Privileged language, Register, and Humor (split from "A Little Support" in TIO)

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

I wonder if we could hit on the source of humor again for a moment? It was mentioned wrt. Ol' Fashioned Girl's PMS comment.

There are many many gender/race/disability jokes that are socially acceptable if made by the in-group and not by the out-group. Yeh? Because from the out-group it implies "And I'm Better", but from the in-group it does not. ETA: from the in-group it's a form of commiseration.

This is a simple fact of language -- it does depend on who's speaking. In a community this large though, we don't always know who's speaking and what their background is.

So perhaps it's useful for us all to keep in mind that a) the person making epileptic jokes might be epileptic or have a loved one who is, and it might be a tension release thing. and b) you could hurt people with your humor, and it does not make them unreasonable, it makes them people who have different context from you.

and c) when someone has ninety thousand posts here, like Haskins does

(ETA: And joined in Feb 1905) it's only fair to assume they have a lot of shared context with some other people on the board. And when someone has 15 posts, and has joined in Oct 2007, maybe it's okay to tread a little gently around them even if you normally wouldn't.

Which is to say, I often look at post count and join date to try and get basic context. Maybe it's a useful thing to do?

William Haskins · Oct 31, 2007

Shweta said:
There are many many gender/race/disability jokes that are socially acceptable if made by the in-group and not by the out-group. Yeh? Because from the out-group it implies "And I'm Better", but from the in-group it does not. ETA: from the in-group it's a form of commiseration.

i simply do not subscribe to this view.

MacAllister · Oct 31, 2007

I do the same thing, Shweta -- that's a really useful suggestion, and thank you.

Shweta said:
I wonder if we could hit on the source of humor again for a moment? It was mentioned wrt. Ol' Fashioned Girl's PMS comment.

There are many many gender/race/disability jokes that are socially acceptable if made by the in-group and not by the out-group. Yeh? Because from the out-group it implies "And I'm Better", but from the in-group it does not. ETA: from the in-group it's a form of commiseration.

This is a simple fact of language -- it does depend on who's speaking. In a community this large though, we don't always know who's speaking and what their background is.

So perhaps it's useful for us all to keep in mind that a) the person making epileptic jokes might be epileptic or have a loved one who is, and it might be a tension release thing. and b) you could hurt people with your humor, and it does not make them unreasonable, it makes them people who have different context from you.

and c) when someone has ninety thousand posts here, like Haskins does (ETA: And joined in Feb 1905) it's only fair to assume they have a lot of shared context with some other people on the board. And when someone has 15 posts, and has joined in Oct 2007, maybe it's okay to tread a little gently around them even if you normally wouldn't.

Which is to say, I often look at post count and join date to try and get basic context. Maybe it's a useful thing to do?

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

To Haskins, not Mac: Yes, I've noticed, but to my knowledge, most sociolinguists (who actually look at the data) do :tongue

MacAllister · Oct 31, 2007

William Haskins said:
i simply do not subscribe to this view.

That's okay. It's available on any corner newstand, too.

William Haskins · Oct 31, 2007

Shweta said:
To Haskins, not Mac: Yes, I've noticed, but to my knowledge, most sociolinguists (who actually look at the data) do

sociolinguists are not the guardians of the language. language belongs to the masses. like rocks. whether you choose to pile them into a garden wall or carve them into a sculpture or throw them through a window is up to you, provided you accept the consequences.

i'll be dead as fried chicken before anyone tells me what i can and cannot say.

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

Goodness, do you know what sociolinguists actually, y'know... do?

They don't tell anyone what to say and what not to. They look at language use, in context, and its effects.

If a physicist tells you that if you step off a balcony you'll fall, the physicist is giving you an empirical result. Not stopping you from stepping off a balcony expecting to float (unless, y'know, he's physically restraining you, which is another matter).

What I understand from the sociolinguists is that jokes have different effects depending on who they're coming from. As do many other speech acts. Empirical result.
This does not forbid you from anything. But if you insist on ignoring the data, that's your call, there are consequences. That's all.

veinglory · Oct 31, 2007

One can say anything, but not anywhere. If not by law, then by courtesy. I had that explained to me once, by a bouncer.

robeiae · Oct 31, 2007

Shweta said:
What I understand from the sociolinguists is that jokes have different effects depending on who they're coming from. As do many other speech acts. Empirical result.
This does not forbid you from anything. But if you insist on ignoring the data, that's your call, there are consequences. That's all.

The problem here--imo--is that sociolinguists can, like many people, make assumptions about who others are, in terms of what group they are a member of. And they do this with no consideration for the actual point of view in this regard of the person whose point of view they would like to define. So, the in-group and the out-group are defined arbitrarily by someone who assumes they have the ability to make these distinctions on behalf of others. Haskins is quite right, imo of course.

And it's really not all that empirical.

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

Sure, that can happen in any study, especially if they don't actually ask participants how they categorize themselves (which most do, in my experience).

But that doesn't stop it being empirical; any empirical discipline is going to make mistaken assumptions, find data that contradicts their assumptions, adjust accordingly, etc.
We're never right, we can just hope to be less wrong than we used to be. It's still less wrong than making blithe assumptions without any data.

poetinahat · Oct 31, 2007

When I was in fourth grade, one of my best friends (who was black, and who I presume still is) used to call me 'nigger'. I called him 'honky'. We chased each other around, gave each other noogies, and cracked up every time. It didn't bother anyone else, and no one else made it their business.

Good, good times.

'Course, we never - ever - switched those nicknames.

robeiae · Oct 31, 2007

Shweta said:
Sure, that can happen in any study, especially if they don't actually ask participants how they categorize themselves (which most do, in my experience).

But that doesn't stop it being empirical; any empirical discipline is going to make mistaken assumptions, find data that contradicts their assumptions, adjust accordingly, etc.
We're never right, we can just hope to be less wrong than we used to be. It's still less wrong than making blithe assumptions without any data.

Okay, I can go with that, except the idea that is represents empirical data as a matter of fact. When couched in a series of mistaken assumptions, such data can be far too subjective to simply be taken as empirical, unless it is presented as a series of mere opinions, itself. At which point, it can be every bit as blithe as the opinion of anyone else.

And this is the same discussion--in yet another form--that we've had at least twice before.

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

I'm not saying that you have to believe the studies. Just that there are authorities -- whose idea of methodology I have reason to trust -- who do.

So long as neither of you intend your disagreement as anything other than a statement of disagreement, I'm cool with it. But simple disagreement ain't a counterargument to me, if you're trying to make one. That's all.

William Haskins · Oct 31, 2007

robeiae said:
When couched in a series of mistaken assumptions, such data can be far too subjective to simply be taken as empirical, unless it is presented as a series of mere opinions, itself. At which point, it can be every bit as blithe as the opinion of anyone else.

furthermore, when the assumptions are attached to an agenda, it has the effect of academically "shaming" some use of language, which diffuses over time, allowing the scientists to stamp the very nature of public discourse.

and control of language (even the attempt) is nearly exclusively tied to a desire to control thought.

John Paton · Oct 31, 2007

this is beginning to remind me of a Monty Python sketch.

Regards
John

Oh you want an argument - that's farther down the hall.

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

Aw, and here I was hoping it was the dead parrot sketch.

This, sir, is an ex-argument!

poetinahat · Oct 31, 2007

"Does 'Burt Bacharach' begin with an S?"

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

William Haskins said:
furthermore, when the assumptions are attached to an agenda, it has the effect of academically "shaming" some use of language, which diffuses over time, allowing the scientists to stamp the very nature of public discourse.

Yes, and there are definitely such studies, though more in psychology than linguistics (there's more money in psych). Most of them are just plain bad, apart from being attached to an agenda. I'm going from being in a department with a couple of the world's top sociolinguists, and their sources tend to be rather less... suspect.

The reason I keep saying "sociolinguists say" rather than "I know", by the way, is not because I want to lean on their authority. It's more a form of "I've heard..." because I haven't read these particular studies myself.

ETA: Obviously, I should have said that up front, but the possibility didn't even occur to me before that it might read as argument-from authority. I saw it as adding data to the mix, no more.

and control of language (even the attempt) is nearly exclusively tied to a desire to control thought.

Yes. But a request to self-control language might well be a request to consider cognitive self-control. Which is not really a bad thing. Especially if it means external controls become less necessary.

robeiae · Oct 31, 2007

William Haskins said:
furthermore, when the assumptions are attached to an agenda, it has the effect of academically "shaming" some use of language, which diffuses over time, allowing the scientists to stamp the very nature of public discourse.

and control of language (even the attempt) is nearly exclusively tied to a desire to control thought.

Right.

It's not a question of "believing" the studies, at all. It's a question of the "why" behind the studies and the "why" behind the acceptance of the studies, along with the consequences of such. To surrender the definition of reality to language is to surrender reality--itself--to potential control through language.

As to a counterargument, I've noted some before, I believe. Here's my favorite. Conditioned responses are not always what they seem to be, when it comes to both language and action.

Duncan J Macdonald · Oct 31, 2007

MacAllister said:
That's okay. It's available on any corner newstand, too.

No, no. It's a daytime TV show with Whoopie Goldberg.

Shweta · Oct 31, 2007

robeiae said:
It's not a question of "believing" the studies, at all. It's a question of the "why" behind the studies and the "why" behind the acceptance of the studies, along with the consequences of such. To surrender the definition of reality to language is to surrender reality--itself--to potential control through language.

I'm pretty confused as to how this relates, at all, to my original point.

It's fairly clear that (for example) a black person can call another black person "nigger" without offense, and a white person cannot, and also that there's a huge difference between epileptics and their close friends making epileptic jokes and random strangers doing so. Why is the fact that there are empirical studies backing up that fairly-clear point scary?

I don't get what this has to do with surrendering reality by paying attention to studies. I think, if anything, your point that surrendering language is surrendering control of more than language simply supports the notion I was talking about -- that communities keep control over their accepted language use and don't accept the same things from outsiders that they do from their own.

And... I read through the comments on the book you linked to, robeiae, and I just don't see the link.

So maybe I think this discussion is about something other than what you think it's about. :Shrug:

MacAllister · Oct 31, 2007

robeiae said:
Right.

It's not a question of "believing" the studies, at all. It's a question of the "why" behind the studies and the "why" behind the acceptance of the studies, along with the consequences of such. To surrender the definition of reality to language is to surrender reality--itself--to potential control through language.

I'd counter that to attempt to disconnect language from reality is silly and actually destructive -- and ultimately futile.

Language describes reality, and to accomplish that, it must by definition maintain some fairly stable relationship with it.

poetinahat · Oct 31, 2007

Here's a timely gem (from ESPN, Stern condemns conduct of Knicks management - emphasis mine):

A portion of Thomas' deposition was shown in court during the trial and the tape showed Thomas saying he made a distinction between a black man calling a black woman "bitch" and a white man doing the same thing. The coach was criticized for that by Al Sharpton, who threatened to lead protests at Knicks games unless Thomas explained his remarks.

Wow.

MacAllister · Oct 31, 2007

I'm sooooooo tempted to move this part of the thread to Colorado Guy's room. It would make him so happy.

Birol · Oct 31, 2007

I was in CG's room earlier today, but then everyone else took their toys and went NaNoing!

Privileged language, Register, and Humor (split from "A Little Support" in TIO)

Sick and absent

poet

'Twas but a dream of thee

Sick and absent

'Twas but a dream of thee

poet

Sick and absent

volitare nequeo

Touch and go

Sick and absent

say it loud

Touch and go

Sick and absent

poet

carn the mighty hawks !!

Sick and absent

say it loud

Sick and absent

Touch and go

Plotting! Not Plodding!

Sick and absent

'Twas but a dream of thee

say it loud

'Twas but a dream of thee

Around and About