Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Speak My Language Or Else!

I'll just say this from the outset:  This blog posting is going to be more serious than what you have experienced in this blog so far.  The reason is that I am going to talk about a subject that is controversial, though I don't understand why.  I am going to talk about the seemingly prevalent view among Americans that people who live in the United States should speak the language of the country:  English.

What sparked this blog posting was this graphic that I came across on Facebook:

Speak English Now!
Seriously?
I must admit that it didn't shock me in the least.  Since age 12, I have seen some variation of it throughout school or in my personal life.  However, at age 35, it's getting tiring seeing it.  This has to stop.

On the surface, the message makes sense:  Speak the language, or be prepared to experience difficulties until you do.  That makes sense, of course.  If I were to move to Bolivia but didn't speak the language at the time of my move, life would be decidedly difficult for some time, at least until I achieved a level of proficiency that would allow me to ask where the bathroom is.

It's the second option that eradicates any notion that this graphic is anything but xenophobic.  It's the second option that makes no consideration of the concepts of second-language acquisition and the difficulties people experience when learning a new language.  To make the connection between xenophobia and this graphic, we should spend a bit talking about just what language acquisition entails.

Most people reading this blog will have had English as a maternal language.  Generally, there's not much thought that goes into structuring the sentences that emanate from our mouths.  We simply respond to what we see.  Noam Chomsky, who is one of the most prominent linguists in history, had much to say first-language acquisition.  

In the interest of not turning this posting into a Nirvana for linguists, I'll reduce his many arguments to this:  Language acquisition is an inherent ability for humans, who are hard-wired to make accurate deductions about how language is used in various scenarios.  In other words, first-language acquisition isn't very much of a concerted effort and happens naturally.  Second-language acquisition is a different matter, however.

Learning a second language is a decidedly concerted effort that does not enjoy many of the benefits of learning a first language.  For example, with first-language acquisition, a child starts with a blank slate ready to be colored by social interactions with other people.  A child simply learns the rules of the language he/she's immersed in speak and, therefore, has no reason to compare them with existing rules learned in another language.

In second-language acquisition, one of the principle issues language learners experience is the normal and understandable tendency to compare speaking patterns and grammars of the foreign language to those of the native language.  Early on, this results in a tendency to directly translate when speaking in the foreign language.  Here's an example in French:

English:  I am 35 years old.
Direct French:  Je suis 35 ans.  (Incorrect.)
French:  Quel âge avez-vous?  (Correct.)

In English, we express age using a form of "to be."  In French, it's expressed using a form of "to have."  It's normal for someone learning French to apply our English rule to French; it's what we're used to.  It's wrong but still normal.

But why do the two languages use different verbs to express the same thing?  That's too big of a question for this posting, but the short answer is that language and culture are inextricable.  In fact, language is culture.  This why learning a new language is truly an enlightening but intensely difficult experience.  You're not just learning new words and new placement of those words; you're learning new ways of thinking and acting.

I make this point to also make the point that when people in this country--or in any country, for that matter--make absolute demands such as what's in the graphic above, it demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the difficulty of learning another language.  Telling a language learner to get the hell out of the country until she learns to speak the language is simply ignorant.  We shouldn't pretend that the graphic is a positive encouragement for non-native speakers to learn the language.  It's a graphic to choose the source culture and ignore their own.

When it comes to learning language, a little compassion and appreciation of the difficulty of learning another language go a long way.  But it's impossible to be compassionate when no time has been spent learning another language and, as a result, learning about someone else's culture.



Monday, October 29, 2012

Whom Who?

So you have been speaking English for some time now.  You've got this thing.  You know how to match your subjects with your verbs.  Right?  You can spell halfway decently, at least enough to send a "Do you like me?  Circle 'Yes' or 'No'" note in third grade.  (If you're doing this in college, you're pretty much wasting money on your education.)  You even know how to curse someone out if she cuts you off in the middle of rush hour.  That's actually how I became fluent in English.

Grrrrrrrrrr!
But then comes along what has to be a foreign word:  whom.  WTF?  Is this a typo?  Did someone mean to write "who" but threw in the extra "m" to confuse the non-native English speakers?  Nope, "whom" is a real English word.  Deal with it!

So there's good news and bad news.  I'll start with the bad first, since it's always fun to kill people's joy from the get-go.  "Whom" is a legitimate word, and you will encounter it from time to time.  The good news, however, is that it is a dying word, meaning people are using it less and less.  Why you (didn't) ask?  Honestly, the word sounds terribly snooty.  If you're as cool as the cast of "Jersey Shore," you would't be caught dead using this word.  (In fact, you wouldn't be caught dead using words with more than one-and-a-half syllables.)

So here's the breakdown of this word.  "Whom" is considered an objective pronoun.  All that means is that it never initiates the action in a sentence; it always receives the action.  Here's an example:


He wants to give the gift to whom?

Putting aside Christian generosity, "whom" in this sentence clear is the recipient of the gift, not the giver of it.  Here's another example of "whom":

I actually like the guy whom everyone in the office hates to death!

Disregarding the fact that you aren't capable of picking respectable friends, "whom" in this sentence is acting as a relative pronoun.  That's fancy language for "whom" is connecting two sentences.

And there are variations of "whom," such as "whomever" and "whomsoever."

And with that, you'll see why "whom" is going the way of the dinosaur.  Nearly every instance of the word sounds pompous and, dare I say it, un-American.  Only in the most formal of settings is the word used, and even then, its usage has relaxed significantly.  So if you're writing a research paper for your stuffy, stuck-up professor in college, use "whom" more than Mariah Carey uses a lip-syncing machine when "performing."  Otherwise, I would avoid using the word.  You may think you're sounding professional and educated.  I would say that you end up being snickered at the moment you turn your back.

So don't listen to the language purists who pine all day about the degradation of the English language with the slow exit of "whom."  Language is like humankind--it evolves all the time and never looks the same from one century to the next.

So be cool:  Don't use "whom."

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Don't Do This

Gawker recently posted an interesting article about language, and oh, what a language article it was!

Here's a rundown of the article.  A software-engineering fellow is looking for employment, and just like so many people, he has his résumé posted up on a few employment sites:  Monster, in this case.  And as we all know, there are recruiters sifting through résumés and probably shooting off mass mailings to see who will answer.  (That's tacky, by the way.)  A certain recruiter contacted the software guy and pitched a position to him that, geographically speaking, didn't fall within the interests of the software guy.  The software guy responded, and it went downhill from there.

The "LOL, you dick" from the recruiter (really?) pretty much indicated the deluge of that relationship.

So here's some advice from your editor friend:  Don't do that!  As in don't embarrass yourself the way Christina Aguilera does the moment she picks up a microphone.  All it will result in is my making fun of you on Facebook, making me no better than the subjects of this article.


An ass, as in what these fellows were during their verbal joust. 
The overlying problem with this e-mail exchange--besides the embarrassing levels of grammar from the recruiter--is the challenge to effective communication that e-mail and other written forms of communication pose.  Hell, it's already challenging enough trying to communicate and understand people in real life. (Chaka Khan and your penchant for slurring your words, I'm talking to you!)  E-mail just adds an extra layer of difficulty.

Why is e-mail so challenging?  It's a quick form of communication that's meant to convey messages as succinctly as possible, though some people use it much more extensively and create elaborate messages in it.  (Please stop.)  The other problem is that it's particularly difficult to communicate nuance in an e-mail or, really, any form of written communication.  There are more, but those two are the nuclear bombs of e-mail communication.

Now consider that paragraph with the much-vaunted communication model:


This graphic takes me back to the trauma of geometry.


  1. Interpreter 1:  This is the person who has something to communicate.  She thinks of the message, encodes it with meaning that she understands and hopes others understand.
  2. Message:  The message is sent.  (Let's hope it's not sent via lose-your-mail-every-week, nearly insolvent, ha-ha-you-and-your-overpaid-workers-deserve-it USPS.)
  3. Interpreter 2:  This is the person who receives the message.  He goes through the decoding process to gain an understanding of it.
  4. Encoding:  If the original message requires a response, Interpreter 2 responds by encoding his own meaning into the response and fires it away.
  5. And the process iterates.

Pretty simple, huh?  Yeah, no.  Sure, it's simple to think up your message and inject meaning into it, and it's simple to fire it off without a further thought.  After that is when it gets interesting, because you really can't control a single thing else about that message.  It's now in the control of the other person.  And when he starts to decode the message, all hell can break loose--and often does.  

And if Interpreter 2 misinterprets the message, he will encode his response based on his bad decoding of the initial message.  Interpreter 1 gets the poorly encoded response and gets ready to go to her purse on Interpreter 2 for his foolishness.  Yeah, a big oh, dear moment.  You can easily see how situations can derail right quick--and someone can go the way of Tupac.


Do you really want to end up here over a silly e-mail?

No one has to go to the ICU or morgue, though.  So let me offer you some tips to save your dignity (and life):
  1. Conscientiousness:  Big word that means being mindful of not only what you're writing, but how you're writing and the meaning behind the words.  The adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is complete bull ka-ka.
  2. Succinctness:  I'm not even sure that's a word, but my made-up meaning is that you should be succinct, straightforward in your message.  Whatever doesn't need to be said shouldn't be said.
  3. Tone:  Understand that it is difficult to control how your intended tone can be received, so be as tone conservative as possible, meaning be as clear as possible about the tone you're using.  What that also means is that sarcasm via e-mail is probably not a best practice.
  4. Propriety:  Know your audience so you know how to communicate with them.
  5. Pick Up the Damn Phone:  For the love of Abraham, if you think that your message could derail faster than Ke$ha's career, pick up the phone to talk it through.
I didn't discuss spelling errors in e-mail because it's not germane to this posting.  Plus, spelling errors won't mean that you're an ass. It'll just mean that you're illiterate.  (Kidding. . .I think.)

Read this blog; post it up on your wall; and treat it as your bible or Koran.  (I'm not kidding.)  You'll save yourself a lot of grief, and you'll learn to communicate better via e-mail.  Or, at the very least, you will know when to pick up the damn telephone to flesh things out.  Generation Y, I know that sends shivers through your spine, but I promise you won't die if you actually press numbers on your cell phone and, I don't know, hit "Send" to make a call.

Picture 1 reference:  http://beejalparmar.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ass_1_arp_750px.jpgPicture 2 reference:  http://www.comprofessor.comPicture 3 reference:  http://www.stesa.com.ar/galeria-morgues.php

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Comma Coma

I have some unfortunate news for you:  The comma has been pronounced to be in a coma.  This is tragic!  What's worse is that the doctor's told me that it has a two-percent chance of survival.

life-support machine

I see squiggle lines.  That's a good sign, right?

I was doing some digging, and I found out why the poor punctuation mark ended up comatose.  It's because it's been used to the point of exhaustion, worked liked a slave, abused and misused.  What would you expect when you treat it that way?  A punctuation mark can only take so much.

So I'm here to help the comma save on its co-pays and get out of the ICU.  How am I going to do that?  By telling you how to stop abusing it.

So what's this abuse I've been talking about.  Like Lady Gaga, it comes in many forms; I'll only cover the two that I come across most frequently as an editor.  But before we can even talk about the abuse, we need to define what a comma is.  I'll spare you the boring dictionary definition, and I'll just give you an everyday explanation.

A comma is a punctuation mark that mostly represents a brief pause in thought.  When talking, the times you need to take a quick breath before the next onslaught of words to your poor audience is when you would most likely use a comma.  The pause rule of thumb can create some complex rules around comma usage, e.g., using a comma after the city and state when they are used in a sentence.  Sure, you can sleep (and slobber) your way through those rules, or you can save your coolness by just using the pause rule of thumb.  If you need to take a breath, you probably need to use a comma.  Simple enough.

Now on the to two areas that have caused this comma calamity:

Comma Splice


Even though it sounds like something straight out of a science-fiction movie, it's a real thing.  Basically, a comma splice is using a comma to separate two sentences that don't have a conjunction between them.

"Who'sa what?" you say?

Here's a real-life example:

I'm tired, I know I should go home.

Don't do that.  No, you should go home if you're tired.  (No one wants you snoring at her house.)  You should not, however, use a comma between those two complete thoughts.  Using the pause rule of thumb, you should get the sense that the sentences require more than just a half-second pause.  It requires a full pause--even a complete stop.  That's too powerful for the comma to handle.  (That's why it's in the coma, silly.)  You need to call in a few other punctuation marks, the choice being yours of which to use.

The period to save the day:

I'm tired.  I should go home.

A period indicates a full stop.  That's needed between two sentences that have no other word to connect it.

Or

I'm tired, so I should go home.

Or you can call in the comma's BFF, the conjunction, to help tackle the two sentences.  More on the conjunction in a subsequent posting.

Or

I'm tired; I should go home.

You can call in the comma's older, football-player-strength brother who can chew up two sentences and spit them out (because he eats his Wheaties).  I'll cover semicolons in a subsequent posting.



Commas and Dates

Not that type of date, silly.  Dates as in the month and year.  You should not do this:

The financial report gives us information about sales of August, 2012.

I know it seems like these are two discrete words that express different points of time.  However, you want to look at them as a unit, two words that, together, form a complete picture in your head.  As a complete unit (that sounds hot), you don't need a comma to separate them.  Yes, the comma can finally take a break!

It is important to note that comma requirements can vary between styles of writing.  For example, Reuters has certain comma requirements that the Chicago Manual of Style thinks is idiotic.  Keep that mind when using commas in more complex ways.

See, that wasn't so bad, was it?  All these things you have been doing to beat down the comma and land it near death weren't even necessary.  You can leave it alone and allow it to heal and make a full recovery.  Hell, you could even do us all a favor and put that damn colon out of its misery.  It's the Rihanna of punctuation marks:  ugly, annoying, and with big features.