SEELANGS Digest - 27 Nov 2007 to 28 Nov 2007 - Special issue (#2007-273)

[David Powelstock]

I tried, but could resist intervening in this discussion. I'm surprised that
no one has pointed out the obvious: statements about language are either
descriptive or normative. Olga Y. and Will Ryan (and others) are speaking
primarily about descriptions of linguistic items, e.g., how they function in
discourse. Such statements need to be evaluated on the basis of their
descriptive adequacy. Normative statements, in this case questions of "good"
or "bad" style, are another matter entirely.  As Olga points out, "Like
esthetic judgements, what consitutes "good writing" (or "good speaking") is
never an absolute or universal matter." Nevertheless, one can make sound
arguments in support of one's normative stylistic judgments as they apply to
particular types of writing or speaking. As someone who teaches writing and
public speaking in English regularly and writing in Russian occasionally, I
would be remiss if I didn't teach the students that certain types of
language that have clear functions in conversational discourse make their
formal writing and speaking less persuasive and powerful. 

There are all sorts of normative stylistic judgments out there, not all of
which are well founded in the logic of effective communication. On the other
hand, there are fine works of normative stylistics that make compelling
arguments for their recommendations. For English style, I highly recommend
_Clear and Simple as the Truth_ by Francis-Noel Thomas and Mark Turner.
There is also Orwell's famous essay, "Politics and the English Language." 

But my main point is that one needs to be aware of the difference between
descriptive and normative approaches to language usage. To ignore the first
is to misunderstand how language works; to ignore the second is to deprive
the teaching of language of an important element of functionally effective
communication, even if there is an inevitable element of subjectivity
involved. Incidentally, one can also study normative stylistics
descriptively, i.e., as a phenomenon in the history of culture. I recall
playing on local softball team where I felt the need to curse more often in
order to be considered a full-fledged member of the "discursive community"!

Best wishes to all,
David Powelstock
Brandeis University


-----Original Message-----
From: SEELANGS: Slavic & East European Languages and Literatures list
[mailto:SEELANGS at BAMA.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Will Ryan
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:45 AM
To: SEELANGS at BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] SEELANGS Digest - 27 Nov 2007 to 28 Nov 2007 -
Special issue (#2007-273)

Olga Yokoyama is absolutely right. To ignore so-called crutch words (for
British English I would add 'basicly' as very common) is to ignore the
totality of discourse and register, which, in spoken language also includes
facial expression and bodily gestures. I have been been an interpreter in
several situations where the choice of words, pauses, hesitations, 'crutch'
words, and facial expression or hand gestures have indicated that the
speaker wished to be understood ironically or humorously, or wished to be
convey that his real feelings were not those that would appear in the
official written record of the meeting. I was astonished, many years ago, to
hear in a lecture about the art of interpreting, by a professional UN
interpreter, that the proper way to do 'unbiased' interpreting was to sit in
a dark room wearing a headset, without sight of the speaker. I don't know
how she dealt with the famous incident of Khrushchev's shoe.
Will Ryan

Yokoyama, Olga wrote:
> Just a comment on the "crutch words"/"stalling tactics" mentioned in 
> the on-going discussion of translation (cf. the quotes below). These 
> words and phrases, which are often accused of "littering" the 
> language, actually have very important discourse functions such as 
> hedging, soliciting a response, expressing a certain stance, etc. etc. 
> They are particularly important in person-to-person (hence, oral) 
> communication, where communication heavily depends on interlocutor 
> attitudes. These words and phrases exist in every language and are 
> being widely studied by discourse-oriented linguists (just one 
> example: the co-occurrence of the English "y'know" with pauses of 0.5 
> msec or longer in malfunctioning male-female conversation).
> 
> Diachronically, what now looks like a legitimate lexical item often 
> originated as a word or phrase that used to function just like any of 
> the "litter" phrases now do; consider, e.g., the clitic "ved'", 
> originally from the full-fledged verb "vedeti". Many of the "litter"
> words/phrases in current use are in the process of lexicalization, as 
> is evident from their reduced phonological shapes: "y'know" sounds 
> very different from a full two-word sequence "you know".
> 
> That written texts are often consciously purged of these words/phrases 
> in certain written traditions is itself a phenomenon peculiar to these 
> written traditions. But when necessary, even in written English, say, 
> hedging can be accomplished, but this is usually done by other means, 
> such as by inserting the bookish "evidently", "allegedly" or even by 
> explicit clauses like "although this is not entirely certain". Like 
> esthetic judgements, what consitutes "good writing" (or "good speaking")
> is never an absolute or universal matter.    
> 
> [quoting Renee Stillings: Oh, and drop all the crutch words. Russian, 
> both written, and verbal, is often littered with ambiguous 
> (non-committal ...) terms like "v principe," "vozmozhno," etc. In 
> nearly all cases these can just be dropped for the sake of good 
> writing ... or speaking. I can't tell you how many times a question 
> along the lines of "How's the weather today?" is answered by "V 
> principe, kholodno." Is it or isn't it???]
> 
> [quoting Paul Gallagher: Listen to some man-in-the-street interviews 
> on TV and you'll hear the same stalling tactics here -- "I mean," "you 
> know," etc. In the presidential debates, you hear "the fact of the 
> matter is" (which generally introduces a lie, but that's another 
> kettle of worms)...]
> 
> 
> Olga T. Yokoyama
> Professor
> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL University of California, 
> Los Angeles
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your 
> subscription
>   options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                     http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------