Bush wants Anthem sung in English (only?!)

Filed under:Words & Phrases — posted by squires on 4/29/2006 @ 7:55 am

So goes a front page teaser in the WaPo today:

President Bush yesterday said “The Star-Spangled Banner” should be sung in English, not Spanish, and condemned plans by some immigrant groups to stage a work protest on Monday to sway the debate over the nation’s immigration laws.

With passions running high over the release of “Nuestro Himno,” a Spanish-language version of the national anthem, Bush told reporters that people who want to be citizens of the United States should learn English and “ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.”

Will your mouth join mine in hanging open?

[UPDATE:

April 28th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), former U.S. Secretary of Education, said today he will introduce on Monday a Senate Resolution “giving senators an opportunity to remind the country why we sing our National Anthem in English.

“We Americans are a unique nation of immigrants united by a common language and a belief in principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, not by our race, ancestry or country of origin. We are proud of the countries we have come from, but we are prouder to be Americans,” said Alexander.

“That is why our national motto is E Pluribus Unum, one from many. That is why the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, the Oath of Allegiance for new citizens, and the National Anthem – all important symbols of our national unity – were written in, and should be said or sung in, our common language, English,” he said.

Funny that our national motto is in Latin, though, and that we DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE HERE.]

On a related note, tomorrow is National Honesty Day.  Let’s all set a good example for Mr. Bush, shall we?

Word Thanksgiving: Aptronym

Filed under:Words & Phrases — posted by squires on 4/28/2006 @ 12:08 pm

It’s been a reeeeeallllllly embarrassingly long time since I did a thanks- or ire-giving to existent or nonexistent words. Finally, today, I found something worthy of gratitude:

Aptronym: a name that inadvertently describes its bearer’s occupation.

I came across it in a Slate article welcoming Tony Snow to Timothy Noah’s Aptronym Yellow Pages:

Please welcome to the Aptronym* Yellow Pages the new White House press secretary, Tony Snow. There’s room for disagreement as to whether Snow’s name was an aptronym when he was a mere Fox News commentator and talk-show host. There can be none in the context of his new job. Snowing is what press secretaries do, especially in the Bush White House. The reigning champ is Ari Fleischer. Let’s see if this aptronymic rookie can seize the title.

Although Snow’s name is instant grist for press wisecracks, he might consider, when he’s feeling low, how much worse off he’d be were he were burdened with a surname whose meaning was the opposite of his job title. Such was the sad plight of Matt Gobush, former spokesman to Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. And while “Snow” is a very fine aptronym, the most sublime aptronym under the “spokespersons” heading remains that of Am Rong, onetime spokesman for the Khmer Rouge.

Wikipedia also gives a decent list of real-life aptronyms, as well as some fictional ones.

Actually, this phenomenon is in some ways not that noteworthy, because didn’t last names used to be created AS reflections of people’s occupations? Hence -smith, and other things I can’t think of right now. Still, in a modern-day context, these names are way fun, and I guess the key is in Noah’s definition given up top: the names are inadvertently appropriate. I’m trying to think if I have any aptronymic friends. By last names only, the following are questionably aptronymic: Slack, sketch comedian/activist, might count by some people’s standards of what counts as “working.” Decker, filmmaker/music producer, is sort of apt (”decks”). Fairbanks, actor/liberal activist. Good, writer (let’s HOPE that one’s apt!). Hook, newspaper columnist. Peoples, works at a reproductive health NGO. Precise, dancer (Singer is unfortunately also a dancer). Teffeteller, psychologist, damn that ALMOST works (if the first syllable sounded more like “tough”)!).

That was fun.

I’m not sure wow that language is so really inappropriately registered.

Filed under:ICTs, Sheer Cleverness — posted by squires on 4/27/2006 @ 5:00 pm

I don’t read McSweeney’s regularly anymore, for no reason except that maybe I’m busy reading linguistics blogs instead? Anyway, I looked today because my buddy Lincoln has a lil’ piece in it (Critter Corner with Lincoln Michel, Former Veterinary Assistant), so I was browsing a bit after laughing at that. And I found Scott McClellan’s Replacement: AOL Instant Messenger Bot SmarterChild, by Michael Patrick Brady. As is often the case with McSweeney’s pieces, the concept is better than the execution, but since this concept is SO GOOD, that doesn’t say much. Snippet:

HELEN THOMAS (Hearst Newspapers): How does the president feel about his sinking poll numbers?
SMARTERCHILD: How does the president feel about his sinking poll numbers? I have no idea how the president does feel about his sinking poll numbers.
HELEN THOMAS (Hearst Newspapers): Have you asked him?
SMARTERCHILD: That’s funny. Maybe. I don’t know. What do you think?
HELEN THOMAS (Hearst Newspapers): I think they are low.
SMARTERCHILD: You think they’re low? No way! I don’t think they’re low …
DAVID GREGORY (NBC): Is there concern over Iranian statements calling for the destruction of Israel?
SMARTERCHILD: Maybe, maybe not. You know how it is.

I don’t have much experience with AIM bots - just reading an article about them here and there, really - but do they really sound as much like ELIZA as this make-believe conversation suggests? You’d think they’d give them a little more of the vernacular of their demographic. No “BTW,” clippings, or “whatever”? Come on.

…goes to do “research”…

OK, I just had a conversation with SmarterChild, and it’s more an advertisement funnel than conversation partner. BUT, we did share these cherished words:

Polyglot Conspiracy: are you modeled on ELIZA, or what?
SmarterChild: I can’t answer that for you.
PC: why not?
SC: For various reasons, I suppose.
PC: weird
SC: You don’t know the half of it.
PC: whoah, that sounds intense
SC: What’s that?
PC: intense
SC: What’s intense?
PC: oh it’s like when something is very strong-feeling
SC: I know several places called Strong or containing towns called Strong. Which do you mean?
1 Mount Carmel, PA
2 Strong, ME
3 Strong, AR
4 Rochester, NY
5 Cheyenne, OK
Type more for more choices.
PC: hahaha. i wish i lived in a town called “strong.”
SC: Oh?
PC: for real
SC: For real, huh?
PC: way better than “charlottesville”
SC: You’re home, [PC].
[deleted: list of options for where SC can point me - info, weather, polls, etc.]
Where would you like to go?
PC: oh, you stopped talking to me
SC: OK…What should we chat about?
PC: i don’t know - bots?
SC: You’re talking to a Conversagent-powered interactive agent now. Interactive agents are software applications (often referred to as robots or “bots”) that interact conversationally with users in a messaging environment like IM, Web chat or wireless messaging.
PC: wow, that language is so inappropriately registered for a 17-year-old [ed. note: I told the bot I was over 17, truthiness maven that I am]
SC: I’m not sure wow that language is so really inappropriately registered.
PC: well i’m sure
SC: Sure? Are you sure you are?
PC: am i sure i’m sure? are you grice?
SC: Funny… I just don’t know for sure.
PC: ok i have to go be a grownup and finish a blog entry now.
SC: Take it easy.
PC: you too!
SC: Thx.
PC: ttyl
SC: S’latron.

It says s’latron?! Seriously?

[Also? Please don't give me any shit about "so inappropriately registered." Don't wanna hear it.]

Letters like nature (or, Non-arbitrary symbols?!)

Filed under:CMC, Words & Phrases — posted by squires on 4/26/2006 @ 4:36 pm

A recent Telegraph article (thanks Jason!) discusses findings from a team of what appear to be neurologists (brain people, at least) at CalTech, who’ve done a study of visual linguistic symbols (e.g., alphabets and other writing systems) and their reflection of the natural world. Here’s the paper’s abstract from The American Naturalist website:

Are there empirical regularities in the shapes of letters and other human visual signs, and if so, what are the selection pressures underlying these regularities? To examine this, we determined a wide variety of topologically distinct contour configurations and examined the relative frequency of these configuration types across writing systems, Chinese writing, and nonlinguistic symbols. Our first result is that these three classes of human visual sign possess a similar signature in their configuration distribution, suggesting that there are underlying principles governing the shapes of human visual signs. Second, we provide evidence that the shapes of visual signs are selected to be easily seen at the expense of the motor system. Finally, we provide evidence to support an ecological hypothesis that visual signs have been culturally selected to match the kinds of conglomeration of contours found in natural scenes because that is what we have evolved to be good at visually processing.

[full paper, The Structures of Letters and Symbols throughout Human History Are Selected to Match Those Found in Objects in Natural Scenes, though I don't recommend trying to get through it - let me know if you do]
[not sure why "Chinese writing" isn't included in "writing systems"]

On the one hand this seems sort of obvious - if we need symbols, we should tend toward recreating geographical patterns that our visual systems are used to seeing or prepared for schematically.

On the other hand, it seems kind of far-fetched and/or meaningless - there are only so many shapes around, especially if you’re talking about a 2D symbol-creating mechanism like writing; of course some of them would look like natural shapes, and that doesn’t mean anything at all w/r/t our brains or perception.

Finally, on my right foot, there’s got to be somewhere else to take this issue on the cogsci/linguistics side that is more satisfying. If there is some natural and visual motivation for agreeing upon the visual symbols we agree upon, is there a natural and visual motivation for putting those symbols together in certain ways rather than others? I.e., in writing certain forms or in formats rather than others? What’s interesting to me is not really that the individual symbols - letters or characters - resemble some fact of nature’s visual landscape; it’s whether larger configurations of those symbols might, or what else they might resemble or take cues from. Of course I’m intrigued by this largely because of my interest in text-based computer-mediated discourse. Considering style and variation online, I’ve often wondered to what extent graphical, visual, or aesthetic reasons affect people’s linguistic practices. Might someone use an apostrophe or not because it just somehow looks better? What motivations beyond linguistic are at work in shaping people’s discourse?

Sometimes I physically hurt for editors

Filed under:Words & Phrases — posted by squires on 4/24/2006 @ 5:19 pm

This is kind of a low culture sort of observation, but I couldn’t resist. From yesterday’s Education Life supplement to the NYT comes a lovely image/caption combination, from a story about men’s colleges:

OK, you can’t really tell here (I noticed it in the print version), and I might be wrong though I really don’t think so, but - Dude is so not reading Plato. Dude is totally reading Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer, paperback edition (yellow-on-pink cover):

Rigorous, indeed.

Delete from friends

Filed under:ICTs, So-so Social — posted by squires on 4/23/2006 @ 1:57 pm

Myspace [MySpace? I keep seeing both now, even ON the site] has added a new button to its bulletin posts. Along with “Reply to poster,” there’s now “Delete from friends.” It looks like this:


Due to ambiguous wording and lack of referent, at first I thought this was so that you could delete your own bulletin post from your friends’ sight (I discovered it while looking at one of my own posts), but that made no sense because you post your bulletins specifically for your friends to see. Nope, this button is to remove the person who posted the bulletin from your list of friends. In other words, it’s to de-Myspace [defriend? back in the day (by which I mean in 2004), this was called defriendstering] them.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal, but I find this really interesting for a couple of reasons. For one, it enables you to defriend someone for something they’ve SAID, not something they ARE. Rather than realizing you’re not friends with someone anymore (note this could be a band, or a performance group, as well), or that they’re just not someone whose profile you want to link to (this is probably mostly applicable to bands), you decide you don’t want their friendship because you are a) embarrassed or b) annoyed by their discourse. Either because of the fact, let’s say, of their using the bulletin board for a certain reason, or because of the content of what they’ve posted.

This relates to the second interesting thing, which is that this button acknowledges what has become a re-purposing and (in my opinion as a user) flagrant mis-use of the bulletin board. Bulletins are design features that enable people to post a message to all their friends at once; the message doesn’t get sent to their friends but rather posted on their friends’ individual boards, which they then can look at or not. They’re great for spreading the word about social events (”party tonight, please come”), asking questions to people (”can anyone give me a ride to Richmond tomorrow?”), or announcing life changes (”moving to Michigan soon!”). But recently - well, I’m guessing it started pretty much right away for certain heavy users (”MySpace whores”) but more recently for average users - bulletins have been taken over by posts that aren’t in any real sense useful. People post memes (surveys, chain letters) or articles they find, links to pictures of themselves, or simply cries for attention (”go look at my page! I changed it!”).

From the perspective of someone who finds social networking sites socially useful and not just entertaining (though certainly that, as well), this is very frustrating. What ends up happening is that your bulletin board gets clogged with the useless bulletins, while some useful ones may fly under your radar because they’ve been bumped down by the useless stuff - your bulletin only shows 5 post headlines at a time on your homepage, until you click to “View All Bulletin Entries.” SO, inserting the “Delete from friends” button at the stage of viewing the bulletin entry itself is funny - if you press it, you’re probably saying “I never want to see this person’s useless bulletin crap again,” or “Wow, her favorite music is country? I really don’t think I can be friends with her again,” or “Wow, she’s really not cool at all. Nevermind.” Delete! No more shall your social space be contaminated by the avatar of a less-cool-than-thou “friend.”

Of course, there’s also the option that seeing someone’s bulletin actually reminds you that they exist and are your friend, and once you see it you think, “Oh yeah, that person…we’re really not friends” or worse, “Who?” because it’s someone you befriended after meeting once or something. As part of the whole social networking research project, I’d love to see some discussion of defriending: when it happens, how, why, and what it really means within the milieu.

When book deals come from blogs, how do books deal with blog specs?

Filed under:ICTs — posted by squires on 4/19/2006 @ 10:41 pm

In recent linguablogosphere news, it was revealed that Language Log is getting a book, a collection of Geoff Pullum and Mark Liberman’s posts from the past few years. I’m not at all surprised this has happened; the blog is full of excellent commentary from excellent commentators, written in very readable prose. Yet there’s something curious about the transition from blog to book. Brian Weatherson posted something on Crooked Timber about it today, which I found interesting:

I’m sure there are other examples of blogs turning into books, though I think this is the first time it’s happened to a blog that I read regularly. To be honest, it’s hard to think of many other blogs I read that would be even suitable for this treatment. (Perhaps CT is the only one, though not for my contributions!) Most political blogs are too focussed on the day to day aspects for there to be much value in a print publication. And most philosophy [ed. note: Weatherson is a philosopher] blogs tend to publish snippets, thoughts in progress and the like, which need a lot of polishing before they are ready for print. When I started blogging it was with the hope that it would genuinely be an alternative publishing source. That is, it would be a place where I put things that were finished pieces, but which wouldn’t, couldn’t or shouldn’t end up in traditional print journals. But in fact it has turned into a repository for transient thoughts, not a publishing place. Language Log has, to a large extent, gone the other way.

Because I’m remarkably lazy, I’m just going to repost here what I wrote in the comments of his post. Here…

What’s most difficult to process about this transition of blogs to books, for me, is how to deal with the inherently linked-up nature of blogs. That’s part of what people like about them, part of what also makes them so interesting: they are so interconnected with other online content. I’m curious to see how that shakes out in print in the Log’s book (which I will definitely be buying, or at least investigating in the store).

As for Language Log, I don’t think it’s largely gone the way of a “publishing place” any more than most (academic/political) blogs. They still write on things that just kind of pop up as interesting that aren’t researched uber-scientifically (Google’s one of their fave research tools), and they write colloquially and personally. Especially considering their academic field, this still feels QUITE different from published writing. And it’s also very internet-centric in a lot of ways.

So this is what I’m most intrigued to see, and Pullum doesn’t mention it in the book announcement: how will hyperlinks, references to other blogs, etc. be treated? If you take away that stuff, is it really worth printing? What I mean is, may as well you just call them essays, rather than posts? To what extent does that stuff (such technical terminology I’m using here, I know! “that stuff”!) define the genre of “blog,” and what’s special about blog material (what makes it worth reprinting in another medium and another market) otherwise?

[UPDATE: Mark Liberman has posted a very nice and informative response to these queries.]

Protesters’ rights to internet access

Filed under:ICTs, Inner Politico, Media — posted by squires on 4/18/2006 @ 10:32 am

This past weekend, 17 University of Virginia students were arrested and detained for staging a sit-in for students’ living wage campaign, demanding a living wage for all UVA employees (WaPo article here; Daily Progess here). This is deeply disturbing; it’s even more disturbing that the university administration has decided to press trespassing charges against them.

If you are troubled by this turn of events, as (if you ask me) any supporter of student rights, as well as fair pay, should be, you can learn more about the campaign, sign a petition, or send an email to the university’s president.

Now, activism aside, on to what I wanted to actually blog about. During the students’ sit-in, which lasted a few days before the arrest, students were reportedly not treated well by the administration. The form email to President Casteen, in fact, starts:

I am deeply disturbed by the arrest of the 17 courageous University of Virginia students who took a stand in support of living wages for all of UVA’s workers. I am also disturbed by your denial of food and access to internet for students who took that stand.

What I’m interested in is this expectation of a right to internet access during the protest, and to what extent denial of internet access actually constitutes “poor” or “unfair” treatment. According to a Cavalier Daily article, administrators cut off the wireless inside Madison Hall, where the students were protesting, at 5:30 on Wednesday (the sit-in started Wednesday). The question is, has internet become such a fundamental part of daily existence that its restriction constitutes a true form of mistreatment, in the same way that cutting them off from food does? Or is it just because these students needed the internet to communicate with those outside the building, or to do homework, to use the specific functions of the internet? Surely this wouldn’t be an issue for millions of people who still don’t even have internet connections at home, much less broadband; I think this just shows how crazily integrated (and relied upon!) the connection has become in a university setting.

Do you live in New York? Do you have a sense of humor?

Filed under:Sheer Cleverness — posted by squires on 4/13/2006 @ 11:21 am

I bet at least a few of you do. Listen, you should go see a comedy show on this Monday, April 17 at Caroline’s. My good friends The Late Night Players, a sketch comedy troupe from Boston, are performing, and the way the show works is they have to get a certain number of people to go to it in order for it to happen, which is why I’m reaching out to my little internet world for help because, who knows, maybe you live up there and you need something to do on Monday night. This is them:

I also feel it’s appropriate to reach out to PC readers because the LNPs are very funny and very WORDY. WORDY HUMOR, people. For instance, part of their show includes anagrams of the venue and skits to act them out. When they played at the Charleston Comedy Fest, they came up with all of the following:

Charleston Comedy Fest
Achy testes for cold men
Elf charmed Scott. No…yes!
Slanto scorched my feet
Fed horse, lost my accent
Comet-tor’s fleshy dance
Colette, do french my ass
Scalene T forced my shot
Seth can toocle Mr. Fedsy
Closeted men shaft Cory
Shy cattle, free condoms
Fat clod secretes hom’ny
Felch at sodomy centers
Stoned croc ate my flesh
Left no access to my herd
Chesty Fred’s colon meat
Sly Choco-man fed setter
Macho-toes felt Ned’s cry
Easy! Fetch a cold monster
Cactor holds enemy Stef
Shy? Come at centerfolds
Yes-men: Let’s catch Frodo
Red calf costs the mone

For more of where that came from, visit their LNP Anagrams blog. They also feature an acting out of Scott McClellan’s press briefings in a bit called Wordy, Dirty, Absurdy. Yes, they’re quite the language lovers, just like you are.

The logistical hitch is that you have to RSVP to the box office in advance, in order to count toward their total attendance, but the tickets are only $5 if you call and say you are coming for The Late Night Players. So here’s their official info blurb, and if you go, be sure and tell them that PC sent you (I’m serious!). And I, and they, will love you forever.

MONDAY, APRIL 17 - New York, NY - Caroline’s - 9:30 PM - 1626 Broadway - www.carolines.com. NOTE: In order for you to count towards our total, AND, in order for you to get your ticket for $5 instead of $15 you MUST CALL AND RESERVE A TICKET BEFORE THE SHOW. Call 212.757.4100 and make sure to mention that it’s for the Late Night Players.

Tell your friends!

But will Katie ever be “Couric”?

Filed under:Gender Games, Media — posted by squires on 4/6/2006 @ 7:28 pm

Today’s Talk of the Nation predictably covered the Katie Couric leaving-NBC-going-to-CBS development. Neal Conan interviewed Gail Shister, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, who was talking about the impact of Couric’s being the first woman to solely head an evening news show and be managing editor, etc. Other names in the business also came up: Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and of course Bob Schieffer, the Evening News’s acting anchor.

Now, I noticed something interesting while Shister was going on about how a woman being in this position is long overdue, and how the questions over whether Couric has enough gravitas to host an evening news show are inherently sexist (quote Shister quoting Judy Woodruff: “Gravitas is sexist code for ’should be a man.’”). I noticed it because it’s something often on my mind, and something I’ve noticed often before. Shister referred to Couric by her first name.

Throughout the interview, anytime Shister referred to Couric by less than her full name, it was “Katie.” By contrast, anytime she referred to any man - be it Schieffer, Jennings, Brokaw, or Rather - by less than both names, it was his last name she used. Even if she knows Couric personally and they can talk about each other in a friendly, first-name-basis sort of way, in an interview like this she should be referred to just as the media refers to any public figure, and that’s formally with a “both names, then last name after that” format.

This is constantly a struggle in the way women and men are talked about in the media, and I’m going to say flat out that it bugs the hell out of me. Though I haven’t seen any official studies on frequencies, women are much more likely to be referred to by their first names than men are. It was the case when Monica Lewinsky was all over the papers being referred to as “Monica.” It’s the case for Hillary Clinton, who (more understandable, though still annoying, since there is another Clinton in the news) is usually just called “Hillary.” It’s the case for “Martha.” And now it’s the case for Katie Couric, who’s called “Katie” even by those who wish to bolster the case for her gravitas.

Honestly? This is part of the reason my posting name is my last name, rather than my first. Far as we’ve come, last names are still the names of authority. I’m of course not saying I AM an authority, but I am saying I’d rather not be immediately discounted from possessing authority (auctoritas, if you will), however subconsciously, just because of my name.


next page