"To be fair", "Let's be honest", etc.

[rhubroma]

Setting aside the various points of the rest of your post, this raises the question of the culture being formed in place of the one you describe. Speech, wrting, thought, are not merely business driven, instrumentalized, etc. but do retain cultural attachments that will shape the contours of societies and cultures to come.

Also, students at the higher end schools are more resistant to this for now, but--to dismantle the less obvious point of brahdeals riff--there are students at the lower end schools who, by virtue of technological access and cultural leveling, are able to write perfectly well, but without any real stakes. More so, there are those who perceive certain cultural stakes, but simply haven't been trained to write. It cuts in several directions.

My thinking is that because current thought has become so engrained in the logic of business and the economy, to the exclusion of other important ones (perhaps even more than we are even aware) and that because it seems that to be a society without "class," we have to live under the illusion that our individual buying power provides us with a dignity status we in fact have only in terms of material gain; that, quite naturally, all the other markers of status have flown right out the door.

All these, imaterial, forms of status and "wealth" (or at least personal enrichment), such as the ability to be good critical and enlightened thinkers, were the cornerstones of what a certain view on democracy and mass education were supposed to promote and spread socially. Instead all has been replaced by this culture's zealous materialism. "Progress" has been exchanged for economic development, "wealth" is quantified exclusively in monetary terms and buying power, which have produced some deleterious effects in our society.

Of course it may be that, through information technology more people are having direct access to sources of information to form critical views than ever before. I have just noticed that despite these things, the level of critical thinking and writing skill is not at the collective level one would have expected because of their existance.

My suspicion is that too much of what is being offered, is done so purely in the commercial and economic interests, which have little regard, if any consideration, for what the models actually represent, but only what sells the most. And often what sells the most, as we can attest to in today's world, is also the most third-rate.

In the final analysis, this is also what seems to have made the greatest impact.

 

[rhubroma]

Me n BroDeal see eye to eye on nut-in... But that was straight up post 'o the year, yo.

You guys are a friggin riot. Yo!

 

[nvpacchi]

To be fair, does anyone really use cursive though? I write on paper quite a bit but totally abandoned cursive after the age of 10. Non-cursive is just easier and pretty much just as fast plus other people can actually read it.

Back in high school, I decided to write my AP American History test essays in cursive, even though I never use it unless I'm doodling.

I'm pretty sure my dreadful cursive penmenship dropped me a full point on the test and prevented me from earning some early University credit

 

[aphronesis]

My thinking is that because current thought has become so engrained in the logic of business and the economy, to the exclusion of other important ones (perhaps even more than we are even aware) and that because it seems that to be a society without "class," we have to live under the illusion that our individual buying power provides us with a dignity status we in fact have only in terms of material gain; that, quite naturally, all the other markers of status have flown right out the door.

All these, imaterial, forms of status and "wealth" (or at least personal enrichment), such as the ability to be good critical and enlightened thinkers, were the cornerstones of what a certain view on democracy and mass education were supposed to promote and spread socially. Instead all has been replaced by this culture's zealous materialism. "Progress" has been exchanged for economic development, "wealth" is quantified exclusively in monetary terms and buying power, which have produced some deleterious effects in our society.

Of course it may be that, through information technology more people are having direct access to sources of information to form critical views than ever before. I have just noticed that despite these things, the level of critical thinking and writing skill is not at the collective level one would have expected because of their existance.

My suspicion is that too much of what is being offered, is done so purely in the commercial and economic interests, which have little regard, if any consideration, for what the models actually represent, but only what sells the most. And often what sells the most, as we can attest to in today's world, is also the most third-rate.

In the final analysis, this is also what seems to have made the greatest impact.

Not to highjack this thread too much, but I think that that's (the lack of collectivity) in part because language has become increasingly specialized. Not just in technical terms, but also in regard to the enlightenment legacies you reference: being able to write or speak critically is a discretionary aspect of one's relative socio-economic standing.

Going back to the topic of the thread: to be honest, "like," allora, etc. What seems to emerge from the discussion then are the ways in which language, weasel words, and rhetorical formulations themselves are differently invested--or cathected--in society, by the cultural industry (what is the real referent for "like": a valley, a region, a film, a self-identity, an exclusive community, the 80s? as opposed to allora?), and what sort of civic positioning do these uses imply? In ways never imagined when language was seen to transcend and motivate mundane reality. This would be the basic definition of semiocapital for the present. And the OP's insight seems to be the ways in which such phrasing allows for entry into or presumption of a public sphere that doesn't exist.

 

[BroDeal]

I suspect his motivation was to see how far he could go with racist comments and sexual innuendo before the mods step in.

Need I say, the line has been reached?

There was nothing racist about that. Amazing how anything that touches "urban" is seen as racist by uptight whities who are so uncomfortable that something they say might be misinterpreted that they brand everything that touches certain subjects as racist without regard to its intention or meaning.

The point is that if all we spoke or wrote was staid, perfect English then we would lose what makes language colorful and interesting. Also the language would stop evolving. After slogging through classic literature from the 1800s, I am glad that we now have a more colloquial form of speech and writing.

I still think you should add inability to use the words "lose" and "loose" correctly as a bannable offense to the forum rules.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I still think you should add inability to use the words "lose" and "loose" correctly as a bannable offense to the forum rules.

That drives me nuts too, but after 21 years in Germany, I have become convinced that the schools teach "loose" and not "lose". I think I have met very few non-native-english-speaking Europeans who use that correctly.

Susan

 

[ElChingon]

Listen, since when is umm... a mass produced drink URBAN!!!!!

 

[rhubroma]

Not to highjack this thread too much, but I think that that's (the lack of collectivity) is in part because language has become increasingly specialized. Not just in technical terms, but also in regard to the enlightenment legacies you reference: being able to write or speak critically is a discretionary aspect of one's relative socio-economic standing.

Going back to the topic of the thread: to be honest, "like," allora, etc. What seems to emerge from the discussion then are the ways in which language, weasel words, and rhetorical formulations themselves are differently invested--or cathected--in society, by the cultural industry (what is the real referent for "like" as opposed to allora), and what sort of civic positioning do these uses imply? In ways never imagined when language was seen to transcend and motivate mundane reality. This would be the basic definition of semiocapital for the present. And the OP's insight seems to be the ways in which such phrasing allows for entry into or presumption of a public sphere that doesn't exist.

In fact there isn't much of the transcendental left to motivate mundane society today, which was the point I was trying to make and for the reasons I laid down.

The referent for "like" as opposed to allora, is that one has come out of rhetorical culture, the primary objective of which was aesthetic in terms of the ebb and flow of one's discourse, the other simply has not. The Italian word, has in fact several functions, but is chiefly used to connect two interrelated, but otherwise discontinuous, ideas in one's argument, efficiently and with linguistic grace. By contrast as a result of its continuous and obsessive application (what I have called a linguistic "tick"), "like", as it is presently used colloquially in English, has lost all purchase, but gets regurgitated simply in the absence of having anything substantive to say all. Pure compulsory fill.

Now I don’t really know if such comportment should be read within the context of the underlying aims of communication in our world, connected to ideas associated with market triumphalism. The fact remains that ours is one that stalwartly refuses to fetishize eloquence, though not because representative of an “elevated,” pretentious language serving as instrument of social control, but rather given that the demands of materialistic civilization have rendered it inimical to the consumer and commercial interests driving it. This question leads us to an excursus dealing with previously unexplored connections between democracy, material culture and popular linguistic architecture, which can elucidate the problems addressed so far.

But, honestly, not today for me.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

To be fair, does anyone really use cursive though? I write on paper quite a bit but totally abandoned cursive after the age of 10. Non-cursive is just easier and pretty much just as fast plus other people can actually read it.

I always use cursive. I didn't use to, but I've found it's quicker in set situations, and to be honest from an aesthetic point of view it looks nicer to me as well. Certainly in Cyrillic cursive is much easier, and of course Arabic has no other way.

Disagree. The use of bad language isn't a sign of anything. Failure to adapt to a high register communication situation *is* a sign of a lack of vocabulary, or of mastery over the language in general, but using bad language in an appropriate informal setting or to express adequate emphasis is perfectly fine.

Agreed; slangs, jargons and mixed languages all have their places and have given languages much of their richness. English is one of the most fusion-rich languages in the world, with a huge vocabulary thanks to Germanic wordbase + borrowings from Latin, reborrowings of the same root from French, plus your various things from elsewhere. In the 19th Century Hebraist scholars tried to "Germanise" Yiddish, seeing it as a corruption of the "correct" German, but by trying to make it into German achieved nothing but robbing it of much of its poetic beauty; the stylistic choices of code-switching with the Hebrew, Germanic, Loez and Slavic elements of the language opened up a whole world of opportunities for wordplay, allusion and humour. The Russians have 'mat', an entire word system of highly offensive vocabulary for use in particular milieus, and then there are code-switching forms even for comic effect (such as the archaic Russianisms adopted by Ukrainians as a mocking of their Russian colonial past).

"Like" is just a discourse particle. Standard German is full of them. They're not simple, they're every bit as sophisticated as any other part of speech.

Italian has allora, dunque, quindi, comunque...

But do the young Germans when pressed on complex matters of social relevance speak like this: "It's like, well, you know....like....I mean, like.....on the other hand, its also like.....like....like. It's like that, you see."

Well, discourse or modal particles in German are a major part of speech. They can strengthen or weaken, they can tighten or loosen, they have all manner of effects. For example, if someone shouts "Komm!" at me, it's an order, if they shout "Komm mal!" then it's a more friendly "come here" type of expression, despite that having nothing to do with the literal definition of "mal".

Depending on context, I could say if I wanted to say "it's something weird", "Es ist etwas komisch", "Es ist ja etwas komisch", "Es ist doch etwas komisch", "Es ist aber etwas komisch", "Es ist aber doch etwas komisch", and so forth and so on. You can string together several of these modal particles, and nobody bats an eyelid. When you write it down it seems strange (and plays havoc with automated translation software) but it's just a part of everyday conversation.

 

[aphronesis]

I always use cursive. I didn't use to, but I've found it's quicker in set situations, and to be honest from an aesthetic point of view it looks nicer to me as well. Certainly in Cyrillic cursive is much easier, and of course Arabic has no other way.

Agreed; slangs, jargons and mixed languages all have their places and have given languages much of their richness. English is one of the most fusion-rich languages in the world, with a huge vocabulary thanks to Germanic wordbase + borrowings from Latin, reborrowings of the same root from French, plus your various things from elsewhere. In the 19th Century Hebraist scholars tried to "Germanise" Yiddish, seeing it as a corruption of the "correct" German, but by trying to make it into German achieved nothing but robbing it of much of its poetic beauty; the stylistic choices of code-switching with the Hebrew, Germanic, Loez and Slavic elements of the language opened up a whole world of opportunities for wordplay, allusion and humour. The Russians have 'mat', an entire word system of highly offensive vocabulary for use in particular milieus, and then there are code-switching forms even for comic effect (such as the archaic Russianisms adopted by Ukrainians as a mocking of their Russian colonial past).




Well, discourse or modal particles in German are a major part of speech. They can strengthen or weaken, they can tighten or loosen, they have all manner of effects. For example, if someone shouts "Komm!" at me, it's an order, if they shout "Komm mal!" then it's a more friendly "come here" type of expression, despite that having nothing to do with the literal definition of "mal".

Depending on context, I could say if I wanted to say "it's something weird", "Es ist etwas komisch", "Es ist ja etwas komisch", "Es ist doch etwas komisch", "Es ist aber etwas komisch", "Es ist aber doch etwas komisch", and so forth and so on. You can string together several of these modal particles, and nobody bats an eyelid. When you write it down it seems strange (and plays havoc with automated translation software) but it's just a part of everyday conversation.

Right, but the separate question here is at what point do these usages remain means of appropriation, subversion, sub-cultural expression and general minoring of a dominant language, and at which point do they become reappropriated and mobilized in the service of a particular socio-economic agenda--even to the point that they not only act against the precepts of a given culture, but provide access to a separate implied culture. One that is basically non-existent? Or, from a linguistic standpoint is this seen strictly as a dynamic of transformation?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

As long as these usages remain part of internet vernacular, then they are only fulfilling the same functions as they ever did, just that the information age has required they be used in written form rather than in the spoken form as they historically have been.

The overwhelming majority of people can self-police when it comes to where vernacular is appropriate. You will notice that for the most part vernaculars, jargons and so forth are mostly absent from posts in this discussion, even though they are ostensibly the subject of debate, except for posters such as BroDeal who are deliberately using them ironically to make a point.

For the time being, most internet jargon has not permeated discourse outside of its home and those areas traditionally subject to slang. After all, slang is the area of language with the most rapid turnover; elevated discourse is the most resistant to change. While the people at newspapers or television companies may be aware of what "epic fail" and other Internetisms mean, for the time being it is clear that they steer clear of their use in any professional medium, and would not be taken seriously if they did in any sense other than to discuss their effect on the language (such as we are doing now). Much of this is simply transient and will be replaced by a new hip vocabulary in a couple of years' time.

Phrases like "to be fair", "to be honest" etc come up in speech more often than in writing. The internet has simply redressed that balance somewhat. But it doesn't need to be the internet - the expression "for sure" has become far more common due to its overuse in sports reportage, for example.

 

[rhubroma]

Depending on context, I could say if I wanted to say "it's something weird", "Es ist etwas komisch", "Es ist ja etwas komisch", "Es ist doch etwas komisch", "Es ist aber etwas komisch", "Es ist aber doch etwas komisch", and so forth and so on. You can string together several of these modal particles, and nobody bats an eyelid. When you write it down it seems strange (and plays havoc with automated translation software) but it's just a part of everyday conversation.

What I guess I was trying to say was that today there seems to be a general degeneration of communication skills and language proficiency, despite living in an era of mass education and literacy, which has perhaps resulted from more powerful forces governing the zeitgeist than those connected with the non-material aspects of our existence under discussion.

Are we to infer then from this apparent contradiction in circumstances, that democracy has failed as a social project? Or is it perhaps only that the language itself simply conforms, through a process of cultrual adaptation, to the demands being placed upon it? If so, what do these things tell us about the general level of performance expectation being asked of mass society in these times?

 

[pedaling squares]

I suspect his motivation was to see how far he could go with racist comments and sexual innuendo before the mods step in.

Need I say, the line has been reached?

Susan

No, Susan. The line has been crossed. Your post is one of the more insulting things I've seen written on this forum. You should have checked with the member via PM to inquire about his motivation before slapping down the 'racist' label for all to see. It's painfully obvious that you just didn't get it. Better to ask questions before rushing to judgement.

 

[Boeing]

In the last few months I've noticed how expressions like "To be fair", "Let's be honest" and variants thereof have been plaguing spoken language and even Internet forums.

They are being used in wider and wider contexts, to the point that they don't add anything to the phrase at all. Seriously, next time you see one of these used, cross it out and reread the phrase. It will probably sound better.

I know, sometimes it's hard to come up with connectors and ways to keep your speech going, but abuse of "to be... , let's be..., fair enough" is not the way to go. Especially as most of the people I've heard talking like this are native English speakers.

This is becoming really annoying, it makes me cringe every time I hear someone utter those words. And lately it is very, very often. What are your thoughts on this?

why keep a dog and bark yourself?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No, Susan. The line has been crossed. Your post is one of the more insulting things I've seen written on this forum.

If you have any problems with a posting, please feel free to report it. I would of course in this instance let the other mods handle the complaint.

If you wish to complain about me personally, you can contact CN's managing editor.

Susan

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What I guess I was trying to say was that today there seems to be a general degeneration of communication skills and language proficiency, despite living in an era of mass education and literacy, which has perhaps resulted from more powerful forces governing the zeitgeist than those connected with the non-material aspects of our existence under discussion.

Are we to infer then from this apparent contradiction in circumstances, that democracy has failed as a social project? Or is it perhaps only that the language itself simply conforms, through a process of cultrual adaptation, to the demands being placed upon it? If so, what do these things tell us about the general level of performance expectation being asked of mass society in these times?

It depends on your opinion of Sapir-Whorf.

Language is a fluid thing which adapts to the situation around it. New thoughts and concepts are brought up all the time, and so new coinages need to be created to fit. Old terms acquire new definitions by euphemism or otherwise, so new terms need to replace them.

A general degeneration of language proficiency is not necessarily what's gone on so much as an enormous increase in our exposure to written language that fulfils functions not previously ascribed to it, eg internet forum communication, instant messenger services etc where we type like we speak, rather than like we write, and an enormous increase in our exposure to language written by and for informal communication between people of varying education levels. I would choose a different register to write in, were my posts to be published on the front page; I write in a different manner in instant messages, in informal forum chat, in more discursive, analytical forum chat, and in long email missives to some of my more distant friends who I don't have the opportunity to speak to as often.

Language is an adaptable thing. Though the higher registers may take a puritanical approach (see French or Icelandic), these are usually the most impervious to change, because when writing (or speaking) formally, for official, academic or journalistic purposes, a certain register is expected that gives your discourse a certain gravitas. It simply would not do to write a sentence like "n then he was like, oh my god, like, he was lyin' an'all!" in academic or journalistic script, even if you tidied up the phonetics.

There are certain errors that really grind my gears, for sure (there's that "for sure" again!). "Could of, would of, should of" in particular drives me mad. But ultimately, if somebody writes that in something academic, official etc, then it will just be crossed out. If you write that on your CV when applying for a job, it will go straight in the bin. But these are less the product of the information age, and more the product of a general misconception born out of a linguistic habit that predates the internet (the abbreviations into "could've, would've, should've" and so on).

 

[BroDeal]

Back in high school, I decided to write my AP American History test essays in cursive, even though I never use it unless I'm doodling.

I'm pretty sure my dreadful cursive penmenship dropped me a full point on the test and prevented me from earning some early University credit

I7 Is 0NLy @ M@t7er of tIm3 before cur$ive goe5 tH3 Way 0f pe77iCo@ts @nd stov3 pip3 H@7$. even7ualLy I7 Will b3 7aUgHt iN Gr@de sch00l @nd n3ver u$ed @gaIn. l0ts oF p30pl3's Cursiv3 i$ no7 Legible anyW@y. y0u ne3d @ magNifYIng gl@$$ and ro$377a $7one 7o 7R@NsLa7e i7. f0r tho$e of u$ With crapPY HaNdwri7ing thI5 will b3 Go0d. i7 migH7 PR3sen7 a bi7 0f probLem when i7 c0m35 to $igNIng y0ur name, 8u7 i figure iF cowboys c0UlD get aW@Y with using an "X" th3n 5o can w3. in$7e@d of docum3N75 h@viNg @n 3mptY lin3 7hat i$ la8eL3d, "5ign h3re," 7h3re Will 83 8l@nk l@beled, "make y0Ur MarK."

 

[Kiara is a rational girl]

I am not exactly sure by the meaning of "they never knew" but I am going to take a stab at it. Are you trying to say that in general, people have never really had a proper grasp on grammar and punctuation? I disagree wholeheartedly.

Yep.

My argument is this: basic grammar is simple; writing without it shouldn't affect your ability to write with it. People today have mediocre grammar, but the incentives to learn (educational and vocational, essentially) haven't changed recently. Writing ungrammatically in an informal setting doesn't alter the standard of writing required in formal ones. We can therefore assume that people have always been lousy writers. Plus I've seen plenty of poor grammar in writings predating the internet, although I can't provide samples.

Granted, this is all extremely, extremely tenuous, but I don't give a ****, and I'm better than youse.

Telegraphese was used in telegrams because it was crucial that those sorts of messages were conveyed as short as possible. It didn't mean that grammar, spelling and punctuation suffered because of telegraphese. Same with shorthand.

Well, why didn't people's language skills suffer? What's different now?

Now, coming from someone who has not long ago come out of the secondary education system and inside the tertiary education system that teachers and lecturers can see the difference in the quality of English that students 20 years ago had to current students.

Now, coming from someone who has not long ago come out of the secondary education system and inside the tertiary education system that teachers and lecturers can't see the difference in the quality of English that students 20 years ago had to current students.

Clunk. One vague anecdote meets another; we have an argumentative stalemate, if you can call either assertion an argument at all.

Grammar and punctuation isn't taught after primary education in Victoria or it is at least very rare. English classes are too obsessed with unpractical, useless curriculum for students in regards to the future.

Umm... the way English is taught in Victoria, particularly in the senior years of highschool, the focus is on essay writing. How is being able to write coherently and eprsuasively an impractical skill? ****, it's probably the most useful thing you learn in highschool - and you want to scrap it all for grammar and punctuation?

 

[Frosty]

the expression "for sure" has become far more common due to its overuse in sports reportage, for example.

'For sure' is a phrase that seems to be commonly used yet i am not sure where it has come from. When i was younger i only ever heard it being spoken by people for whom English is not a first language. Is there a direct equivalent in other languages? Its not a phrase i like hearing.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I7 Is 0NLy @ M@t7er of tIm3 before cur$ive goe5 tH3 Way 0f pe77iCo@ts @nd stov3 pip3 H@7$. even7ualLy I7 Will b3 7aUgHt iN Gr@de sch00l @nd n3ver u$ed @gaIn. l0ts oF p30pl3's Cursiv3 i$ no7 Legible anyW@y. y0u ne3d @ magNifYIng gl@$$ and ro$377a $7one 7o 7R@NsLa7e i7. f0r tho$e of u$ With crapPY HaNdwri7ing thI5 will b3 Go0d. i7 migH7 PR3sen7 a bi7 0f probLem when i7 c0m35 to $igNIng y0ur name, 8u7 i figure iF cowboys c0UlD get aW@Y with using an "X" th3n 5o can w3. in$7e@d of docum3N75 h@viNg @n 3mptY lin3 7hat i$ la8eL3d, "5ign h3re," 7h3re Will 83 8l@nk l@beled, "make y0Ur MarK."

BroDeal! My eyes are killing me staring at those hieroglyphs.

translation:
It is only a matter of time before cursive goes the way of petticoats and stove pipe hats. Eventually it will be taught in grade school and never used again. Lots of people's cursive is not legible anyway. You need a magnifying glass and rosetta stone to translate it. For those of us with crappy handwriting this will be good. It might present a bit of problem when it comes to signing your name, but I figure if cowboys could get away with using an "X" then so can we. Instead of documents having an empty line that is labeled, "Sign here," there will be blank labeled, "make your Mark."

 

[pedaling squares]

If you have any problems with a posting, please feel free to report it. I would of course in this instance let the other mods handle the complaint.

If you wish to complain about me personally, you can contact CN's managing editor.

Susan

Why not just write in the thread like you did? And if I were to quote the hundreds of posts where you have complained about members in a rather personal way, would I use this thread or the moderator thread? Bottom line - you basically called a man, one who has posted thousands of times without any evidence of racial bias, a racist without justification. You can turn that on me if you like, it's easier than revisiting the issue to see if you might perhaps want to apologize.

 

[Boeing]

the morality mods are at it again. policing values and personalities with, let's be honest, the web forum equivalence of a tazer gun. To be fair, they have little else in their lives

 

[Havetts]

"Internet" language will only become a problem when it starts getting the standard in "real" life, lets hope that'll never happen.

 

[Spare Tyre]

There was nothing racist about that. Amazing how anything that touches "urban" is seen as racist by uptight whities who are so uncomfortable that something they say might be misinterpreted that they brand everything that touches certain subjects as racist without regard to its intention or meaning.

The point is that if all we spoke or wrote was staid, perfect English then we would lose what makes language colorful and interesting. Also the language would stop evolving. After slogging through classic literature from the 1800s, I am glad that we now have a more colloquial form of speech and writing.

I still think you should add inability to use the words "lose" and "loose" correctly as a bannable offense to the forum rules.

Do you mean "American urban" here, Bro? There is nothing like that in urban Australia.

 

[ElChingon]

Do you mean "American urban" here, Bro? There is nothing like that in urban Australia.

Yea, you have a point. The outback has much better language skills