rss

Category: Language

8
By Erich Vieth on November 03rd, 2009

Court reporters and multitasking

If you are one of those people who finds it difficult to multitask (I am one of those), you might appreciate this story involving court reporters. I work as a lawyer during the day, and quite often I need to take depositions, which are reported in real time by court reporters who use a special keyboard to take down every word of the deposition. The best court reporters are truly incredible to watch. To be a court reporter, you need to take down at least 200 words per minute without mistakes. You would think that trying to take down every word spoken by everyone in a room would completely occupy your working memory, but good court reporters can do their work proficiently with mental processing capacity to spare.

Last week I spent an entire day taking depositions. After the depositions were finished, I asked the court reporter what she was daydreaming about. She smiled, because she knows that experienced court reporters are perfectly capable of daydreaming about such things as grocery shopping or going to the beach at the same time that they are taking down every syllable of every word spoken in the room.

I asked this particular court reporter how often she has to go back and look at her transcript to see what was being said, because she was thinking about something else at the time she was taking down the testimony. She told me that she was once working for a judge who was going to sentence a man convicted of murder. The big question that day was whether the man would be put to death or whether he would get a life sentence. This court reporter was assigned to preserve all of the court proceedings regarding this momentous sentencing. After she was done taking down the testimony, and after she left the courtroom, someone asked her whether the judge sentenced the accused to death. This woman hesitated before replying that she did not know, even though she was a court reporter. To find out, she went back to her tape (the strip of paper on which the court reporter’s keyboard prints out the testimony), and looked for the critical part. She found out that the judge had actually sentenced the man to death, but she had no memory of this.

I asked her whether she is ever asked to read back testimony during a court proceeding or deposition at a time where she became nervous that she might not have been accurately taking down the testimony. She stated that this never happens, and that she is always confident that she’s taking down the testimony accurately. If something starts going wrong, her full consciousness kicks in and she deals with the unusual situation fully aware. She has never been caught not taking down the testimony accurately.

I find it pretty amazing that someone could have their working memory so thoroughly occupied in the linguistic sense, and yet be able to think about other things. It’s even more amazing that when the court reporters daydream or think, they are often doubly-employing their linguistic abilities. It just seems like this would be impossible, but it’s commonplace.

Most of the court reporters today use a special stenographic keyboard, but there are a few who speak into something that looks like a muzzle. They hear the testimony in the courtroom with their own ears and simultaneously speak those words into this muzzle-device which is recorded by a tape recorder. In short, they “shadow” the testimony with their own voice. Later, someone types out that the court reporter’s words into a transcript. I’ve spoken to some of these muzzle-device court reporters over the years, and they to tell me that they are able to think about other things were daydream while they are taking down the testimony.

If you are wondering why we even have court reporters, that would be a good question. The main advantage is that when you have a court reporter, you have a person who is in a position to swear to the accuracy of the transcript, indicating who said exactly what. A tape recorder would simply record the sounds, and might not accurately pick up the exact words that were being spoken (for instance, because someone is mumbling or gesturing). When these sorts of things happen at a deposition, human court reporters ask the witness to speak up or to state their testimony in words rather than gesturing. This makes for a more accurate and more readable transcript. That said, some courtrooms are now employing tape recorders in lieu of court reporters.

Communication • Featured • Language • Law • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
0
By Erich Vieth on October 10th, 2009

Koko update

I didn’t know that Koko was still alive. She is still alive, she was born in 1971, and her statistics are impressive:

During the course of the study, Koko has advanced further with language than any other non-human. Koko has a working vocabulary of over 1000 signs. Koko understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken English. Koko initiates the majority of conversations with her human companions and typically constructs statements averaging three to six words. Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered “normal.” Michael, the male silverback gorilla who grew up with Koko, had a working vocabulary of over 600 signs.

Communication • Language • nature
Full Story
4
By Erich Vieth on October 06th, 2009

It’s about me

George Will has been criticizing Barack Obama because Obama is narcissistic–he has been using the words “I” too much in his speeches.

So then blogger Mark Liberman compared Obama’s speeches with those of George W. Bush . . .

[via Daily Dish]

Language • Politics
Full Story
2
By Erich Vieth on September 19th, 2009

George Orwell’s concept of doublethink

I recently read George Orwell’s concept of doublethink and was impressed with how well he foresaw the way we would become:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Beautifully terrifying given its prevalence in these times. Here’s a recent example: Selective Deficit Disorder. Now let’s get it straight. Are large budget deficits terrible or not? The answer is that it depends:

Where, for instance, were the conservative protest marchers when President George W. Bush vastly expanded the deficit with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy? Where was Sen. Lincoln’s concern for “deficit neutrality” when she voted to give $700 billion to the thieves on Wall Street? Where was Obama’s “dime standard” when he proposed a budget that spends far more on maintaining bloated Pentagon budgets than on any universal health care proposal being considered in Congress? Where were demands for “fiscal sanity” by Brooks and other right-wing pundits when they cheered on the budget-busting war in Iraq? Where were the calls from these supposed “deficit hawks” to raise taxes when they backed all this profligate spending? And where were the journalists asking such painfully simple questions? They were nowhere to be seen or heard, because those plagued by Selective Deficit Disorder (as the name suggests) are only selectively worried about deficits.

Featured • Language • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
4
By Erich Vieth on August 20th, 2009

George Lakoff offers some framing tips to the Democrats re health care reform

Linguist George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here’s the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It’s a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama’s and Axelrod’s statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of “policy speak”:

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that “policy speak” is a big mistake. Mere facts don’t win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here’s Lakoff’s version of what should be Obama’s basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase “doctor-patient care.” Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase “insurance company bureaucrats.” Tell Americans that their health care premiums are “private taxes” levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers “govern our lives.” Talk about the “failure” of insurance companies. The “villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning.

George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here’s the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It’s a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama’s and Axelrod’s statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of “policy speak”:

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that “policy speak” is a big mistake. Mere facts don’t win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here’s Lakoff’s version of what should be Obama’s basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase “doctor-patient care.” Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase “insurance company bureaucrats.” Tell Americans that their health care premiums are “private taxes” levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers “govern our lives.” Talk about the “failure” of insurance companies. The “villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning.

I recommend reading Lakoff’s entire article, which is detailed, and thoughtful.”

Communication • Community • Featured • Health • Language • Medicine • Politics • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
10
Hitler and the Dining Room Table
By Mark Tiedemann on August 19th, 2009

Hitler and the Dining Room Table

I like Barney Frank. He says what he feels, usually in a way that makes his argument better. But it’s almost a no-brainer to do a comeback on the idiocy with which he was faced in Dartmouth, Massachussetts this past week. I mean, what do you say to someone who thinks it’s a valid statement to compare Obama to Hitler?

A woman carrying a poster with Obama’s image modified with a Hitlerian mustache stepped up to the microphone to ask why Frank supports a Nazi policy.

There are so many things wrong with this it boggles the mind where to begin. Frank’s response was probably the most effective.

“On what planet do you spend most of your time?” he asked. Then: “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.”

He then commented that her freedom to carry that poster and make such lamebrained statements was a tribute to the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. I salute his restraint.

To compare any president of the United States to Hitler is a stretch, even with the likes of Obama’s predecessor. (I might consider it for Cheney, but even he does not match the level of malignancy achieved by Adolph, nor does our system allow for such people to act with unrestrained impunity, hard as that might be for some to accept.) But to compare Barack Obama to the man man of the 20th Century is such a profoundly ignorant mischaracterization that it is tempting to write off this whole experiment in potential civilization as a failure.

Where does this shit come from?

The Republican Party, what is left of it, is grasping at straws, sinking in the quicksand of its own inanity. We must take care to not be pulled into the quagmire in some misguided attempt to rescue it through well-intentioned but doomed bipartisan sentiments. The Republican Party has devolved into a nasty cadre of ideologues, a shrinking room of hydrophobic screechers who claw and scratch at anyone who tries to do this country a service by bringing it back to some semblance of decency. They have fed on their own conspiracy-fevered viscera for so long that they cannot even hear the words much less the sentences of opposing viewpoints. We should perhaps let them sink and drown. It would be a kindness.

The fear-mongering is reminiscent of everything we’ve seen since 2000. Rachel Maddow, who is one of the most able of contemporary analysts on television, shows the process and the connections here.

Shouting, screaming, inane blather—noise filling the spaces in which rational discourse might take place if only the decibel level could be reduced. Platitudes, sloganeering, slander, and lies are flooding these so-called town hall meetings and shoving aside reason and discovery and thought. These are not people who are interested in understanding anything, they are people bent on stopping something they’ve been told—been told—they should not allow.

American Culture • Communication • Community • Culture • Current Events • Economy • Education • Language • Media • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Science • hypocrisy • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
15
The My Of It
By Mark Tiedemann on August 17th, 2009

The My Of It

Listening to the harangue over the health care reform squabble, I can’t help thinking—even I saw a few episodes of West Wing, I who do not watch television, so of all the Lefties out there who probably hung on every second of that show, why is it so hard to grasp how things don’t get accomplished in D.C. ? Yeah, it was fiction, but it was, in my opinion, pretty accurate in terms of the culture.

But people complain and wonder why Obama doesn’t just “ram his reforms through.”

Well. The man is a consensus builder. We just got done with a president who wasn’t. Obama has not yet been in office a year and already people are ready to jump ship because he’s not the second coming of FDR.

How thoughtless, ill-informed, and shallow supposedly intelligent people can be. It should not be surprising, yet…

First off, instead of presenting his reform package, he handed it to Congress—which is where all the arguing was going to happen anyway. Suppose he had presented a package. What is happening now would have happened anyway, and then he would be directly blamed for having drafted a lame plan. His plan would have been eviscerated and Congress wouold then proceed to draft something possibly worse than what it emerging now since Obama’s plan would have been discredited through failure. As it is, the plan being touted is All Congress’s. Anything wrong with it, it’s on them. Obama has been arguing that regardless what happens, things have to change—which is frightening. With the stimulus package, things were already broken. With health care they are merely on the verge.

Secondly, he’s got lots of balls in the air just now. A lot. Most of them are disasters he inherited.

Now, the metaphor has been used before, but that doesn’t make it any less true—this country is a Big Ship and you don’t turn it around on a dime. If you do that, you break more than you fix. Maybe that’s what needs to happen, and sometimes we’ve had leaders who did that when there was but one maybe two major things that needed to be tended to. But that’s not the case just now.

Everything is in a mess.

I’m not going to fault the man for failing to meet impossible expectations. Let’s assume he did just start “ramming things through” and taking a dump all over Congress in the process, and things would inevitably get worse. For the ideologues who are displeased with what they perceive as half-measures just now, he might be a hero. Maybe, but quite certainly he would be a one-term hero. The Republicans could make good book on a spectacular failure and be right back in power, at least in Congress, and then what?

So I think it a stupid thing to start bailing on him this soon into his term when he is possibly the most unifying, certainly the most intelligent and well educated president we’ve had since…hm.

Here’s what’s going to happen. Congress will put together a lame package. It will pass. Then likely as not it will fail. The system will collapse. On its own.

Then the big fix will come in. Congress will be discredited and Obama will be able to present a plan with legs and the public will back it because they will already have seen what happens when the really necessary steps are not taken.

Right now, the reality is that health care costs too damn much.

American Culture • Bigotry • Communication • Culture • Current Events • Economy • Education • Featured • Health • Language • Noteworthy • Politics • Psychology Cognition • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
2
By Dan Klarmann on August 07th, 2009

“What if Your Child Becomes Religious?”

Dale McGowan of the Meming of Life and other literary outlets has a new video out. In his latest, he questions the title question in detail before addressing the answer. Mainly he takes on “become” and “religious”, before addressing “What if”. Very reasonable and persuasive.

I met the man earlier this year, and identify with his position on dealing with an over-religious culture from an a-religious world view.

Communication • Community • Education • Language • Meaning of Life • Religion • Videos • ignorance
Full Story
2
Hip hop has a bad ‘rap’.
By Erika Price on August 03rd, 2009

Hip hop has a bad ‘rap’.

Whether you consume rap and hip-hop or not, you know the genres have dingy reputations. I believe the hate for hip-hop and rap blossomed in the 90’s. Rappers were actually cold-blooded gangsters at the time, people who occasionally shot one another. The music reflected the turmoil that its creators had experienced- growing up in crack-infused ghettos, resorting to crime to scrape by, and dying in a swarm of bullets even if they did finally make it out and become famous.

“I’m twenty-three now but will I live to see twenty-four/ the way things is going I don’t know,” Coolio said in “Gangster’s Paradise”, and he was by no means a Tu-pac; he was gangster-rap-lite. The depression of 90’s rappers manifested itself in loud, brash talk of guns and glory; no wonder white outsiders were scared. The violent content of 90’s rap inspired Tipper Gore and their ilk to censor and criticize with fervor, cementing rap’s image as a crude, violent genre for future gang-bangers.

Hip-hop and rap also have the reputation of being degrading to women. This present stereotype was also inspired by past trends. After 90’s gangster rap subsided, it was replaced with a money-cash-hoes mentality. In the early aughts, Jay-Z, 50 Cent and others spat mainly about their wealth, their rise from the streets, and the women that their amassed wealth could attract (Jay-Z wrote a song called “Money, Cash, Hoes”).

Women were called hoes and bitches in earlier rap and hip-hop songs, it’s true, but in the early 00’s the music seemed more intently focused on the subject. Rap and hip-hop from this period was all about the ascent into fame, and the amassing of expensive objects. One of these objects happened to be attractive women. “I’m into having sex, I’m not into making love,” 50 Cent reminds listeners in one of his most popular singles. Thus rap and hip-hop received another nasty label: it was degrading and shallow.

American Culture • Art • Bigotry • Censorship • Culture • Featured • Language • Media • Sex • Videos • music
Full Story
7
By Erika Price on July 27th, 2009

Verbing the net noun.

The word “texting” sounds harsh and garbled when it comes out of a speaker’s mouth. A sentence where “text” is used as a verb, such as , “I texted him yesterday but he didn’t text me back,” instantly summons an image of a slack-jawed, gum-popping teenage girl- all ignorance and frivolity. The words just sound stupid.

Don’t blame me- some of us Gen-Yers fought off the term “texting” the same way we did bad fads like Crocs and Ugg boots. Even deep into the aughts, years after “texting”, we still said “sending a text message” instead.

“Texting” prevailed however, for the same reason that Crocs and Uggs became ubiquitous: aesthetics aside, it was damn comfy and easy. “Texting” might make for an ugly-sounding word, but it came out more smoothly and quickly than the correct “sending a text message”.

American Culture • Communication • Cultural Evolution • Culture • Internet • Language • Technology • Whimsy • Writing • ignorance
Full Story
14
Want to know what I think?
By Hank on July 01st, 2009

Want to know what I think?

That’s why you’re on the internet, cruising the interblargosphere. You’re looking for things to read that you might not necessarily agree with but which spark your interest because you’re always on the lookout for a new take or new point of view on something. It might even be something you already have a definite opinion on, but you read on because you like reading things that make you think regardless of whether you agree with them. You’re all about soaking up as many differing viewpoints as you can, but you’ve no interest in entering a comment-battle so if you do object, you do so in silence (possible but unlikely). You may be looking for things to read that you already know you agree with and very little else (more likely). You may even be looking for things to read that not only contradict you but flat-out piss you off in order to inspire you to write a post for the blog you’ve been neglecting (if you have a blog, that’s almost a given).

I’ll admit I’m one who trawls for material to inspire my personal outrage, vicious condemnation and inordinately long & verbose sentences, but it’s not a new addition to my activity budget. Long before the internet I was fond of writing essays, treatises, critiques, manifestos, poems (gah!) or comic strips about things which annoyed or intrigued me, or into which I’d put an inordinate amount of idle thought. They were many & varied: a convoluted comparison between the dangers of running red lights at a pedestrian crossing on my BMX with doing the same in a car; a detailed essay on the specific mechanisms of “clown evil” and the macro-karmic reasons for their hideousness; my pseudo-Freudian theories on why some men spend inordinate lengths of time reading in the toilet, delaying every other resident not currently using a colostomy bag and glorying in their own pungent stench; a series of unnecessarily graphic limericks featuring my best friend, a busty wench and zombies. Before 1994 and my first experience with electronic mail I’d fax (yes, fax), post or hand these missives to my friends and see what reactions I’d get. They ranged from “meh” to humouring me, the occasional laugh, occasional indignant defensiveness and – more often than not – sideways looks and quiet voicings of concern for my mental stability (especially when my letters were illustrated). I didn’t know it then, but with my unsolicited opinionated ranting, arguments for or against things noone was actually discussing in the real world and blatant & ridiculous attention-seeking behaviour, I was in Gilbert & Sullivan’s parlance the very model of a modern major pain the arse. In today’s terms: a blogger.

So, no, it’s not a new thing for me and certainly not a new phenomenon for humanity either, this public sharing of opinion with people who don’t care. Celebrated Protestant Original Gangster, Martin Luther, is famous for publicly posting his disagreements . . .

Communication • Community • Cultural Evolution • Culture • Human animals • Humor • Internet • Language • Uncategorized • Writing • computers
Full Story
1
By Mark Tiedemann on June 19th, 2009

No Excuse—A Personal Gripe

Generally speaking, I don’t like to criticize books. Tim Powers told us at Clarion that a sale negates all criticism. That may be more true with fiction (though I reserve the right to privately diss any book that’s badly done, regardless) but when it comes to nonfiction, I find it inexcusable.

I’ve been slogging—slogging, mind you—through a history of the rise of the Spanish Empire under Fernando and Isabel, the period during which the New World (?) was discovered by Europeans and Spain became the pre-eminent power on the global scene. The book is called Rivers of Gold and it was penned by one Hugh Thomas, published in 2003. I’m finding it virtually unreadable.

Partly this is a style issue. The prose are flat, lifeless. He makes the mistake of introducing casts of characters in one-paragraph lumps, as if the average reader is going to remember all these people, many of whom do not seem to matter in later parts of the narrative. We are given chunks of delightful detail about some things (the make-up of Columbus’s crews on both the first and second voyage, which is very telling about the geopolitics of the day) and the rather revolutionary nature of Fernando’s and Isabel’s co-rule (for it was genuinely a partnership) and then little about other things (like the ultimate disposition of the Muslim populations after the fall of Granada and what happened to their libraries, which directly impacted the rest of Europe).

But these are small quibbles. Thomas seems to have a bias toward Christianity, but he is clearly restraining himself throughout and attempting to be even-handed, and largely succeeds (sincere mourning for what became of the Jews). He orders the events well, so that we see the relevance of Fernando and Isabel adhering to Law rather than acting as autocrats and their background and education as it affected their judgment concerning what Columbus found and what his enemies told them.

American Culture • Communication • Community • Culture • Education • History • Language • Writing
Full Story
0
By Erich Vieth on June 05th, 2009

Texas jury: It’s OK to say “shit” when referring to cat shit

According to a Texas jury, it was OK for a man to say “shit” when referring to cat shit to a 13-year old neighbor child. More precisely, his use of the word “shit” didn’t constitute “disorderly conduct.”

Language • Law
Full Story
Older Entries