|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I agree that there's a potential problem with describing "feminist rhetoric" as a unified position (although, in my defence, I did qualify it with "shrill" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ), but I maintain that "feminist theology" does refer to a school of theology that is as well-defined as "liberation theology", even though not all women or all feminists would embrace it.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If you type in "herstory" without "church", you get a different set of results.
Yes, as I said quote:
Maybe it's the word 'church' that's the problem.
The syntactical problem with using “shrill” as an adjective is that you claim to have used it as a qualifier, whereas it could just as easily be seen as descriptive.
Re feminist theology: so you would bracket Margaret Hebblethwaite, Karen Armstrong, Lavinia Byrne, Mary Daly, Ann Louise Eriksson, Sara Maitland and Marina Warner all together in one ‘school’ would you?
Also you cannot just decide to ignore dictionary definitions on the grounds that they've fallen behind 'common usage' (in an online dictionary? Yeah, right). You've gone one step further than Humpty Dumpty - not only defining your own words to suit yourself, but also taking on the right to define words as used by others. As far as winning strategies in an argument go, I'd give that 10/10 for effort, but only 2/10 for being convincing.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
In the dying stages of this thread, we've suddenly started to say that, for example, the link between herstory-style feminism and inclusive language is "not necessary" rather than "total bollocks". If that had been stated a few times at the outset, rather than repeatedly denying that any possible link could ever exist in the mind of any rational person, the thread might be a few pages shorter.
But you are the only person posting here who even pretends to believe there is a neccesary connection.
quote:
Plenty of men react badly to herstory as told by wimmin. Of course not everyone proposing inclusive language has also signed up for that agenda, but being repeatedly told that one never drives the other is just not credible.
Well, go and find some people who have signed up to it then.
quote:
quote:
What do you mean by the "feminisation" of Christianity? I've seen it used in various ways, which makes it hard to agree or disagree with your point here.
The way that traditionally female characteristics are valued, while traditionally male ones are often despised
In what way is this new? Christianity has always been more popular with women. It also has always had big downer on a lot of traditionally male obsessions, on particular violence.
quote:
one of the best articles I have ever read about getting men to "share" was by a pastor who had decided to conduct his ministry in the passenger seat of combine harvesters or underneath truck gearboxes
I go to church to worship God, not to learn how to fix cars. If I wanted to learn how to fix cars I would go to a car-fixing class.
quote:
the way Sunday morning now clobbers a lot of other interesting male activities
Staying in bed all day? Fried breakfasts? Long lunchtimes in the pub? Reading very large newspapers? Football? Bracing country walks? Masturbation?
Are these new male activities, or do you think that church services have recently been moved to Sunday mornings specifically to interfere with them?
quote:
which, I would suggest, is more of a problem for men than for women as men typically place less value on "sharing" as an end in itself, especially with a female-majority audience
I'm not sure what this means. Unless you are now owning up to men actually being emotional cripples. It looks like exactly the sort of pop-psychology cliche you were criticising on the other thread. Or are you allowed to stereotype men even though women are not?
Either way, WTF has it got to do with the topic of this thread?
quote:
Whatever you think of Promise Keepers (and I'm not especially a fan myself), it is hard to deny that the movement has struck a chord for a lot of people.
The "disappeared without trace" chord?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
The syntactical problem with using “shrill” as an adjective is that you claim to have used it as a qualifier, whereas it could just as easily be seen as descriptive.
So anyone writing "dead white male" could be accused of thinking that all males are dead and white?
quote:
Re feminist theology: so you would bracket Margaret Hebblethwaite, Karen Armstrong, Lavinia Byrne, Mary Daly, Ann Louise Eriksson, Sara Maitland and Marina Warner all together in one ‘school’ would you?
I'm not bracketing anyone anywhere, I'm simply describing what appears to be normal practice in the academic world. Of course there are differences between feminist theologians, and of course there are discussions about where the boundaries lie, but that is equally true of reformed theology, which doesn't stop academics from referring to "reformed theology" as if the term has some descriptive value.
I dug out my hermeneutics course notes this morning. They note that there is great variety in approaches to Scripture that adopt women's perspectives. But they also say the same about political interpretations, including "liberationist interpretations" (plural). The section on feminist interpretations then goes on to say that "such women's readings both attempt to reveal the gender-dynamics within and behind the text, and ask what specific use (if any) women can make of the text today", and continues for a while in that vein. These notes are not the Bible, but they are from one of the largest postgraduate theological courses in the UK, validated by a secular university, so they surely suggest that generalising about feminist theology is considered possible by at least some academic theologians.
quote:
Also you cannot just decide to ignore dictionary definitions on the grounds that they've fallen behind 'common usage' in an online dictionary? Yeah, right.
I'm glad you mentioned that it's an online dictionary. I started to edit the definition myself this morning, but decided that life is too short.
quote:
You've gone one step further than Humpty Dumpty - not only defining your own words to suit yourself, but also taking on the right to define words as used by others. As far as winning strategies in an argument go, I'd give that 10/10 for effort, but only 2/10 for being convincing.
Nope, all I said was that dictionary definitions do not prove anything, which is clearly the case. All the extrapolations from that patently true statement are (c) Qlib. And the argument that language is defined by usage not by linguists is standard first-year psycholinguistics fare.
Although, actually, I'm warming to your approach, because it offers a parsimonious solution to the whole inclusive language issue. If words mean what the dictionaries say they mean, then male pronouns did not exclude for as long as dictionary' included the inclusive meaning of "men", for example, the problem was caused by the modification of those dictionary definitions, and the alienation of women in church can be solved by simply changing the definitions back, or by putting an asterisk at the bottom of the page containing the liturgy. Oh, hang on, we don't even need to change the dictionary definition!
quote:
This article concerns man in the sense of "human male". For other meanings of man see Man (disambiguation).
A man is a male human adult, in contrast to an adult female, which is a woman. The term man (irregular plural: men) is a term used to indicate either a person generally, or a male person specifically.
Does that settle the matter. If not, why not? Are you going to join me on the wall waiting for all the sovereign's horses and all the sovereign's persons?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But you are the only person posting here who even pretends to believe there is a neccesary connection.
What I think I've been saying fairly consistently is that there is sometimes a connection...
quote:
quote:
Plenty of men react badly to herstory as told by wimmin. Of course not everyone proposing inclusive language has also signed up for that agenda, but being repeatedly told that one never drives the other is just not credible.
Well, go and find some people who have signed up to it then.
... and the response has been that there is never a connection. I posted a link a page or so back in which, IMO, inclusive language and feminism are inextricably linked. What was your reading of that page?
quote:
quote:
The way that traditionally female characteristics are valued, while traditionally male ones are often despised
In what way is this new?
Over what timescale? What I see in the NT is not especially touchy-feely.
quote:
quote:
one of the best articles I have ever read about getting men to "share" was by a pastor who had decided to conduct his ministry in the passenger seat of combine harvesters or underneath truck gearboxes
I go to church to worship God, not to learn how to fix cars. If I wanted to learn how to fix cars I would go to a car-fixing class.
Oh dear oh dear, what a typically male piece of concrete thinking ![[Biased]](wink.gif) The point was that many men talk more easily when doing something else, and that being quizzed about their existential state on a Tuesday evening in someone else's living room is a long way out of their comfort zone. The "something else" could, for example, be a long journey. Could we call it a pilgrimmage?
quote:
Are these new male activities, or do you think that church services have recently been moved to Sunday mornings specifically to interfere with them?
There are lots of sporting activities on a Sunday morning, and, from what I see here, most of them seem to involve men. Whether church was always so focussed on Sunday morning is something we could explore elsewhere - I would suggest that the parish model, for example, meant that people interacted with the church at all sorts of levels throughout the week.
quote:
quote:
which, I would suggest, is more of a problem for men than for women as men typically place less value on "sharing" as an end in itself, especially with a female-majority audience
I'm not sure what this means. Unless you are now owning up to men actually being emotional cripples. It looks like exactly the sort of pop-psychology cliche you were criticising on the other thread. Or are you allowed to stereotype men even though women are not?
Allowed to?! Ken, you need to let go of this kyriarchic rhetoric!
I'm suggesting that men typically use language in a more instrumental way than women. If we want to explore that, let's go somewhere else to do it. Any one-sentence summary is going to look "pop", but there is plenty of hard psychological research pointing to gender differences in language use. I like vulgarisation, it keeps the academics humble. The problem with the processing thing is not that it is pop but that it is wrong.
quote:
Either way, WTF has it got to do with the topic of this thread?
Dunno, ask Wanderer, I was answering his question.
quote:
The "disappeared without trace" chord?
Possibly (they never made it across the Channel to my knowledge), but that's what movements do. I think the suffragettes have fizzled out too, but that doesn't mean that they were not significant. Any movement that can mobilise hundreds of thousands of men must be touching some sort of nerve. And there are plenty of other groups like that trying to find ways of doing Christianity in a male-inclusive way.
(Actually, they seem to be organising their next conference in Michigan, so maybe it's just that the press got bored. And before anyone else says it, yes, those photos on the homepage are really really bad.)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
So anyone writing "dead white male" could be accused of thinking that all males are dead and white?
Well, I’ve only ever heard the phrase used in relation to the study of literature, in which case it means exactly this: that the majority of the writers studied are dead and white and male. quote:
…all I said was that dictionary definitions do not prove anything, which is clearly the case... And the argument that language is defined by usage not by linguists is standard first-year psycholinguistics fare.
Yes, that is why even print dictionaries are revised regularly and have supplements etc. You can’t prove everything from dictionaries, but when a dictionary notes that a usage is partially “in jest”, then that pretty clearly proves you wrong when you say it isn’t. quote:
Although, actually, I'm warming to your approach, because it offers a parsimonious solution to the whole inclusive language issue. If words mean what the dictionaries say they mean, then male pronouns did not exclude for as long as dictionary included the inclusive meaning of "men", for example, the problem was caused by the modification of those dictionary definitions…
Oh boy, 16 pages and you still don’t get it! It is the fact that women are included in the word men that causes the invisibility. The problem is not the intentions of the authors or of current users, the problem is embedded in the language itself.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
You can’t prove everything from dictionaries, but when a dictionary notes that a usage is partially “in jest”, then that pretty clearly proves you wrong when you say it isn’t.
My claim related to how the term is used by a particular constituency in a particular context, your response was a general dictionary definition. I don't doubt that the original term was coined partly in jest, but that has little or nothing to do with how those talking about "church herstory" use the term. I'm reminded of a friend whose youth group wanted to produce a banner for a church procession with the slogan "Jesus is wicked". That raises all sorts of interesting issues, but I can't see that dictionary definitions address any of them.
quote:
Oh boy, 16 pages and you still don’t get it! It is the fact that women are included in the word men that causes the invisibility. The problem is not the intentions of the authors or of current users, the problem is embedded in the language itself.
So if we go for people, does that mean that both men and women have a problem because they are both included? The problem is only embedded in the language if you think that "man" is "owned" by males in a way that it isn't by females. The definition from your preferred dictionary doesn't really support that statement. I actually agree with you that it would be wise to avoid using "man" where it refers to both men and women, but that's on the basis of an argument from common usage, not etymology or dictionary definitions, and you seem to want to reject that line of reasoning on principle.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
First of all, 'wikipedia' isn't my preferred dictionary, it was simply the first that came up when I searched for definitions of 'herstory' you might note that it says the word can also be a "useful shorthand", which is, I think, the main way that your "Church herstory" sites are using it. Even so, if I used that phrase as shorthand, I would expect my readers to be aware of its only semi-serious antecedents.
I don't have a problem with the idea that words are defined by usage, because that is, in fact, the principle on which all dictionaries operate. What I object to is you coming up with contentious statements about "common usage" to prove your point.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I submitted a dozen or so links to websites talking about church and herstory, selected by a process over which I have no fine control, precisely to provide a representative set of examples on the basis of which to judge current usage. If you think my reading of those sites is contentious, please justify that assertion. If you think that the process by which I selected them is contentious, please explain why and propose an alternative. But hanging on grimly to a general dictionary definition as a way to avoid looking at actual current usage in a specific context in conjunction with one specific qualifier ("church") really doesn't provide a basis on which to move forward.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Your perception of common usage of herstory, as in church herstory is that most people are using the word as a 'handy shorthand'. My perception of common usage based on feminist writers I have read, feminists I know (including myself), colleagues working on inclusivity in education, and finally on the websites I googled yesterday, is that almost nobody uses the word in deadly earnest. I accept that both usages run side by side - you seem to be denying the existence of the humorous element.
The point is that for me this illustrates your whole style of debate. You make sweeping generalised statements about a variety of subjects, most notable shrill-man hating feminists and a definition of 'inclusivity' which is that it aims to exclude the poor, oppressed male half of the human race. When challenged on these you then quote reams of evidence from your personal experience, resort to hair-splitting and, finally, the wonderful argument that dictionaries are not reliable sources when speaking about the definition of a word.
It seems that at almost every point of agreement you feel you have to spin off into another rant to justify your hostility to the feminist movement which you repeatedly insist on viewing as monolithic and monotonous.
I'm not interested in your views on the science of gender difference, which is an extreme tangent; I'm not interested in your views on feminism, which are, at best, ill-informed and, at worst, narrow-minded and bigoted; and I'm not interested in employing you as an online dictionary. ISTM we've come as close as we can get to agreeing on the idea that inclusive language can be positive, even though you could only reach that point by using the words "appropriate language" or "competent communication". As far as I'm concerned what is going on now is you trying to justify your more extreme statements: boring and irrelevant.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
The point is that for me this illustrates your whole style of debate. You make sweeping generalised statements about a variety of subjects, most notable shrill-man hating feminists and a definition of 'inclusivity' which is that it aims to exclude the poor, oppressed male half of the human race. When challenged on these you then quote reams of evidence from your personal experience, resort to hair-splitting and, finally, the wonderful argument that dictionaries are not reliable sources when speaking about the definition of a word.
No, I googled on "church herstory" as one way to see how people actually use the term "church herstory", and invited comments on the result. You googled on "herstory", and found something different. It seems to me that if we are talking about church herstory (which I was, and is the point on which we called you), my search string is superior to yours, but, as I keep saying, I'm very happy to discuss that point, or any other point that doesn't boil down to "Excuse me, but Qlib knows".
Your first paragraph basically says "my personal and anecdotal experience is better than your personal and anecdotal experience", which, whether or not it is true, is not the basis for any kind of discussion, at least not over this medium.
By memory, I used the word "shrill" in hell, where we went at your invitation, on a thread that you started using terms such as "dickhead". I never once questioned your choice of polemic. But you have to admit that I got far far better leverage out of mine (I considered tossing in "hysterical" long before RuthW suggested it, but that really was too obvious).
And, as I've pointed out ad nauseum, the "what science says about men and women" tangent was not introduced by me, but by someone your side of the inclusive divide.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Melon - It was only later that you specified ‘church herstory’. Your first comment on herstory related to a feminist theology website, but your comment was: quote:
I stopped reading when I got to "herstory"….Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
Note how you, characteristically, broadened the definition in extremely biased language.
My first response was that it was just a convenient shorthand for ‘feminist history’ and I only later added my further comment that I felt it was usually used 'tongue-in-cheek'. My point is that my definitions allow your examples, whereas you just deny my understanding of ‘common usage’, despite my attaching published evidence. You are the one who is setting yourself up as an authority, not me.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Melon, Qlib - the Hell thread is still there. Please do not deconstruct each other's posts on that thread here in Purgatory.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Melon - It was only later that you specified ‘church herstory’. Your first comment on herstory related to a feminist theology website, but your comment was: quote:
I stopped reading when I got to "herstory"….Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
Note how you, characteristically, broadened the definition in extremely biased language.
Never has so much been read into an ellipsis... I stopped reading (the first time) when I got to herstory, but the rest of the sentence related to the page in general, and I think the ellipses indicate that fairly clearly.
The site was about church herstory, it said so in large letters at the top of the page. The rest of the page appears to me to be precisely and explicitly about rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue. I don't recall the details of your response to my reading of that web page, can you give me a link?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
In view of DS's comments, I don't think we should continue this debate here and I feel it's too petty to move on to Hell. As a general point, I always feel that you should make your meaning explicit on the thread in question, rather than trusting that someone will go to a website and see what you have seen.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
The website was an attempt to provide evidence that the position I was describing did indeed exist anywhere other than between my ears. I can't see that discussing this in hell, again, is going to get us any further, so are we going ot agree to differ?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Whether something exists is one thing - nobody suggested you were imagining it - and whether it is a characteristic representation of 'feminist thought' is another.
I think we've already got further than agreeing to differ on the main topic of the thread and the rest is just a distraction and a fairly fruitless (if you'll pardon the pun) one at that.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
But you keep redefining terms too. What you actually said was
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
pausing only briefly to say that I think the 'herstory' issue is nothing to do with the church.
(my emphasis). Whether or not it is representative or not is something on which I have an open mind. But "nothing to do with the church" is a bit of an overstatement when 20k web pages suggest otherwise. That was what I responded to. I'd like to believe that most Christians interested in inclusive language an other church-related gender issues are not as extreme as the 20 or so pages I have linked to suggest, I really would, but your insistence on claiming that the extreme position simply doesn't exist, when it clearly does, doesn't make it any easier.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I really would, but your insistence on claiming that the extreme position simply doesn't exist, when it clearly does, doesn't make it any easier.
No-one has claimed this here! People have said that such extreme positions are not that widely held in the church and that interest in exclusive language is a lot wider than that.
You do seem to have come to this discussion with an agenda to slag off radical feminists in the church and to be paying no attention whatsoever to what anyone else actually says they believe.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I'm saying that, for example,
quote:
the 'herstory' issue is nothing to do with the church.
is a manifestly untrue statement.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Apart from the 'respect the hosts' rule, I happen to think that DS is right in not wanting bickering over who said what, when, and what it meant clogging up this thread. So I've put my response in Hell.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Melon wrote:
quote:
I'm suggesting that men typically use language in a more instrumental way than women. If we want to explore that, let's go somewhere else to do it. Any one-sentence summary is going to look "pop", but there is plenty of hard psychological research pointing to gender differences in language use. I like vulgarisation, it keeps the academics humble. The problem with the processing thing is not that it is pop but that it is wrong.
Ken replied:
Either way, WTF has it got to do with the topic of this thread?
Melon said:
quote:
Dunno, ask Wanderer, I was answering his question.
Well I've got no idea what you were saying, let alone how it answers my question or is related to the rest of the thread, I'm afraid. Then again, I've probably been brainwashed by so much femist rhetoric that my male brain has closed down. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
ETA the main quote is from Melon, the [imperfectly] nested one is Ken.
[Think I got all the quotes in the right order. Hope this is clearer. PRACTICE YOUR CODE]
[ 28. June 2005, 21:36: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
this thread seems to have been derailed, but I would like to say that in the English language she includes he, she and woman includes man, woman and not vice versa so if we change all the words that are bothering people to she and woman, no one should complain.
(if only things would be that simple)
[ 29. June 2005, 13:46: Message edited by: Lady Alicia of Scouseland ]
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
this thread seems to have been derailed, but I would like to say that in the English language she includes he, she and woman includes man, woman and not vice versa so if we change all the words that are bothering people to she and woman, no one should complain.
(if only things would be that simple)
I have used "she" and "her" as general-purpose pronouns in academic work. I can't say I think it is the ideal solution, but I prefer it to incorrect usage of "their", for example.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I have used "she" and "her" as general-purpose pronouns in academic work. I can't say I think it is the ideal solution, but I prefer it to incorrect usage of "their", for example.
Despite the fact that "their" is increasingly in common usage, even in academic circles?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What makes "their" incorrect? If enough people use it, it's correct.
Oh, but it's plural, you say.
Yes, just like "you" is plural. Or used to be plural, but now it's both plural and singular because people use it that way.
Meaning is use. Use is meaning. Words are not magic talismans, but tools used by people. If enough people use a word to mean something, then that's what it means. Period, end of story.
[ 29. June 2005, 14:41: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fruitbat's Angel
Apprentice
# 9664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Melon mentioned midwife. I understand that the 'mid' bit means 'with.' A midwife is someone, male or female, who is skilled to be with a wife as she gives birth. It implies that mothers will be wives, but it does not imply that birth assistants will be female.
The word actually originally meant "woman with" as in woman who will be with a woman giving birth. It was midwife simply because unmarried woman weren't midwives. Thus, it definitely did imply birth assistants were female.
Posts: 8 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fruitbat's Angel
Apprentice
# 9664
|
Posted
Sorry, my last post and this one are going back into the thread a little, but I am late to this one!
I think the "man", "men", "mankind" thing is contextual. I read "men's" on a toilet door as meaning males only, but can read "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" as including males and females. It doesn't have to be that "man" has one meaning and one only. Often the context of writing tells us which meaning to use.
I hate what they are doing to a lot of the old hymns and biblical texts as they were written in a particular time and we shouldn't be messing with them to suit policitcal correctness.
Posts: 8 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fruitbat's Angel: I hate what they are doing to a lot of the old hymns and biblical texts as they were written in a particular time and we shouldn't be messing with them to suit policitcal correctness.
Should we go back to thee's and thou's then?
Surely they have already been messed about with as language has evolved? Why shouldn't they be altered to reflect the reality of the modern world? ISTM that they already have been, when translating and updating them in the past.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fruitbat's Angel
Apprentice
# 9664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
Should we go back to thee's and thou's then?
Surely they have already been messed about with as language has evolved? Why shouldn't they be altered to reflect the reality of the modern world? ISTM that they already have been, when translating and updating them in the past.
I agree that language has evolved and therefore we have removed the thees and thous, however, changing thee and thou to their modern equivalent (you) doesn't change the words about. A lot of the changes now actually change whole sentences of songs and sometimes the meaning and that bugs me.
[fixed code. Oh, and welcome to the Ship.]
[ 29. June 2005, 21:22: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 8 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
Fruitbat's Angel:
Welcome to the Ship, by the way!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I disagree though, because I think that inclusive language is very important, so that all people feel included.
I do agree that sometimes the language is changed so much as to dramatically change its meaning (or how it rhymes in terms of verse) but I think that the idea of changing it is a good one which people will get used to eventually, it bugs me too, but because I want inclusive language to work. (which it can when it is done properly) but why does it bug you?
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fruitbat's Angel:
I agree that language has evolved and therefore we have removed the thees and thous, however, changing thee and thou to their modern equivalent (you) doesn't change the words about.
Oh yes it can do, especially in a song when it interferes with the rhyme (eg a line that ended with 'Thee')
My church uses a hymnbook called 'Praise' that has done this to all the old hymns (interestingly they couldn't do it to more recent ones written in old style language such as 'Great is thy faithfulness' dues to copyright issues) and it is dreadful to see the way the words have been mangled about.
'Thine be the glory' has become 'Glory to Jesus' for example. I hate the feeling of knowing I'm going to trip up sooner or later while singing the old words by mistake.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Updating archaic language simply because it is archaic is to my mind a separate issue from updating archaic language because it is exclusive.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
It is a seperate issue, Ruth, but I used it in response to quote:
Originally posted by Fruitbat's Angel: I hate what they are doing to a lot of the old hymns and biblical texts as they were written in a particular time and we shouldn't be messing with them to suit policitcal correctness.
i.e saying that we shouldn't mess about with hymns simply for the sake of leaving well alone, doesn't make sense to me.
It is an equally valid thing, if not more valid to my mind that we should update the language to be more inclusive, just as we have updated it in the past to be more modern.
The only concern that I share with the opposite view is that of rythmical reasoning, but thats another issue. I do think that inclusive language needs to be done well in order to gain more support.
[ 29. June 2005, 17:49: Message edited by: Lady Alicia of Scouseland ]
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Updating archaic language simply because it is archaic is to my mind a separate issue from updating archaic language because it is exclusive.
But isn't using archaic language for the sake of it an act of exclusion in itself?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
But isn't using archaic language for the sake of it an act of exclusion in itself?
I think so. It may be unintentional exclusion, but it is still exclusion. Unfortunately there is a lot of that in the Plot. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Updating archaic language simply because it is archaic is to my mind a separate issue from updating archaic language because it is exclusive.
But isn't using archaic language for the sake of it an act of exclusion in itself?
It depends if you are using archaic to mean "obsolete usage" or just "old-fashioned wording". Sometimes old-fashioned wording is still able to convey profound truths, but if the words are obsolete or the meaning has changed and the language is actually confusing, that is definitely a problem. ("Truly and indifferently administer justice", anyone?)
There's nothing wrong with traditional hymns which happen to be archaic but not exclusive. And even where they do use exclusive language, (eg "Good Christian Men, Rejoice") I wouldn't always want to rewrite them. Because they're so blatantly archaic throughout, I don't feel deliberately excluded by them. It's often difficult to make them scan without making disproportionate changes, and I'd suggest that a lot of people who wander into church would feel more included by recognising old familiar hymns like Thine Be the Glory that they remember from their childhood and "Songs of Praise", than they would by heavily rewritten inclusive versions.
However, liturgy is a different matter, because I don't feel very "ministered to" when the entire church service seems to be directed at men. It's not so essential for liturgy to scan - yes, the rhythm is nice, but is that important enough to risk excluding part of your congregation? Archaic liturgy needs to be changed, like "indifferently" to "disinterestedly" or "impartially", if there is a risk of it being misinterpreted in a significant way.
I don't have a problem with God being referred to in male terms. I don't have a big problem with well-known archaic hymns being kept in their original form for reasons of metre and familiarity as long as they are not obviously and problematically exclusive. (And if it's easy to change "men" to "us", for instance, I think that's a good idea.) But I do believe very strongly that liturgy should be understandable and clearly inclusive, and that new songs and hymns should be written in an appropriately inclusive way.
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Thanks for your response, Fibonacci.
Just to warn you: I'm approaching my final year as an English Lang/Lit undergraduate with a special interest in language and power, so please forgive me if I come across as, um, pedantic or over enthusiastic, or if I exhibit any other challenging behaviours. I get a little carried away with my personal fascination sometimes. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
It depends if you are using archaic to mean "obsolete usage" or just "old-fashioned wording".
I use it to mean language that has "fallen out of common use" which is (so I've been advised) academia's interpretation of the term 'archaic language'.
quote:
There's nothing wrong with traditional hymns which happen to be archaic but not exclusive.
Isn't there? I suppose I'd better say that I view the inclusive language debate as something much broader than gender alone. Exclusive language is powerful and the power of 'tradition' is considerable, particularly within institutions, especially within the institution of the church. Therefore, when you ask what is "wrong" with "traditional", what can be my response? There isn't anything inherently wrong in traditional hymns (which tend to be written in archaic lexis). Adopting a position of "right" and "wrong" in relation to language usage is to hold a position of power. Look to the education system, in which many an English teacher will claim that a certain use of grammar is either "right" or "wrong". Such a stance is placing those with a particular interest - be it a particular grammar usage or singing traditional hymns in archaic language - in a position of superiority to those who do not use, do not understand or do not even recognise the words used within those hymns and who therefore could never grasp the 'profound truths' you claim they still convey.
quote:
I'd suggest that a lot of people who wander into church would feel more included by recognising old familiar hymns like Thine Be the Glory that they remember from their childhood and "Songs of Praise", than they would by heavily rewritten inclusive versions.
I would agree, if the people you are referring to are older. However, if someone of 20 years walks into the church, it is highly unlikely (in the UK anyway) that they will have even sung hymns in their childhood or ever dreamed of watching Songs of Praise. Therefore, by continuing traditional hymns, a growing proportion of the potential churchgoing population are being excluded. Their parents may feel comforted; but they won't have a clue what is being said and it's quite likely they will perceive christianity to be something not relevant to them.
quote:
However, liturgy is a different matter, because I don't feel very "ministered to" when the entire church service seems to be directed at men.
You make an interesting distinction between hymns and liturgy in terms of language used. As I said earlier, I view inclusive language as something broader than gender (although obviously including it). Although I'm Anglican by background, I'm not sure of the relevance of liturgy to a contemporary world in which children are taught to think for themselves, challenge, analyse, etc, from an early age, rather than the former methods of repetition and responses. But that's a tangent. I'd agree that liturgy, if it's to exist at all, needs to be gender inclusive (and, I'd suggest, go beyond gender alone to ensure all people feel that they can participate).
quote:
Archaic liturgy needs to be changed ... if there is a risk of it being misinterpreted in a significant way.
I think this is another important point, but I would extend it to include all texts used/language spoken, not just liturgy. The difficulty with the caveat, of course, is that to one person the archaic word will be fully understood, to another it may be misunderstood and to another it won't even be recognised. So it may be difficult to determine which archaic words (or syntax) are at risk of misinterpretation.
quote:
I don't have a problem with God being referred to in male terms.
I don't generally have a problem with this either. What I do have a problem with, however, is when the masculine is used to assert power and control over others.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Thanks for your response, Fibonacci.
Just to warn you: I'm approaching my final year as an English Lang/Lit undergraduate with a special interest in language and power, so please forgive me if I come across as, um, pedantic or over enthusiastic, or if I exhibit any other challenging behaviours. I get a little carried away with my personal fascination sometimes.
Don't worry - I think we actually agree on a lot of things However, please bear with me too, as I'm a linguistics graduate and generally far too argumentative! Also, I may take issue with a few worship songs, but it's in context and not intended to offend anyone!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
It depends if you are using archaic to mean "obsolete usage" or just "old-fashioned wording".
I use it to mean language that has "fallen out of common use" which is (so I've been advised) academia's interpretation of the term 'archaic language'.
Yes indeed - I was just suggesting that the word "archaic" might be used and/or interpreted differently by non-academics. I would also suggest that there is a spectrum of "common use", as testified to by various posts on this thread, and that trying to limit our language to what is "in common use" is a precarious undertaking.
quote:
Exclusive language is powerful and the power of 'tradition' is considerable, particularly within institutions, especially within the institution of the church.
....
Adopting a position of "right" and "wrong" in relation to language usage is to hold a position of power. Look to the education system, in which many an English teacher will claim that a certain use of grammar is either "right" or "wrong". Such a stance is placing those with a particular interest - be it a particular grammar usage or singing traditional hymns in archaic language - in a position of superiority to those who do not use, do not understand or do not even recognise the words used within those hymns and who therefore could never grasp the 'profound truths' you claim they still convey.
I agree entirely that people shouldn't be able to block legitimate moves towards inclusiveness, just because it's "the way we've always done things round here". However, I'm not entirely clear what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that all hymns which aren't written in contemporary language should be outlawed or modified because some people might not know what all the words mean? Or are you saying that we musn't do that, because that would be pronouncing that one form of language is "wrong"?
I certainly wasn't suggesting that archaic language was the best way of conveying truths - in fact, I did say that contemporary songs and hymns should be written in clear contemporary language. However, I think that the archaism of some hymns is overstated. This is what I mean by a "spectrum of common usage". I agree entirely that where there is actually confusion or lack of clarity, this is a problem which needs to be addressed. (And can I suggest the song "Pierce my ear, O God" as the first candidate.)
Tangentially... I hesitate to take issue with an English Lit/Lang undergraduate, but surely there are uses of grammar which are wrong? English teachers aren't necessarily exercising control-freakery, but teaching their students not to use grammatical structures which are misleading and confusing. If all uses of language are equally valid, why are we even having this discussion?
quote:
if someone of 20 years walks into the church, it is highly unlikely (in the UK anyway) that they will have even sung hymns in their childhood or ever dreamed of watching Songs of Praise. Therefore, by continuing traditional hymns, a growing proportion of the potential churchgoing population are being excluded. Their parents may feel comforted; but they won't have a clue what is being said and it's quite likely they will perceive christianity to be something not relevant to them.
Again, I agree that people need to feel the church is relevant to their lives, but my impression is that if young people feel excluded by traditional hymns per se, they're unlikely to feel included by revamped versions such as "Glory to Jesus". Are you suggesting that traditional hymns are by their very nature exclusive? Is the argument that we should stick to Matt Redman songs because everyone can understand them regardless of their background? As it happens, I feel much more excluded by the Biblical vernacular assumed by some contemporary worship songs, whereas I know that traditional hymns are naturally written in old fashioned language and so this is less of a problem. We can't equate "unfamiliar" and "exclusive" quite so easily as you're suggesting.
And important though it is to include those 20 year olds, we also need to actively include their parents, who in many cases aren't churchgoers either. I wasn't really suggesting the hymns would just be "comforting", more that they could be a point of access and contact. I also know a lot of older people (I'm particularly thinking of the Afro-Caribbean community within my former church) who have expressed feelings of alienation since they are no longer able to sing the hymns that they love because the music group will only play worship songs. I'm not anti-worship song at all, but there is more to eliminating exclusion than just simplifying language.
(Incidentally, where would Christmas carols fall within this formulation? Just out of interest )
quote:
Although I'm Anglican by background, I'm not sure of the relevance of liturgy to a contemporary world in which children are taught to think for themselves, challenge, analyse, etc, from an early age, rather than the former methods of repetition and responses. But that's a tangent.
Which I will doubtless take up with you elsewhere. For now, just wanted to say that I really disagree with the disparagement of liturgy as mindless repetition as opposed to thoughtful response. CS Lewis argued that "Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best...when, through familiarity, we don't have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance...The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God." Another reason why clear, uncontentious language is so important, of course.
quote:
quote:
Archaic liturgy needs to be changed ... if there is a risk of it being misinterpreted in a significant way.
I think this is another important point, but I would extend it to include all texts used/language spoken, not just liturgy.
Yes, that's really what I was trying to say. Sorry if that didn't come across.
quote:
The difficulty with the caveat, of course, is that to one person the archaic word will be fully understood, to another it may be misunderstood and to another it won't even be recognised. So it may be difficult to determine which archaic words (or syntax) are at risk of misinterpretation.
Just to clarify, is this an argument for outlawing all archaic language?
quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with God being referred to in male terms.
I don't generally have a problem with this either. What I do have a problem with, however, is when the masculine is used to assert power and control over others.
I think we're agreeing here.... hopefully?
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Don't really have much SoF time today, but I did enjoy this article on another site I follow, wrt to my favourite tangent of the month:
quote:
The theory that the mind works like a computer, in a series of distinct stages, was an important steppingstone in cognitive science, but it has outlived its usefulness, concludes a new Cornell University study. Instead, the mind should be thought of more as working the way biological organisms do: as a dynamic continuum, cascading through shades of grey.
I especially enjoyed "the way biological organisms do". I thought I was a biological organism!
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Despite the fact that "their" is increasingly in common usage, even in academic circles?
Yes. If academics were not allowed to disagree, we'd all spend a lot less money on financing their grants. I looked at the range of practices in contemporary theological writing and followed the ones I liked the best.
The Oxford University Press lists all sorts of gender-biased words to avoid in research papers, but goes on to say
quote:
However, do not use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent.
Incorrect: The principal investigator should place an asterisk after their name.
(original highlighting). I don't know if this proves that the singular "their" is wrong, but it certainly suggests to me that it is one possible right conclusion for people concerned about gender issues.
My preferred solution in this case would be "An asterisk should be placed after the principal investigator's name". You can usually dodge the issue by turning the sentence around, but sometimes it's just too tortuous. Like split infinitives, gender-specific pronouns are occasionally the least bad option stylistically.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Well the correct/incorrect thing is very interesting. Usually when I'm talking to my students, I wouldn't say that their grammar or puntuation is 'wrong'. I might say it was 'unclear', 'unnecessarily wordy' or (on rare occasions) 'failing to do justice to your underlying sentence structure'. I might say: "that's 'slang' or non-standard English".
Spelling is a more obvious case where something is either 'right' or 'wrong' though it does depend on the writer's intentions. Deliberate mis-spellings ('nuff said) aren't wrong in the same way, are they? And if I were to deliberately split an infinitve, that isn't wrong either (not that it ever is, IMHO).
Similarly, if people start to deliberately use 'they' and 'their' as gender-neutral singular pronouns, then that isn't 'wrong'. And this is very similar to the change from 'thee', 'thou' etc into 'you'. It's not an exact parallel, of course, but the use of 'you' as a singular when addressing one's social 'betters' was an exclusive use and, in the end, speakers of English recognised and resolved this problem by using 'you' in the singular for everybody. What I don't know is how deliberate this process was, and whether it was openly commented upon by anyone other than Quakers (who chose a different, ultimately unsuccessful solution).
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Well the correct/incorrect thing is very interesting. Usually when I'm talking to my students, I wouldn't say that their grammar or puntuation is 'wrong'. I might say it was 'unclear', 'unnecessarily wordy' or (on rare occasions) 'failing to do justice to your underlying sentence structure'. I might say: "that's 'slang' or non-standard English".
Spelling is a more obvious case where something is either 'right' or 'wrong' though it does depend on the writer's intentions. Deliberate mis-spellings ('nuff said) aren't wrong in the same way, are they? And if I were to deliberately split an infinitve, that isn't wrong either (not that it ever is, IMHO).
Fair point. There are lots of non-standard usages which aren't confusing. I would still suggest that a sentence like "They folded, they're coats" is grammatically incorrect, but it's certainly very unhelpful to obsess over "wrong" grammar such as split infinitives and starting sentences with "And" or "But", and I can see where the power issues come into that.
However, this is very much what I was trying to say about traditional hymns and forms - if the language obscures the meaning of what you're trying to say, it needs to be amended. (That includes exclusive language.) If it doesn't obscure the meaning, then we need to look at the agenda involved in wanting to change it. It really comes back to the Lewis passage I quoted - good church language should allow you to focus on God, rather than being thrown off by confusing or excluding terminology.
[ 30. June 2005, 11:11: Message edited by: Fibonacci's Number ]
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Similarly, if people start to deliberately use 'they' and 'their' as gender-neutral singular pronouns, then that isn't 'wrong'.
Are you telling me that the recent trend of putting apostophe's to denote plural's is not wrong either?!
What is best practice, acceptable and wrong surely depends on the reference community.
If I'm writing for examiners in a UK university, there is no pretence of democracy in the process. I want a good mark for style, so I pick a style that is acceptable to them, and gender neutral is where it's at, although there is some scope to discuss how to do gender neutral.
If I'm speaking in church, I'm going to choose language to create the effect I want, and to carry the points I am trying to make, within that church community. In most churches you can lose the entire congregation by using one wrong word that might not even be noticed by the congregation down the road. "Toronto" is a particularly good one around these parts. But, while social ineptitude in church results in informal sanctions, as it does anywhere else, I don't expect to be "marked" for my correct use of the house style, and maybe that's part of what I fear is behind inclusive language initiatives.
If I'm reading an article, I'm obviously going to decide what specific terms mean on the basis of "universal" definitions, but also on the basis of how terms are used in their discipline, sub-discipline, school, and, maybe, in that author's writing. I'm basing part of my dissertation on Lindbeck, and he redefines terms such as "doctrine" with gay abandon. If you read his work assuming that "doctrine" means what everyone knows it means, his arguments just don't make any sense.
Language is about communication - which implies shared or at least overlapping definitions - but it's also about identifying with and testing the boundaries of communities. In Britain, we might still assess class by accent, in France it's down to correct use of the subjunctive, but in both cases your use of language opens or closes doors. That's surely partly why inclusive language is an issue in the first place, and why "local" usage is so vitally important.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Fair point. There are lots of non-standard usages which aren't confusing. I would still suggest that a sentence like "They folded, they're coats" is grammatically incorrect,..
I would agree ("You’ve got the wrong their, there," would be my comment. ) quote:
but it's certainly very unhelpful to obsess over "wrong" grammar such as split infinitives and starting sentences with "And" or "But", and I can see where the power issues come into that.
Agreed, but I think you may be assuming that power = 'bad' or 'abuse of power', and that ain’t necessarily so. Standard English is a form of power. It defines (defined?) the dialect of a dominant group as the norm for communication – and jolly useful that is, too, because without norms communication is impossible, especially in written forms. But there is still a power issue there, a point well made by Tom Leonard in his poem beginning "this is thi /six a clock/ news thi / man said..." quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Are you telling me that the recent trend of putting apostophe's to denote plural's is not wrong either?!
No, the key was in the use of the word deliberately. Now, while that use is being picked up by a number of people but is still contentious, there’s going to be a battle over whether it’s wrong or not. But I would suggest to you that if a ‘wrong’ form exists in Literature (by James Joyce, for example), then it's accepted. So definitely a power and/or status issue there,
quote:
Language is about communication - which implies shared or at least overlapping definitions - but it's also about identifying with and testing the boundaries of communities.
Yes, so what we have is a problem with a breakdown in communication because old definitions no longer fit comfortably. And what’s going on is a testing of the boundaries, isn’t it? To see if language can accommodate a new understanding.
[ 30. June 2005, 11:36: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I'm not sure how well examples from the literary world transfer to where the rest of us live because the literary world is just that, another world. Forcing people to buy into your world on your own linguistic terms is a trick that great writers (and not so great writers with great egos) sometimes manage, but it isn't really an option for the rest of us.
One of my starting points is that style is usually best when it is transparent. If someone reads one of my essays, and, at the end, says "That was FANTASTIC punctuation!", I would tend to feel that the essay was a failure, and, also, that the punctuation was clearly far too intrusive. And I guess that could be one problem in thinking about inclusive language in church - the best examples are probably the ones Gordon and I haven't noticed, because they didn't leap out of the liturgy and beat us around the head
But I still think we have the order wrong on language and understanding. If the church's thinking on the role of women has really evolved at the grassroots level, I would expect the linguistic issues to pretty much take care of themselves.
If, on the other hand, the "old thinking" persists, I can't see how tackling this at the level of language gets us very far. I'm reminded of the anecdote told by another shipmate about friends who decided that they would never ever use a cross word in front of their kids. A few years on, they asked their children what they were fighting about, and one of them said "She called me darling first"...
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
But I still think we have the order wrong on language and understanding. If the church's thinking on the role of women has really evolved at the grassroots level, I would expect the linguistic issues to pretty much take care of themselves.
Linguistic issues don't pretty much take care of themselves. I'll never forget the gobsmacked looks of some of my fellow students at university when I told them that they shouldn't be referring to people as "coloured". "But they are!" went up the cry. "That's not offensive!" Same goes for words and phrases like "spastic", "mentally retarded" and so forth. Sometimes language usage has to be deliberately changed because it is causing upset and offence to people; and we can't just assume that everyone knows this automatically, particularly if they aren't part of the excluded group.
quote:
If, on the other hand, the "old thinking" persists, I can't see how tackling this at the level of language gets us very far.
Our use of language can have an effect on our attitudes, just as any change in our behaviour can - but that's another discussion. Regardless of this, it's still worth tackling the language level. First of all, it's a way of raising awareness about the fact that people can and do feel excluded. And then, if somebody does believe underneath it all that women are inferior, at least you can stop them from bringing those prejudices explicitly to bear during a church service. And if they are just acting out of ignorance, and don't wish to exclude anyone, then surely it's a good thing to provide less exclusive forms of expression?
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The Oxford University Press lists all sorts of gender-biased words to avoid in research papers, but goes on to say
quote:
However, do not use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent.
Incorrect: The principal investigator should place an asterisk after their name.
(original highlighting). I don't know if this proves that the singular "their" is wrong, but it certainly suggests to me that it is one possible right conclusion for people concerned about gender issues.
No, it proves that the OUP are wrong.
If it was good enough for Shakespeare and Milton and Austen it should be good enough for the OUP & if they disagree
"Their" is normal spoken English usage in that context and had been for the entire history of the language. So it is by definition correct.
The idea that it is wrong is just something brought into the languiage from outside by prescriptive Latinate grammarians in the 17th & 18th centuries - along with the other irrelevant alien rules about split infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition and so on.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
Same goes for words and phrases like "spastic", "mentally retarded" and so forth.
But, justement, those terms persist, and in fact I'm not sure what mechanism exists for getting rid of them. You can write policy about what words can be published, and maybe about what employees can say to the publc while on duty, but you can't regulate how people speak in private conversation, and, indeed, overly zealous attempts to police "official" language may even be counterproductive. France has to be more interventionist in terms of language than most nations, yet people not much older than me still talk about house prices in terms of ancien francs, ie a term that lost its meaning 50 years and 2 currency changes ago.
(On a slight and potentially disastrous tangent, I've never understood why "coloured" is offensive, while "black" isn't, especially as very few black people could be described as black in colour. Is it because black is a term many black people choose to use to describe themselves?)
quote:
And then, if somebody does believe underneath it all that women are inferior, at least you can stop them from bringing those prejudices explicitly to bear during a church service.
I don't think so... One preacher I used to hear from time to time talked systematically about "the bretheren and the sisteren". I guess that's inclusive, in the "slapping the hearer around the head" style, but what he preached was patriarchal through and through. The most explicit "uppity women" rant I remember in French didn't use any exclusive language, it revolved around pretty much spitting the term pasteuse. And I mentioned a few pages ago the way school kids now chant "ESN!" instead of "Mental!".
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If it was good enough for Shakespeare and Milton and Austen it should be good enough for the OUP
Excellent, does that mean we can take Shakespeare as our model for what language is acceptable across the board?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
