John Oliver “reports” on the use of scare quotes.
December 8, 2006
November 28, 2006
Glad to see that The Daily Show has a linguistic expert in residence:
Stewart: 3000 Iraqis died just this month! To argue over what to call it seems like semantic quibbling.
Oliver: “Semantic quibbling?” Well, I wouldn’t call it that.
November 24, 2006
One of my GSIs wrote of her hometown: “While reading the letters to the editor in the local paper, you flip to the front page to make sure you didn’t pick up The Onion by mistake.”
Now while I usually do my best to avoid a similar experience, I accidentally stumbled upon today’s editorial page in The Enquirer. While the whining about Democrats was no surprise, I couldn’t help but be taken aback by the last opinion, which uses the brilliant tactic of employing racist assumptions to prove that racism doesn’t exist—except against privileged groups in society:
Regarding the article “Census shows racial inequalities persist in pay, schooling, homes” (Nov. 14) discussed racial gaps in success. The implication was that the gaps were tied to racism.
That premise seems highly questionable since the two most successful ethnic groups in America are Jews and Asians. Both are minorities and both have been victims of terrible persecution. How is this possible? One major reason is superior intelligence coupled with cultural emphasis on education to develop that superior intelligence.…
There is no question racism exists in our society, including racial discrimination against white people and Asian people in education. But the critical factors in success and failure seem to be intelligence and making intelligent decisions. [emphasis added]
As much as I’m looking forward to going home for winter break, there are some aspects of Cincinnati that I will never miss.
November 22, 2006
The Daily Show takes on conceptual metaphors and obscure etymologies:
CNN’s Glenn Beck, to Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): What I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies, and I don’t—I know you’re not, I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
Stewart: Finally, a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.
November 10, 2006
WE WON THE FREAKIN’ HOUSE! WE WON THE FREAKIN’ SENATE!
Maybe if I whisper this to myself every hour for the next week, it’ll start to feel like a reality.
Colbert gets hysterical:
Tomorrow, you’re all gonna wake up in a Brave New World, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorist clones, created in a stem cell research lab run by homosexual doctors, who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags. Where tax-and-spend Democrats take all your hard-earned money and use it to buy electric cars for National Public Radio, and teach evolution to illegal immigrants.
October 27, 2006
It made this week pretty nutty, but was definitely worth it:
Three cheers for Suzanne! 
October 6, 2006
Jon Stewart explains President Bush’s “Iraq is just a comma” remark:
“Iraq’s a comma. Hiroshima, that’s a colon. Spanish Inquisition? That’s a tilde, one of them squiggly things over the n. 9/11 changed everything. Into punctuation.”
The folks at Language Log, however, think the comment was a veiled statement to the religious right, code for “Trust me. This is what God wants.”
Understanding conservatism is so damn depressing sometimes.
August 18, 2006
Helping me to round out my summer vacation were the following books:
The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language (John McWhorter, 2003)
This is similar to Deutscher’s The Unfolding of Language, but focuses less on the mechanics of language change and more on the sociolinguistic factors which influence the evolution of languages. McWhorter spends less time than Deutscher discussing ancient languages, but has more pop culture references (apparently he’s a big fan of television). It’s an informative read, and I think a good prelude to my upcoming class on language contact between the Native Americans and Europeans. Unfortunately, McWhorter is no longer a professor at Berkeley, having given up tenure in favor of working at a conservative think tank.
)The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (Steven Pinker, 1994)
TLI is a classic—perhaps the classic linguistics book written for a popular audience. Though much of the book is a survey of the Chomskyan approach to linguistics, its purpose is to reconcile what we know about language, the mind, and human behavior—that is, to explore why is language is natural for human beings. For anyone interested in language with or without a linguistics background, this is a worthwhile read. (I’m not so sure I agree with all of Pinker’s/Chomsky’s arguments, but the discussion is superb.)
What surprised me most about this book was what was not included: there was only a passing mention of metaphor, and no discussion of categories/frames—two concepts that are central, at least in the Lakoffian approach, to understanding how the mind and language work. I find it strange that these areas of research are barely acknowledged by a cognitive linguist discussing language and the mind.
Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea (George Lakoff, 2006)
Though I’ve become something of a Lakoff nut, I realize that his linguopoliticocognitive theory on American moral systems can be a bit difficult to grasp at first. Of his previous books on the subject, Don’t Think of an Elephant! is, I think, inadequate in explaining the some of the key details of the theory, and Moral Politics is too thorough and academic to appeal to a general audience. This new book, I feel, is the best starting point for those who want to learn more about the Strict Father/Nurturant Parent dichotomy and how it plays out in the American values debate. Focusing on the idea of freedom allows Lakoff to hit on a lot of issues (freedom involves not just civil liberties and foreign policy but also things like environmental protection and economics) within a unified discussion (what freedom means to progressives vs. conservatives). Plus, it’s short and easy to read—200 pages shorter than Moral Politics. Keep in mind that this book is primarily about an idea, not a tactic, so the practice of framing takes a backseat—though an understanding of core concepts like ‘freedom’ is the critical for framing.
July 15, 2006
- Amazing how the Internet can bring people together.
- Some cool machine learning research: Ripley the Robot (explains how “words and the rules for using them represent just the tip of a linguistic iceberg”)
- Colbert explains Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary for his Senate seat
- The cartoonists of Zits point out an obstacle to our generation’s capacity to make a difference…
- Speaking of said cartoonists, Jim Borgman weighs in on the flag-burning debate
- Hackett’s not running this time, but is Jean “Schmidt Happens” nevertheless in trouble for November?
- (Added July 18) Anna Quindlen says it like it is.
June 26, 2006
Just saw Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I have three things to say:
- You need to see this movie.
- As much as I’m afraid to get my hopes up about Gore running for president again, this film convinced me that he’s at least considering it, despite what he says publicly.
- If you’re utterly baffled as to why I would want him to run again, refer to #1.
Two reviews worth reading:
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.
Franklin Foer, The New Republic (h/t Jordan):
The film has genuine rhetorical power. It builds an incredibly frightening case without hints of fear-mongering or over-wrought moments….I think the movie has the potential to become a seminal political document—a cinematic Silent Spring.
