I'm a writer at heart, so this is one of the places I write. It's where I store my ideas, observations, interests. This is my personal reflective journal on a range of topics. I'm told journaling is good for the soul. I hope so. And since there's nothing quite as powerful as an idea, maybe a few of those will manifest themselves in my writing. Thank you for reading and always feel free to post a comment.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Descent of our language and speech into vagueness
"Like, professor, I don't see, like, why my grade is a C minus. Like, man, I'm sort of on the edge here, man, with my scholarship and all. And like my parents, won't be able to send me back to college if I lose my scholarship. So, like, I can't stand a grade of C minus, professor. It's ain't like I'm a slacker..."
Okay, I invented the above student complaint, but I'll bet it's heard a lot these days on college campuses throughout America.
Somewhere along the line, vagueness (ignorance?) of expression has infected the way we communicate.
Here's a thought provoking piece by Clark Whelton on this vagueness affliction:
What Happens in Vagueness Stays in Vagueness
The decline and fall of American English, and stuff
I recently watched a television program in which a woman described a baby squirrel that she had found in her yard. “And he was like, you know, ‘Helloooo, what are you looking at?’ and stuff, and I’m like, you know, ‘Can I, like, pick you up?,’ and he goes, like, ‘Brrrp brrrp brrrp,’ and I’m like, you know, ‘Whoa, that is so wow!’ ” She rambled on, speaking in self-quotations, sound effects, and other vocabulary substitutes, punctuating her sentences with facial tics and lateral eye shifts. All the while, however, she never said anything specific about her encounter with the squirrel.
Uh-oh. It was a classic case of Vagueness, the linguistic virus that infected spoken language in the late twentieth century. Squirrel Woman sounded like a high school junior, but she appeared to be in her mid-forties, old enough to have been an early carrier of the contagion. She might even have been a college intern in the days when Vagueness emerged from the shadows of slang and mounted an all-out assault on American English.
My acquaintance with Vagueness began in the 1980s, that distant decade when Edward I. Koch was mayor of New York and I was writing his speeches. The mayor’s speechwriting staff was small, and I welcomed the chance to hire an intern. Applications arrived from NYU, Columbia, Pace, and the senior colleges of the City University of New York. I interviewed four or five candidates and was happily surprised. The students were articulate and well informed on civic affairs. Their writing samples were excellent. The young woman whom I selected was easy to train and a pleasure to work with. Everything went so well that I hired interns at every opportunity.
Then came 1985.
The first applicant was a young man from NYU. During the interview, he spiked his replies so heavily with “like” that I mentioned his frequent use of the word. He seemed confused by my comment and replied, “Well . . . like . . . yeah.” Now, nobody likes a grammar prig. All’s fair in love and language, and the American lingo is in constant motion. “You should,” for example, has been replaced by “you need to.” “No” has faded into “not really.” “I said” is now “I went.” As for “you’re welcome,” that’s long since become “no problem.” Even nasal passages are affected by fashion. Quack-talking, the rasping tones preferred by many young women today, used to be considered a misfortune.
In 1985, I thought of “like” as a trite survivor of the hippie sixties. By itself, a little slang would not have disqualified the junior from NYU. But I was surprised to hear antique argot from a communications major looking for work in a speechwriting office, where job applicants would normally showcase their language skills. I was even more surprised when the next three candidates also laced their conversation with “like.” Most troubling was a puzzling drop in the quality of their writing samples. It took six tries, but eventually I found a student every bit as good as his predecessors. Then came 1986.
As the interviews proceeded, it grew obvious that “like” had strengthened its grip on intern syntax. And something new had been added: “You know” had replaced “Ummm . . .” as the sentence filler of choice. The candidates seemed to be evading the chore of beginning new thoughts. They spoke in run-on sentences, which they padded by adding “and stuff” at the end. Their writing samples were terrible. It took eight tries to find a promising intern. In the spring of 1987 came the all-interrogative interview. I asked a candidate where she went to school.
“Columbia?” she replied. Or asked.
“And you’re majoring in . . .”
All her answers sounded like questions. Several other students did the same thing, ending declarative sentences with an interrogative rise. Something odd was happening. Was it guerrilla grammar? Had college kids fallen under the spell of some mad guru of verbal chaos? I began taking notes and mailed a letter to William Safire at the New York Times, urging him to do a column on the devolution of coherent speech. Undergraduates, I said, seemed to be shifting the burden of communication from speaker to listener. Ambiguity, evasion, and body language, such as air quotes—using fingers as quotation marks to indicate clichés—were transforming college English into a coded sign language in which speakers worked hard to avoid saying anything definite. I called it Vagueness.
By autumn 1987, the job interviews revealed that “like” was no longer a mere slang usage. It had mutated from hip preposition into the verbal milfoil that still clogs spoken English today. Vagueness was on the march. Double-clutching (“What I said was, I said . . .”) sprang into the arena. Playbacks, in which a speaker re-creates past events by narrating both sides of a conversation (“So I’m like, ‘Want to, like, see a movie?’ And he goes, ‘No way.’ And I go . . .”), made their entrance. I was baffled by what seemed to be a reversion to the idioms of childhood. And yet intern candidates were not hesitant or uncomfortable about speaking elementary school dialects in a college-level job interview. I engaged them in conversation and gradually realized that they saw Vagueness not as slang but as mainstream English. At long last, it dawned on me: Vagueness was not a campus fad or just another generational raid on proper locution. It was a coup. Linguistic rabble had stormed the grammar palace. The principles of effective speech had gone up in flames.
In 1988, my elder daughter graduated from Vassar. During a commencement reception, I asked one of her professors if he’d noticed any change in Vassar students’ language skills. “The biggest difference,” he replied, “is that by the time today’s students arrive on campus, they’ve been juvenilized. You can hear it in the way they talk. There seems to be a reduced capacity for abstract thought.” He went on to say that immature speech patterns used to be drummed out of kids in ninth grade. “Today, whatever way kids communicate seems to be fine with their high school teachers.” Where, I wonder, did Vagueness begin? It must have originated before the 1980s. “Like” has a long and scruffy pedigree: in the 1970s, it was a mainstay of Valspeak, the frequently ridiculed but highly contagious “Valley Girl” dialect of suburban Los Angeles, and even in 1964, the film Paris When It Sizzles lampooned the word’s overuse. All the way back in 1951, Holden Caulfield spoke proto-Vagueness (“I sort of landed on my side . . . my arm sort of hurt”), complete with double-clutching (“Finally, what I decided I’d do, I decided I’d . . .”) and demonstrative adjectives used as indefinite articles (“I felt sort of hungry so I went in this drugstore . . .”).
Is Vagueness simply an unexplainable descent into nonsense? Did Vagueness begin as an antidote to the demands of political correctness in the classroom, a way of sidestepping the danger of speaking forbidden ideas? Does Vagueness offer an undereducated generation a technique for camouflaging a lack of knowledge?
In 1991, I visited the small town of Bridgton, Maine, on the evening that the residents of Cumberland County gathered to welcome their local National Guard unit home from the Gulf War. It was a stirring moment. Escorted by the lights and sirens of two dozen fire engines from surrounding towns, the soldiers marched down Main Street. I was standing near the end of the parade and looked around expectantly for a platform, podium, or microphone. But there were to be no brief remarks of commendation by a mayor or commanding officer. There was to be no pastoral prayer of thanks for the safe return of the troops. Instead, the soldiers quickly dispersed. The fire engines rumbled away. The crowd went home. A few minutes later, Main Street stood empty.
Apparently there was, like, nothing to say.
Clark Whelton was a speechwriter for New York City mayors Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by carolina magic at 10:53 AM No comments:
Posted by carolina magic at 10:31 AM No comments:
Saturday, February 19, 2011
My students' slideshows
Students in two of my courses last semester created multimedia projects. Here are links to three of the better ones. The links are from Christina Wiselthaler, Chelsea Nelson and Anna Douglas. Thanks to all three of these students for letting me post their work on my blog.
Another Christina link
Another Christina link
Posted by carolina magic at 7:36 AM No comments:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Time of My Life
74 million views/listens?
But it is with the final dance in the movie "Dirty Dancing."
Click here to see what 74 million others (almost) have been enjoying, again and again and again...
Baby and Johnny definitely find the groove out there on the dance floor.
Makes a guy want to move about...
Posted by carolina magic at 9:40 PM No comments:
Our student newspaper at Winthrop University
Here's a note I wrote today to the Dean of Students at Winthrop University; I copied it to Anna Douglas, editor of The Johnsonian (student newspaper at Winthrop) and Tiffany Barkley, managing editor. Posting it here because too often people are quick to criticize student journalism. We don't say enough about the positive side...
It's a great country we live in, folks, and reading The Johnsonian today reminds me of that.
We have the freedom to say and write just about anything (long as we make a good-faith effort to be truthful, responsible, fair and ethical).
We can call President Obama a jerk.
We can say that the Carolina Panthers are a disgrace to the Carolinas.
We can say that we didn't learn a danged thing from that course or instructor in the Department of .....
The lowliest student can have her say about the most powerful and richest (and sometimes most feared) people at our university.
It's all about First Amendment freedoms. As you know, people don't have that kind of freedom in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, the People's Republic of China, or Egypt.
In today's Johnsonian, we get a rich diversity, a veritable tapestry if you will, of ideas and information that help signify that students and others at Winthrop are thinking, acting, imagining, dreaming, projecting...
--On page 1, we read an excellent piece (by Claire Byun) about WU HIV and AIDS and an engaging story (by Jonathan McFadden) about something called a "carrot bike rack." On that same page, the tireless David Thackham makes sure the women's basketball team gets their due.
--On page 2, in the police blotter, we have the makings of an intriguing novella about drugs and alcohol
--Monica Kreber's story about locals coming to our news campus center hits the mark. (Nice job on this piece, Monica.)
--On page 5, the never-to-be-muzzled Connor de Bruler rants about how American culture/society seems to be hypocrytical about certain drugs or abusive substances. On that same page, we have one of the most powerful testimonials--from the courageous Ms. Schallhorn--that I've ever read. And in the bottom right corner of that page, we have a potentially controversial photo illustration of a parking space (two spaces?).
--Amanda Phipps educates all of us about HIV/AIDS in her informative story on pg. 6.
--More strong human interest comes through on pg. 7 with Jessica Pickens' excellent piece about Haney Howell. (Pickens learned a lot this summer in Shelby, N.C., at her internship. You go, Jessica!)
--The Winthrop As a Movie feature on pg. 8 always draws 'em in!
--We get the lowdown on WU sports from Hannah Schwartz, Jeff Brodeur,, Devonne Good and David Thackham.
--Sarah MacDonald pounds the pavement and brings in the ad revenue. (We love the money, Sarah!)
--Devang Joshi does his thing with our online edition. (No one does it better than Devang.)
--Plodding along, faithfully, behind the scenes as copyeditors are Brittany Guilfoyle and Brantley McCants.
It's a wonderfully free, widely roaming, diverse, rambunctious thing that's created every week by about 10 or so committed students. Anna Douglas keeps the train on the tracks. The multi-skilled Tiffany Barkley is always around just in case, and she's there to help anyone and everyone.
They don't do it for the money. It's about passion and love and freedom.
We call what they do The Johnsonian.
It's our student newspaper.
It's free and rambunctious and diverse.
Always let it be so.
Posted by carolina magic at 2:57 PM 2 comments:
Consider the following:
1. A story in today's edition of The (Rock Hill) Herald quoted a woman as saying: "It came with the picture. I didn't write nothing."
Later, in that same story, the same person says: "I've never had nothing on my record."
2. In a separate story, also appearing in today's edition of The Herald, a five-term S.C. state senator from Charleston rants: "I didn't mean to hurt nobody--nobody."
Both stories touch a sensitive nerve. They're both about accusations of racism.
But notwithstanding those accusations, what's wrong with the above quoted sentences? What big grammatical rule is violated?
Respond to this blog post by clicking on the "Comment" link below. Any grammarians out there in the blogosphere?
Posted by carolina magic at 1:37 PM No comments:
Jackson, this post's for you.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Thanks for your companionship. You're my very best friend.
I saw a license tag holder on a car at Winthrop yesterday that read: "My Bichon Frise is smarter than your honor student."
You are smart and playful.
You are spoiled.
And you are mine.
Michael Jackson (so named because I got you as an eight-week old pup the day that the King of Pop died), you are the best.
Posted by carolina magic at 11:44 AM 1 comment:
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Best singer and voice in history?
The woman is Celine Dion.
The song is: "My Heart Will Go On" (theme song for the movie "Titanic")
30 million views and listens on You Tube!
Incomparably beautiful and memorable.
Click here and have a listen.
(Move over, Lady Antebellum.)
You're good, but not Celine good.
(If you want to hear/see the movie version of the song, meshed with scenes from "Titanic," click here.)
Posted by carolina magic at 9:57 PM No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)