Archive for the ‘Language in the media’ Category

More on sounding gay

July 10, 2015

Back on June 11th, I posted about the documentary “Do I Sound Gay?”, as I was about to be interviewed by a journalist about it. I had a number of critical things to say about parts of the film, though I didn’t post them here. Now NPR’s Terry Gross has interviewed two of the principals in it, the filmmaker David Thorpe and a speech pathologist, Susan Sankin, with whom Thorpe worked in an attempt to sound “less gay”.

Enraged by this interview, Sameer ud Dowla Khan (a phonetician at Reed College) wrote an open letter to Gross, which Mark Liberman has now posted on Language Log (with a link to Fresh Air and one to a transcript of the interview). Khan has many of the same criticisms of the interview that I had of the trailer for the film (I haven’t been able to view the whole film), both of which exhibit deep ignorance about simple (and well-known) facts about language in social life. Some excerpts from Khan’s letter follow.


Briefly: Reporting enormity

June 20, 2015

From an op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday, “No Sanctuary in the Holy City” by Patricia Williams Lessane, about the church massacre in Charleston SC (the “Holy City” of the headline) on Wednesday:

I can’t help but think of this senseless act of terror, the largest mass shooting in the country since 2013, within the historical context of the Birmingham bombing [of 1963], but also within the very current context of the increasing terror we African-Americans face on a daily basis.

The boldfaced parenthetical is intended to convey the enormity of the event, using a standard journalistic device for this purpose, citing the years since the last grievous event of its type (natural disaster, extreme weather, mass murder, whatever). But it’s not at all effective here: 2013 was only two years ago, so the Charleston massacre ends up being treated as everyday, even trivial.

The journalistic device gets its effectiveness from the assumption that events of great enormity are rare, but that assumption doesn’t always hold: random events sometimes cluster (necessarily); one event can sometimes help to trigger similar events; and some types of events can be increasing in frequency over time. In any case, monstrous events are monstrous, period, no matter how long it’s been since the last monstrous event of its type. Lessane was right to cry out against “this senseless act of terror”, but that despairing cry is undercut by an implicit reference to the fact that more than nine people (the number murdered in Charleston) were killed in an American mass shooting as recently as 2013.

(It’s possible that Lessane didn’t write that parenthetical herself. It might have been inserted by an editor who reflexively and thoughtlessly employed the journalistic device: that’s just the way these things are reported.)

The distraction of ambiguity

May 6, 2015

Today’s Scenes From a Multiverse:

The ambiguity in selling … drugs for … prostitutes  (which turns on the function of the PP for … prostitutes in the larger structure) briefly distracts the characters from the image-mong(er)ing that is their pressing concern, when it really isn’t important which of the readings is the correct one; either way, they’ve got a huge scandal that’s going to take a lot of media management. (more…)

Knob in a red top

March 18, 2015

On Facebook yesterday, Chris Waigl posted the beginning of this story from the (UK) Independent, dated today:

James May calls Jeremy Clarkson a ‘k**b’ after Top Gear star suspended by BBC

Top Gear presenter James May has defended his co-presenter Jeremy Clarkson following his suspension, by calling his colleague “a k**b” but saying he “quite likes him.”


On the PIE watch: in the New York Times

March 17, 2015

Just now, a posting here on recent research about Proto-Indo-European and its homeland. Also in the media, back on February 24th, the Science Times piece “The Tangled Roots of English” by Nicholas Wade. Which begins:

The peoples of India, Iran and Europe speak a Babel of tongues, but most — English included — are descended from an ancient language known as proto-Indo-European. Scholars have argued for two centuries about the identity and homeland of those who spoke this parent language, but a surprisingly sudden resolution of this longstanding issue may be at hand.

Many origins have been proposed for the birthplace of the Indo-European languages, but only two serious candidates are now under discussion, one of which assumes they were spread by the sword [from the Russian steppes], the other by the plow [from Anatolia].

The recent research supports the Steppe proposal (which is generally favored by historical linguistics, but Wade spends a lot of the article on the Anatolia proposal (which he is on record as favoring). In any case, it’s hard to make sense of Wade’s exposition, which unloads a lot of technical detail in a way that even I found hard to follow.


On the PIE watch: headline news

March 17, 2015

Headline for an NPR story by Laura Santhanam on February 25th:

Linguists link English, Hindi to single ancestor language spoken 6,500 years ago

And the beginning of the story:

Linguists have traced the roots of English, Hindi, Greek and all Indo-European languages to a common ancestor tongue first spoken on the Russian steppes as much as 6,500 years ago

The headline seems to be claiming that the newsworthy event is the discovery of a single ancestor language for English and Hindi and adds the information that this language was spoken 6,500 years ago. But the reconstruction of this ancestor language, Proto-Indo-European (PIE), is news from roughly 200 years ago. What’s current news is the claim that we now have solid evidence about where and when PIE was spoken; the first sentence of the story begins to re-frame the story, by treating the concept of the Indo-European languages as a given and highlighting the where and when.

The problem for the journalists here is that readers cannot be expected to be familiar with the concepts of the IE languages and of PIE (in the way that readers can be expected to be familiar with, say, the concept of DNA). One of the great intellectual achievements of linguistics has not made it far into public consciousness.


Calvin’s genre competence

January 23, 2015

A while back, we witnessed Calvin’s competence in writing tabloid headlines. Yesterday he took on talk radio:

“Imagine getting paid to act like a six-year-old!”

Taboo time in Paris

January 15, 2015

On the 13th in the NYT, a piece by Rachel Donaldo on the news from Paris: on-line, “Charlie Hebdo’s New Issue Features Muhammad on Cover”, in the print edition, “Still Mourning, but Printing a New Provocation: Muhammad on the Cover”, with a section on Gérard Biard, one of the satirical paper’s top editors:

As the newsroom sprang to life on Friday afternoon, Mr. Biard reflected. “They killed people who drew cartoon characters. That’s it. That’s all these guys do. If they’re afraid of that,” what’s their god?, he asked, inserting an expletive for emphasis.

Presumably the interview was in French, translated here for an American readership, so the inserted expletive would have been foutu and not fucking.

I tried to check how this was reported in the French press, and couldn’t find anything with a reference to the attackers’ god, with or without an expletive (though I did listen to a pretty long interview with Briard). But maybe I just missed it.

My puzzle about the NYT version is not the suppressed expletive — that’s just Timesian modesty, often commented on in this blog — but why the paper chose to mention the expletive at all, when it doesn’t seem to me to add anything to the story. So the paper ended up calling attention to the expletive they chose not to print.

Zippy in two moods

January 13, 2015

First, today’s Zippy, with Pinheads bonding over pop culture; and then a very serious Zippy, on the occasion of the Charlie Hebdo massacre:




Peoplification at the NYT

December 23, 2014

Briefly noted, with surprise, the beginning of Clancy Martin’s review of Preparation for the Next Life by Atticus Lish (NYT Book Review on the 21st); crucial bit in boldface:

In the next life, this would be a simple happy story about a young Chinese immigrant and an American war hero who find love in 21st-century New York City.

But the real 21st-century New York isn’t a place for simple happy love stories. In “Preparation for the Next Life,” his astonishing, gorgeous and very upsetting debut novel, Atticus Lish (son of the editor, writer and teacher Gordon Lish) introduces a poor Muslim immigrant, Zou Lei, and her suicidally shellshocked boyfriend, Brad Skinner, who don’t stand a chance in the unfeeling city.

What on earth does the identity of the author’s father have to do with this book? Absolutely nothing, so far as I can see. It seems to be nothing more than a celebrity note, the sort of thing that People magazine revels in, but should have no place in the NYT.

The book has gotten very strong reviews and should have been able to stand on its own merits, without this silly puffery.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 854 other followers