you did, then avoid Latin or Grecian words and phrases or sentence structures having the character of those languages, or suggestive of them.

(The paragraph above is longwinded [49 words] and hard-to-read [multiple intrasentential clauses]. That is latinate (Latinate) prose style. No less a person than English poet Samuel Coleridge (1772-1834) has characterised the latinate prose style as having:

• mock antithesis (i.e. opposition of mere sounds)
• a rage of personification (i.e. personifying abstract things)
• the abstract made animate
• farfetched metaphors (“a virgin field pregnant with possibilities”)
• strange phrases (“thing with which we cannot put up”)
• metrical scraps and heavy rhythms
• elaborate subclauses
• sweeping pronouncements and/or generalisations
• latinate diction (i.e. English words that are overtly Latin in character, sound or meaning)
• high register, low-frequency, polysyllabic latinate terms

The latinate prose style in itself is not buzz. (How could it possibly be?) However, its use becomes a fad when we write in this style on purpose to flaunt our learning on others. (Our ‘learning’ should have told us not to treat others in this way.)

In other words, latinate sentences are constructed in a grandiose style and to sound authoritative. Problem is, unless you’re into oratory and rhetoric, that latinate prose style gives the opposite effect. You just end up sounding vacillating, insecure and insincere. In writing, it makes your piece read like an polemical apologetic.

Some of us actually have to make a living by writing or also to read other people’s stuff (like yours truly here), so this leads to the protip:

“A rough test for concreteness is your vocabulary: if your words are mostly Anglo-Saxon you will usually be talking about concrete things; if it is Latinate and polysyllabic it is probably abstract and general.”
(J.H. Gardiner, The Making of Arguments (2004), via Project Gutenberg | Link)

This is like using relinquish (Latin) vs. leave (Anglo-Saxon) or allegiance (A.S.) vs. fidelity (Latin). Of course, it’s impossible to do away with latinate words entirely, since 70% of English words are related in one way or another to Latin. Which one would you chose, reverence or piety (both latinate)? Filial or obedient (ditto)?

This quote should spell things out for you:

“There are Latinate terms that are liable to confuse anyone who is not a Roman scholar, so to make sure that you have a fair grasp of what you are formalizing, …”
(Heather Edgar, Will Terminology, Law Community, 10 May 2009 | Link)

“literature”

In the meaning of the body of written work and research of an academic discipline or subject matter. The problem with many sociologists in doing their Literature Review is that they don’t specify which literature they have read and are reviewing. Either we just assume the ‘lit’ is entirely within sociology, or the author never bothered to read outside of field. Either way, it’s bad call to not describe something about your literature.

Ages ago, when I was writing my own undergrad ‘dissertation,’ I specified in my lit review that,

“The literature in psychology on the behaviour of triggering mechanisms in the neuron under distressed metabolic conditions is … However, the medical literature under the general heading of endocrinology is more up to date and has extensive coverage of this topic but … The literature in biology is … and together with that in chemistry …”

Notwithstanding the grandiose ‘dissertation’ label, it was nothing to write home about. But the professors sure were impressed that I had bothered to check outside of field.

“mainstream”

“meaningful”

Your desperation in looking for meaningful patterns might just wound up being meaningless if you start using meaningless words like meaningful.

“mélange of different activities”

Are you even conscious that you’re not actually writing literature? In fact, mélange is a word from the textile industry, retard.

“narrative”

I appreciate that sociology cannot dispense with this word — it’s become part and parcel of this whole industry discipline. However, it is also highly noticeable that the word narrative is being used in sociology as though it had a technical meaning. To have or not have a technical meaning is not crucial, really. More important: be specific. Describe what your narrative is in actual fact. Sociology isn’t poetry or literature, faggot — get to the point! See also STORYTELLING.

“objective” vs. “subjective”

This is another entry that deserves its own featured article (forthcoming?).

Objective and subjective are as highly abused and misused as empirical (q.v.) is.

The actual meaning of objective is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice, and often based mainly on facts. The old-fashioned English word disinterested completely covers the meaning of objective.

Meanwhile, subjective means belonging to the mind of the thinking subject (person) rather than the object of the thought (i.e. the thing being thought about). In other words, it relates to the nature of a thing as it is known in the mind as distinct from the actual thing itself.

That’s all these two words actually mean. There’s nothing grand or logical or super scholarly about them! Holy mackerel in sardine tins…

So why are these two words nearly always disgracefully put together as opposites?

Objective was originally (in the 1610s) used in the philosophical sense of ‘considered in relation to its object’ — thereby automatically making subjective its opposite. The meaning of impersonal or unbiased (a.k.a. disinterested) only started appearing in 1855.

That’s why in matters of vocabulary, objective and subjective are paired.

Yet in matters of ideas, philosophy and knowledge, the ‘real’ opposite of objective isn’t subjective — it’s empirical. The ‘enlightened’ medicine-men like Grey, Jenner, Priestley, etc, who first started using empirical weren’t stupid — they were in fact unique and brilliant. They realised very quickly that he who is disinterested (objective) cannot properly be experiencing that which is under investigation (empirical). That’s why the medicos chose to use the word empirical.

Shame on your lame faggotry for not knowing something as basic as this. You need to go back to your books and relearn your language, science, history, politics, economics and philosophy.

The ‘real’ polar opposites are in fact these:

• objective (measurable) vs. empirical (experienceable)
• objective (observable) vs. empirical (experienceable)
• objective (existing) vs. constructive (inferred)
• objective (physically existing) vs. illusory (existing only in the mind)
• empirical vs. logical
• logical vs. analytical
• subjective vs. rational
• rational vs. intuitive
• intuitive vs. judgmental
• judgmental vs. sensory

Are you confused enough yet? If you’re not confused, YOU DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE MATTER. You are so pwned…

“outreach”

“perceived to be symbolic [x] of society”

Whenever you use the word perceive, be sure to tell us who actually perceives it. This is technically called an asymmetric non-referential referencing verb.

“prevalent”

Just use widespread instead (which is what most sociologists mean when they use prevalent). But prevalent actually means widespread whilst having superiority or ascendancy (and it’s got to have these two aspects to make it ‘prevalent’). Show your learning, not your ignorance.

“portals”

As in the stock sociological phrase provide portals into an aesthetic dimension of [x] culture — which is a seriously stupid phrase found in nearly every nook and cranny in sociology (and also sociolinguistics). You are writing about sociology, not the fine arts (where this word properly belongs).

“potentially innovative”

I don’t know about you, but I find potentially innovative a little more than potentially brain-damaged. It’s like pregnancy — it’s an either/or thing. She’s either pregnant or not, so it’s either innovative or not. You cannot have something that starts off not being innovative, and then becomes innovative later on (for whatever conceivable reason). The word potentially introduces the idea of future time — if it isn’t innovative now, it for sure is going to be even LESS innovative in future. Derp.

“poverty”

“project”

In the meaning of a large or major undertaking or endeavour or task of investigation, usually in the abstract sense of (for example):

the ultimate project of the new middle class is to surpass its
nascent social class configurations and entrench itself into
the mainstream social stratification structure (8)

As if that middle class is constituted like a person or a team of people in carrying out a proper project (a set of time-delimited tasks). Why turn something big into chickenfeed?

“refer”

This word is often (mis)used by many people in the humanities (not just sociology) to mean describe or explain. It’s astonishing how these humanities types get such simple things so wrong. It is really, really annoying when they do that. Refer actually means:

• (1) to direct a thing for information or anything required, or
• (2) to direct attention or thoughts of something.

He referred me to books on the sociology of cultures. (8A) (Sense 1)

The asterisk refers the reader to a footnote. (8B) (Sense 2)

Be we get this illiteracy all the time in the humanities:

The theory refers to how the effects of institutional obstacles on…  (8C)

It would be better to say/write: “The theory describes/explains how the effects of …”

“remain”

Especially in gut-wretching phrases that remain valuable and remain unexplored. Get straight to the mechanics of your reasoning with something like:

… that is still valuable in the minds of [x] because of [y]. (9)

… still uninvestigated by the majority of researchers because of [x]. (10)

“search for meaning”

This isn’t some Chronicles of Narnia thing or Beowolf or the Iceland Saga or The Epic of Gilgamesh. This is a phrase from religion, not sociology.

If you value your continued employment as a sociologist, you don’t LOOK (not ‘search’) for meaning — you’re supposed to “explain the meanings behind [x] to make them more readily understandable.” If you want to write ‘search for meaning,’ become a priest or work as a comedian.

“socialism with [x] characteristics under the dual influence of globalisation and marketisation”

We all know where that came from … and we’re tired to hearing it time and time again.

“storytelling” (“telling stories”)

This is a real favourite of those sociologists who do qualitative research on social stratification (lower, middle or upper classes) and feminist issues by the use of depth interviews (q.v.), narratives (q.v.) and various other observer-as-participant methodologies. Just be careful that storytelling and telling stories in English also mean telling lies.  Oh, do tell stories!

“sustainable” anything

“theoretical framework”

Highly overused, but meaningless. As if there is any other kind of framework. For anything outside of engineering and the pure sciences, any framework can only be theoretical. Derp.

“transnational”

As in the sociological stock phrase transnational public spaces created within public social spaces. Why not make it exciting and dynamic by saying something like:

public social spaces that extend across national borders
forming a cross-cultural space (11)

The reason why you couldn’t write that is because your sociological mindset is stuck in seeing something has to be inside something, rather than something blossoming out. A ‘transnational public space’ surely has to be bigger than a mere ‘public social space,’ dammit.

“transnational corporation”

Instead of showing your learning, you have shown only your ignorance. There’s no such thing as a ‘transnational’ corporation in the business world.

A corporation (company) that does business across different countries is simply a company that does business internationally. A company owned by several companies belonging to different countries is a multinational or an international company/corporation. Speak proper business, please — ‘Business spoken here.’

The term transnational corporation comes from socialist countries (principally the People’s Republic of China) that have realigned their economies to operate partly along market forces. The term was invented as a business registration classification to deal with that category of companies that are not strictly multinationally owned but not completely domestically owned. Such types of companies are still described as multinationals in the business world, regardless.

Only a nitwit like a sociologist would nitpick at transnational vs. multinational vs. international.

“transparency”

One of the hottest buzzwords in global circles: our dictionary defines it as ‘easy to see through.’

“underclass”

“unexplored”

If something is uninvestigated or not investigated fully, say it! Don’t fudge by describing it as unexplored. Some faraway land may be still unexplored. In sociology, things are uninvestigated or not fully investigated according to [x] methodology. Know your own field.

“the West”

Perversely, often written lowercase (‘the west’) by Chinese writers. What if we should write about ‘the east’ — how galling and judgmental would that sound to you? Be specific, or do away with ‘the west’ altogether. Just an [informed] opinion for your consideration:

“Firstly as most readers probably recognize, ‘the west’ is not actually that cohesive of a unit. Attitudes towards religion, politics, economics, and dozens of other issues vary dramatically within each of these countries, let alone between them. The only thing that is generally agreed on in ‘the west’ is that citizens should have a voice in their gov’t, and that human rights (as agreed upon by the UN) should be enjoyed by all people.”
(‘Two more arguments I’m tired of hearing,’ Seeing Red in China, 18 October 2011 | Link)

* * *

If there are these many rogue usages in one discipline, you can be forgiven to suspect that:

1. there must have been quite a fair bit of soft-power plagiarism going on,
2. the people in that field have to invent things to discuss or write about, and
3. said field really is shit-tiered because of 1 and 2.

* * *

Addendum

Attitudinal Phraseology

An attitude adjustment is in order when you encounter something like these:

“Hardly any data has been collected and even fewer have looked for theoretical means.”
(Center for Cultural Sociology, Yale University | Link)

You get A LOT of this execrable attitude among sociologists. Nearly everything is summarily pronounced as not enough, insufficient, inadequate, incomplete or un-whatever in data collection.

Similarly, nearly every topic is similarly dismissed out of hand as not having been looked at enough or not by enough people.

It is as though the writer himself/herself is the first and only person to have noticed this ostensible anomaly — and then proceed to present this ‘fact’ to you as a fait accompli.

Here are two other sentences that nearly all humanities dissertations and theses are gorged with:

Therefore, the development of a theoretical framework that
incorporates these manifold activities is essential. (12)

… help clarify several key themes that inform political and public debate. (13)

… the article [thesis, etc] draws on classical resources like … (14)

Our search for meaning involves two theoretical approaches. (15)

Is that plagiarism or just herd mentality?

* * *

Why do they do things like that?

If you’re into psychopathic homicide, you’re not going to admit you’re a psychopathic killer. Likewise, you won’t admit to bribery or influence-peddling, will you? If you’re into buzzwords, you’re not likely to own up to liking buzzwords, are you? It’s just human nature, isn’t it?

Normally, people are not averse to padding (which includes buzzwords): they are what they are, and have their uses. This person explains it well:

“I am perplexed by the ever present sensitivity and negativity to ‘buzzwords.’ I think it is cowardly to dismiss or discount something new or something that represents change without reason. On the other hand, I acknowledge that new words are often misused or abused for impact or simply to be catchy.”
(Dawna Maclean | Link)

Here’s from the horse’s mouth:

“The discipline of sociology, to cite just one familiar discipline, also makes extensive use of buzzwords — terms that excite a hum of discussion and debate. [...]

“These ‘new’ buzzwords, gathered under the banner of post-modernism (with and without the hyphen) (Hansard, 1994) include terms such as Foucault, narrative and discourse, and have ushered in the ‘linguistic turn’ in sociology, and the development of ‘litero-philosophy’ (Merquior, 1985, p. 13). [...]

“The linguistic turn in social theorizing has led to many changes in the conduct of social scientific theorizing (Hansard, 1994). However, these changes do not amount to a volte face. Indeed, the ‘linguistic turn’ in sociology has been contested to some degree. Herbamas (1984, see also Best and Kellner, 1991) has argued against post-modernism and has protested that the ‘modernist project‘ so maligned by the post-modernists has not, yet, run its full course. Best and Kellner (1991) have argued that the post-modern critique is: ‘excessive, abstract and subversive of theoretical and political projects that remain valuable‘ (Best and Kellner, 1991, p. 257).”

(David Collins, Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-Practical Perspectives, p. 115. London: Routledge, 2000, ISBN 0-415-20640-5)

That’s the complicated, learned, scholarly reason. Here’s the down-to-earth, everyday, man-in-the-street reason:

“Interdisciplinary Learning … I can almost see all of your eyes rolling at just the thought of these words together. This term represents perhaps the most overused buzzword in higher education today. For more than a century, the ‘modern’ social science disciplines like Sociology, Economics, Psychology, and Anthropology have battled each other professionally and intellectually. In a very literal sense, college and university faculty argue with each other and with administrations to justify expanding their particular departments. More generally, debates continue about which discipline best prepares students to study and understand the world around them. In fact, traditional higher education in Americais based on these debates.”
(Tim Campos, ‘Beyond Buzzwords, Part 3,’ in Admission Unpeeled, 16 November 2009)

For the sake of everyone sitting or standing or loitering on the sidelines, we would appreciate it more (certainly LEOS would) if:

• you stop the transparent act of a concerned scholar of society and of human behaviour
• concentrate on being fast, direct and accurate.

* * *

Sources:

Atkins, Robert (1993). Artspoke: a guide to modern ideas, movements, and buzzwords, 1848-1944. Abbeville Press (New York; London).

Berenbaum, May (2000). Buzzwords: a scientist muses on sex, bugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. Joseph Henry Press (Washington, D.C.).

Byrne, John A. (1996). “Never mind the buzzwords, roll up your sleeves: the Feigenbaum brothers advise pragmatism,” in Business Week, International Edition, 22 January 1996, pp. 50-51.

Campillo, Véronique (translator) (2003). No more darn buzzwords: keys to successful organized change by David Chaudron into French (“Organiser le changement: les clés de la réussite”). AFNOR (Saint-Denis-la-Plaine).

Chaudron, David (2003). No more darn buzzwords: keys to successful organized change; translated into French, titled “Organiser le changement: les clés de la réussite” (translator: Véronique Campillo). AFNOR (Saint-Denis-la-Plaine).

Coll, Eric (2004). Understanding Voice over IP 1: flavors of VoIP; protocols, buzzwords, jargon; voice quality, LAN and WAN infrastructure, VPNs and call centers. Teracom Training Institute (Champlain, NY).

Collins, David (2000). Management fads and buzzwords: critical-practical perspectives. Routledge (London; New York).

* * *

© Learn English or Starve, 2011.

Images: Tiers via c4c ♦ Girl and desk via 3 A.M. Magazine ♦ “People degrade themselves…” via Tagbanger ♦ Shredding machine via iGrad ♦

N.B. The citations are not real. Tee-hee-hee. Gotcha, citationfag.