> The subject [of the word ‘like’] is not uninteresting, but it is trivial. Like is a hesitation phenomenon (to give it status, the term discourse marker has been used about it), and the speaker, to gain time, makes pauses and fills them with like.
This is so oversimplified as to border on being incorrect. Even Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like] is able to list several more uses in colloquial speech, including:
• As a quotative marker, to introduce direct speech: ”I was, like, ‘who was that?’ ”
• As a quotative it can also introduce ideophones: “The firework went, like, boom”
• As a hedge it moderates exaggeration: “I had to wait, like, hours for the bus to arrive”
• It can also indicate a counterexpectation, emphasising a contrast to what the listener might think: “There was, like, no free memory left”
None of these can be dismissed as merely ‘gaining time’. I can’t deny it has that role too, but that’s far from the only meaning of like, and to say otherwise just obscures the way it’s really used.
I have no doubt that Anatoly is completely aware of these other uses of like! I know him professionally. The time he sat through a plenary on the uses of "like," which he mentions, at the very least would have brought him up to speed. But also, he is a linguist, and a philologist, and an exquisite scholar, and despite his get-off-my-language-lawn blog entry, he is quite learned.
I've tried to get out of the habit of this one now that I have kids learning from my example, but it really takes a lot of focus. What's funny is that I can remember the period as a kid where it was taking and being bothered by it ("why does everyone want to sound like Shaggy from Scooby Doo?"), before I apparently gave in and adopted it.
At a guess (this is kinda far away from my own linguistics education), it serves some kind of pragmatic/discourse function. Basically, it means something along the lines of "I am now going to tell a story", which is probably useful information for interlocutors to know how to modulate turn-taking when interacting with the speaker.
It has one good use case, IMO: when you want to mention someone on Twitter at the start of a tweet but without solely directing the tweet at them like a reply. For example: "So @otherperson built this cool thing..." Some people use a single "." at the start of a tweet to the same end but I think it looks hacky.
I am against institutional language standards that exist in some languages, because using the language freely how you want is a part of basic freedom. That being said, speaking with some level of control lets us exchange thoughts in a more organized way, and not just the same bag of soundbites all the time. It also shows, as a small thing, that we value striving for some improvement.
It feels that it becomes an increasingly minority position, and what's left in the discussion is at best intelligentsia's coping mechanisms making use of isolated facts of history. Yes, there were always "lowbrow" language and culture, but what matters is the context of the whole stylistic gradient functioning. Of course there has been some legitimacy in these changes initially, when compared strictly to the oppressive, conformist "bourgeois" "high modern" culture of let's say 1850-1950. History moves in random directions, so who knows.
Note the scare quotes. I used an imperfect word to suggest a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject, or human aspirations beyond biology and prestige, or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought.
That not this equals power is an interesting meme. Powerful people are usually crude (police, army, politicians, business magnates, aristocracy and the like isn't known for being very subtle either). Of course with humanities you can creatively construct almost any reading to the culture and society if you want to "prove" what you want. If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not, there is already some gross simplification going on.
I saw the scare quotes and was going to mention that in my comment as I was aware you weren't necessarily using the word in a derogatory way. I chose not to as I thought it would be clear enough. Apologies for not being more explicit on my reading of your words.
> a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject
I didn't read this from it though. That seems somewhat orthogonal to the content of the article?
> or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought.
This I do actually take issue with though. This is an example of what I meant above. I grew up speaking a "non-standard" English and I can say that I've never felt that using it was reflective of a lack for respect for myself or the people around me. Saying that someone should speak in a more "standard" or "high brow" way that comes unnaturally to them in order to show respect is an example of the power dynamic I'm talking about.
I come from Northern Ireland and my speech is heavily inflected. If I go to England and speak with people who have more linguistic dominance then I notice a change in how in received. There is an assumption that I'm less intelligent when I use my Hiberno-English, like saying "they learned me how to write" rather than "they taught me how to write." If the English of my home was dominant then we would see this effect in reverse.
Same for wanting to "maintain a connection to long term culture or thought." Those cultures and thoughts win out on the long term because of the power plays. How many languages have died out in the course of colonialism? Do think the speakers of those languages didn't want a connection to the history of thought, or did we just ignore them and forget them because they lacked the power to assert themselves?
> Of course with humanities you can creatively construct
What does this mean? Are you saying that your assertions are more rooted in hard science than mine? Or the whole field of social linguistics is hogwash? Then why have this conversation at all?
> If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not
I didn't.
> Powerful people are usually crude
Is this an oversimplification? Are non powerful people usually not crude? This is the point: the sophistication is not an inherent trait of the language; it's socially constructed and perpetuated through social power dynamics.
It's very possible but we are meaning different things by the same words. My background isn't English in language, I try not to be formed by Anglosphere in my thinking (as far as it's even possible nowadays) and find the "foobrow" terminology rather silly. Even then, in my mind it connects more with social class, if that, than with a country or region (which is a different topic).
So the thing that rubs me the wrong way, in connection with the OP, is people using intentionally sloppy language in a way that is mainstream cool, more than specific to any group that may be oppressed. I don't claim my thinking on this to be science based (I don't see how it could be), but I think there are hogwash rationalizations of the trend I'm talking about that pose as "science-based" (while being only interpretative) and/or connected to disadvantaged groups. I think it is different from being respected when using my maternal dialect (I hope you won't get offended by using this word, I don't mean to) and this is not what OP was about.
I do think there are connections to the history of thought that are universally available despite attempts of a bunch of North-Western European countries (plus the US) trying to paint themselves as possessing "the" intellectual history. That being said, I do think that how fruitful and useful an intellectual contribution is, is largely unrelated to the power status of the contributor. I also think we are getting into some deep digressions at this point, so I will probably leave you to make you counterpoints as you want.
well if you think of all forms of expression as being equal but for their regard by society then yeah, but that's not how anyone seems to live. It's not that simple people think they are sophisticated simply because they are in power, they instead believe there is no such thing as sophistication. you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" and not a variance in brow position across groups. I mean, if you're going to apply this foucauldian logic at least do some legwork to say something new.
I didn't realise my belief had to be novel in order to be valid. Or is it only when you associate my belief with the boogeyman of Foucault?
> you also assume there is one form of expression per "group"
I didn't assume that or imply it in any way. I understand that there various linguistic strata and they each have their own substrata. I still stand by the assertions I made above, as while there are inter-group power dynamics at play in the defining of "brow level" there are of course also intra-group power dynamics.
I actually think that the word “actual” is interesting since many people seem to pepper their statements with it. I originally thought it was mainly a discourse marker (“Actually [interjection], the moon is not made of cheese”), but it is often used unprompted (not as a response to anything else): “I actually like the flavor of cheese”—why not just “I like the flavor of cheese”?
Some people who monologue (like in a video) about a subject often use it. “Cleopatra was actually not black.” This makes some sense since you use it to emphasize something that you assume might be surprising, instead of using a more flat statement. But it gets weird when the speaker supposedly thinks that every statement that they make is surprising or even astounding to the hypothetical listener. No: many statements are expected, and some statements you had no prejudice about one way or the other, so the listener has nothing to be surprised about.
It feels like the the monologuer assumes that they are just blowing the minds of the listener on a continual basis.
It’s also often used for excessive emphasis: “I actually love ice cream”. Like “ice cream is literally my favorite flavor”. Excessive emphasis IMO should be sparingly used or else it loses its effect. It’s like “literally”: it can have a humorous effect when used to mean “figuratively”, but if you regularly use it like that it becomes lame. (But I have lost that battle: literally now literally means both “in the literal sense” and “in the figurative sense”.) I don’t appreciate the affect of someone who emphasizes every third sentence while speaking, and to me these emphasis words have the same effect when I read them.
I started using "actually" instead of "literally" precisely because "literally" is now ambiguous and so the meaning isn't clear anymore. It seems better than doing something like "literally literally".
But I also use "actually" for other purposes, so it's not as clear as it could be either. Still, it's less likely to be misunderstood than "literally" is.
There's a great edition of the podcast Lexicon valley from ages ago on the history of the word "dude". Favourite sample phrase: "dude, i'm like... dude"
'I literally did a complete 360 and could care less about how people use a language.'; That's all my pet peeves in one sentence. They come across as 'ignorant' as if the speakers aren't aware of what they're saying. Otherwise, I believe language to be an ever-evolving entity. While we can define its current usage, trying to solidify it would be a fool's errand.
The worst one today is people adding "uhhh" to the end of every sentence. "What did you do-wuuuh?" "Where should we go-wuuuh?" "Can't you see-yuhhh?" It grates on you even worse than vocal fry and like inserting like into like everything you like say.
Loads of languages around the word have a sentence-final particle that doesn’t mean anything on its own but serves as a vocative particle, creates a bond between speaker and listener, softens the assertion for politeness sake, etc. Some varieties of UK English already used innit? that way. It’s pretty normal human linguistic behavior.
I am an American traveling in Ireland now now and have been enjoying this! Much better to save the excess nonsense for the end of a sentence rather than confound the meaning with it.
If a linguistic behavior has spread widely enough for you to notice it, then obviously the bulk of people (or the bulk of that speaker’s people, at least) don’t find it grating.
I submit that, given the obvious disdain the author has for the speech of ordinary people and what he considers "low" culture, "snob" is an entirely appropriate term.
You might possibly be missing the intended spirit of this site. We want curious conversation here. Feeling pissed off at someone who comes across as a snob is understandable, but it isn't curious conversation to rush to the comment thread to put them down. Curious conversation means finding unexpectedly interesting things and responding to them by extending the sequence.
I don't like snobs or seeming-snobs any more than you do, and I agree with you about the speech of "ordinary people", but your comment was still against HN's rules and intended spirit.
I disagree rather strongly with the conclusion (it even seems generous to use this term) of this article and especially the tone (snob seems accurate). To me, it’s insufferable to read and I only got through it because I had hope for a redemption arc.
That said, the response to your comment was about the content of the argument against their position being simply that they are a snob, not that snob is an inappropriate term. Instead, describe the behavior which makes the author seem to be a snob so people can get a clearer picture.
From my point of view, this author is beating their chest the same as the author they denigrate in their post. The article is simply espousing a preference for this style without providing any arguments for its righteousness. The author laments that “speaketh” is no longer used, but why should I care? I dunno, they don’t explain. “Alice speaks” seems to work just as well as “Alice speaketh”.
This is so oversimplified as to border on being incorrect. Even Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like] is able to list several more uses in colloquial speech, including:
• As a quotative marker, to introduce direct speech: ”I was, like, ‘who was that?’ ”
• As a quotative it can also introduce ideophones: “The firework went, like, boom”
• As a hedge it moderates exaggeration: “I had to wait, like, hours for the bus to arrive”
• It can also indicate a counterexpectation, emphasising a contrast to what the listener might think: “There was, like, no free memory left”
None of these can be dismissed as merely ‘gaining time’. I can’t deny it has that role too, but that’s far from the only meaning of like, and to say otherwise just obscures the way it’s really used.