June 24, 2022
Language change is something I watch closely, both as a copy-editor and as someone broadly interested in how we communicate. I read usage dictionaries for fun; I also read a lot of fiction, and sometimes, as a treat, it throws up explicit commentary on shifts or variation in usage.*
This happened most recently in Consumed (Scribner, 2014) by David Cronenberg (whose thoughts on language invention I covered earlier this year). Nathan, a young photojournalist, is visiting Roiphe, an elderly doctor, who calls Nathan ‘son’ just before the passage below, emphasizing the generational gap. They’re sitting in Roiphe’s kitchen:
“Want some ice water? Maybe coffee? Anything?”
“No, thanks. I’m good.”
“ ‘I’m good’ is funny. Sounds funny to me. We never used to say that. We’d say ‘I’m fine. I’m all right.’ But they do say ‘I’m good’ these days. So what are we looking at here?”
Read the rest of this entry »
12 Comments |
books, dialect, language, linguistics, literature, usage, writing | Tagged: Ammon Shea, Consumed, dasn't, dassn't, David Cronenberg, descriptivism, dialect, fiction, film, I'm good, language, language change, linguistics, literature, modal verbs, sociolinguistics, usage, writing |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
March 25, 2022
On a recent rewatch of the 1979 film The Warriors, I noticed an unusual pronoun spoken by Cleon, played by Dorsey Wright:*

Ourself, once in regular use, is now scarce outside of certain dialects, and many (maybe most) people would question its validity. I’ve seen it followed by a cautious editorial [sic] even in linguistic contexts. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), describing it as the reflexive form of singular we – ‘an honorific pronoun used by monarchs, popes, and the like’ – says it is ‘hardly current’ in present-day English.
But that’s not the whole story, and it belies the word’s surprising versatility and stubborn survival outside of mainstream Englishes, which this post will outline. There are graphs and data further down, but let’s start with usage.
Read the rest of this entry »
13 Comments |
dialect, grammar, language, language history, lexicography, linguistics, usage, words, writing | Tagged: corpus linguistics, descriptivism, dialect, grammar, langauge history, language, language change, lexicography, linguistics, ourself, personal pronouns, politics of language, pronouns, standardized English, usage, words, writing |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
November 24, 2021
Early in the pandemic, I used Zoom and other video-chat platforms like never before. For me it was mostly social, not work-related: a way to see and stay in touch with family and friends when I wasn’t meeting them in person. I soon noticed ways the technology compromised communication.
Take back-channelling. This is when we say things like mm, yeah, and whoa to convey, minimally, that we’re listening, that we agree, that the speaker should continue their conversational turn, and so on. Back-channelling didn’t work well in some apps, because the timing was slightly out of sync or because the sounds briefly dominated the audio, interfering with the speaker instead of supporting them.
Such problems are not new, but they are newly prevalent. How to tackle them depends on the context: the technology, the conversation type, the people involved, and so on. One thing I did was reduce my back-channelling noises; in their place I nodded more often and more visibly and used more facial expressions.
I also made visual reaction cards based on popular emoji:

Read the rest of this entry »
8 Comments |
emoji, humour, language, linguistics, personal, pragmatics, speech | Tagged: back-channelling, conversation, crafts, digital culture, drawing, emoji, gesture, humour, internet, internet culture, language, linguistics, lockdown, pandemic, personal, pragmatics, speech, technology, video chat, Zoom |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
September 7, 2021
It’s a truism that language is integral to identity. So when our relationship with it changes, complications quickly accrue: Do we become someone different in another tongue? Is that all down to culture and context, or is there something inherent in a language that affects who we feel ourselves to be? And what happens when we start our lives speaking one language but then switch to another?
These are among the questions explored, with heart and rigour, in Julie Sedivy’s new book, Memory Speaks: On Losing and Reclaiming Language and Self (available October 2021 from Harvard University Press, who sent me a copy). Sedivy was born in the former Czechoslovakia and spoke only Czech until the age of two. At that point her family left the country, then the continent, and her linguistic environment was transformed.
As a child in Canada, Sedivy was suddenly surrounded by English, heard it animate her new friends and role models, and felt compelled to adopt it. English ‘elbowed its predecessors aside’ and became the family language: ‘What could my parents do? They were outnumbered. Czech began its slow retreat from our daily life’. The consequences were not yet apparent to her; ‘the price of assimilation was invisible’.
Years later, after losing her father, Sedivy came to realize ‘how much I also mourned the silencing of Czech in my life’. Her Czech heritage had come to feel like a ‘vestigial organ’. She had lost access to the ‘stories and songs that articulate the values and norms you’ve absorbed without knowing they live in your cells’. She wrote Memory Speaks as part of an effort to ameliorate and understand that loss, exploring
why a language can wither in a person’s mind once it has taken root, what this decline looks like, and how the waning of language can take on a magnitude that spreads beyond personal pain to collective crisis.
Read the rest of this entry »
10 Comments |
book reviews, books, language, linguistics, literature, science, speech, translation | Tagged: bilingual, book review, books, emigration, Julie Sedivy, language, language acquisition, language death, language learning, language loss, linguistics, literature, memoir, Memory Speaks, multilingualism, psycholinguistics, reading, science, translation |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
August 22, 2021
If I asked you to name or invent a word that means ‘make ambiguous’, what would it be – ambiguify? ambiguate? I’ve felt an occasional need for such a term, to say that a word or piece of syntax ambiguates the meaning in text or speech.
I mean, sure, I can say ‘makes the sense ambiguous’. But there’s no reason not to have a one-word verb. After all, we have its antonym, disambiguate: to make something unambiguous. More on that later.
Take this use of since: Since I’ve been injured, I haven’t gone running. Does it mean ‘because’ or ‘since the time that’? Is its meaning causal or temporal? Without further information, there’s no way to be sure. The choice of conjunction ambiguates the sense.
Read the rest of this entry »
13 Comments |
language, lexicography, linguistics, semantics, words | Tagged: ambiguate, corpus, dictionaries, disambiguate, editing, language, lexicography, linguistics, neologisms, semantics, usage, verbs, Wikipedia, words |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
July 25, 2021
Prescriptivism is an approach to language centred on how it should be used. It contrasts with descriptivism, which is about describing how language is used. Prescriptivism has a bad reputation among linguists and the descriptively minded. I’m in the latter group, but I routinely apply prescriptive rules in my work as a copy-editor. It’s a more nuanced picture than is generally supposed.
I’m selective about the rules I enforce, dismissing the myths that bedevil English usage. I may apply a rule one day and not the next, adjusting to house style or other factors. I also edit texts to make them more inclusive – less ableist and more gender-neutral, for example. That too is prescriptivism, though it’s not usually categorized as such.
When people use language, they’re often influenced or guided by prescriptive advice, instruction, traditions, and norms. That influence, no matter how overt, conscious, or otherwise, must be part of how we describe language and its history. So in some ways descriptivism encompasses prescriptivism, or at least it should.
The complexity and apparent conflicts here derive in large part from the tendency to lump prescriptivism into a single category. I do this myself sometimes, for convenience. But by oversimplifying the nature and aims of prescriptivism, we invite confusion, category errors, and semantic muddles.
So how might we bring this fuzzy picture into better focus? One attractive option is proposed by linguist Anne Curzan in her book Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History (Cambridge University Press, 2014), which seeks to clarify the heterogeneous nature of prescriptivism and to give it its historical due:
Read the rest of this entry »
14 Comments |
books, editing, language, linguistics, usage | Tagged: Anne Curzan, books, descriptivism, editing, Fixing English, inclusive language, language, language books, language change, prescriptivism, reading, standardized English, usage |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
May 13, 2021
A selection of language-themed links for your listening, viewing, and (mostly) reading pleasure.
How to say chorizo.
History of the asterisk.
Emoji time 🕙 is meaningless.
Bookselling in the End Times.
Neopronouns: a beginner’s guide.
New Covid-inspired German words.
The linguistic construction of terrorists.
Boyo-wulf: Beowulf translated into Cork slang.
Read the rest of this entry »
2 Comments |
books, editing, language, language history, linguistics, link love, words | Tagged: books, dictionaries, etymology, grammar, language, language history, linguistics, links, usage, words |
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey