creative communication Among the countless merits of
Leonard Bloomfield, one of the founding fathers of American linguistics is the scientific recognition of a common phenomenon for less peculiar: that language is a recurring mythic discourse topic. Speakers construct elaborate and complex myths about languages \u200b\u200band language: imagine languages \u200b\u200bwith features fantastic magical properties attributed to the words and grammatical features, use the differences between their ways of speaking as a measure to judge the character of people , imagine that those who do not speak exactly as they are wiser or more ignorant, more intelligent or more stupid. Bloomfield called this phenomenon secondary responses to language (language secondary reactions). Let the author himself describes it a bit:
The speaker, When making the secondary response, shows alertness. His Eyes Are bright, and I Seems to Be enjoying Himself. No matter how historical Closely statement adherence to tradition, it proffers it as Something New, Often as His own observation [...] Invariably, in my experience, the linguist's counter-statements Are Treated as personal eccentric events by speakers Notions --- Otherwise Who Are aware of the cummulative character of science. [...] A physician, of good general background and education, Who Had Been hunting in the north woods, told me That the Chippewa language contains only a FEW hundred words [...] When I tried to state the diagnostic setting, the physician and [...] Briefly signs of displeasure with historical REPEATED statement and Then Turned His back to me. A third person, Observing this discourtesy, Explained That I Had Some experience of the language in question. This information Had no effect.
[The speaker, in developing the secondary response, is shown in a state of alert. His eyes sparkle and seem to enjoy it. No matter how their claims are traditional, the proffered as something new, often as if they were his own comments [...] Invariably, in my experience, counter-arguments are treated as concepts linguist eccentric personal nature --- even by people aware of the nature of science. [...] Once a doctor with great experience and good education, he said that the Chippewa had a few hundred words [...] When I tried to correct the error, the doctor briefly [...], with signs of discomfort, repeated his claim and gave me back. Another person, noting the rudeness, explained that I had some experience in that language. This information had no effect.]
Leonard Bloomfield (1944). Secondary and Tertiary Responses to Language. Language, 20, 2, pp. 45-55.
These issues are now studying under the respectable category of Folk Linguistics (Linguistics Popular) ---
see here an example of these studies implemented in Costa Rica --- a relatively neglected field of work in the midst of the great discussions that cross discipline, but is increasingly investigadores.Ejemplos of secondary reactions, ie People of Linguistics, there are the length and breadth of academic and amateur. The net, blogging in particular, have given renewed strength to this phenomenon. Here we have discussed several cases. This time I want to add one more, pen Sociologist Gonzalo Portocarrero, who builds a myth
Argentine voseo : voseo essentially says that is a reflection of the alleged selfishness of Buenos Aires. It is a typical side effect: an arbitrary link with a grammatical feature of their personal property usuarios.Los
commentators both in the author's blog as in Airlift (which has drawn attention to the post) have exposed the absurdities of original text sufficiency. For example, correctly notes that the Argentine is not exclusively voseo but is spread over several locations in the geography of English (as at Wikipedia
recorded time), what that breaks the alleged link between this phenomenon and caráter grammatical Argentina. I want now to ask a question that I find crucial and fascinating, in the line already marked Bloomfield, why someone familiar with the academic self-confidence is invented without a roll so patently false, in conflict with the more aggressive minimum standards linguistic discipline? Where does this compulsion to construct myths about language? Of course, Portocarrero
is not alone in this adventure , but its text illustrates an additional aspect of this trend. You will often see these myths are used as tools to discriminate against certain social groups (they have used against African Americans, Quechua, women, immigrants, and many more.) But this is not the case Portocarrero (or many) that entertains fascinated by a magical link between Argentina and personality voseo . This is crucial because it means that racism, sexism, discrimination are not actually generated by these myths (although it uses them). One possibility is that whoever develops is not as enlightened as you think, and that it is simply an act of ignorance. I do not think that explains everything. Portocarrero sure knows as much about biochemistry and linguistics but that has prompted him to invent a myth biochemist. For some reason, the inventors of myths are created with more right to language, syllables, words, the voseo, as the structure celular.Mi favorite part of this myth is:
Since phonetic speech occurs in Buenos Aires the emphasis tends to move to the last syllable. Instead of "driving," drive. The change of accent the last syllable lengthens the sound emission (management) in order to hold the speaker more time at the current location of the sender. Transgression implies a claim for ownership. Gonzalo Portocarrero. Indiscreet comments. August, 2008
is true that the longer the syllable final accent --- but it is worth remembering that this is a property of the final accent in general, all English, independently of voseo (publicóo , camióon, etc). However, this can not happen to hold the speaker more time at the current location of the sender. If that were true, we would expect that Argentines also say "I retaliated," you come ", etc, ie all final syllables are pronounced (a possibility present in other languages, by the way). Then there is the small detail that this can be achieved simply talking more, uttering words. Any speaker of any language can be sustained over time as speaker simply talking more. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that the speaker believes he has plenty lot to say and can be accused of being an egomaniac. Why should they receive such a charge all they lengthen the last syllable of certain inflected forms automatically and unconsciously? Clearly, what is desperately looking Portocarrero some allegory, a reasonable end to arbitrariness. That perhaps is the true force behind the myths of languages \u200b\u200b(and perhaps of all the myths): fear of random horror of meaninglessness (And of course nothing more dramatic is the fear that the functioning of language, the essential instrument of meaning.)