![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.3){kind=small}
from http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2
in which is quoted:
We all missed the big story. The revolution launched by Netscape's IPO was only marginally about hypertext and human knowledge. At its heart was a new kind of participation that has since developed into an emerging culture based on sharing.
Naturally, Wired's Kevin Kelly is right and wrong at the same time. The technical basis underlies the cultural basis, just as the intricacies of semantics, even things as simple as SVO sentence structure, underscores every English-speaking culture, and a general consensus that 1+1=2 underscores mathematically derived cultures like the study of physics and economics. Just so, hypertext formed the basis by which a greater culture of sharing could take place, by privileging us with a more rapid, efficient, and effective means of disseminating knowledge, just as search catalogs and the Dewey decimal system once did.
Further note on the linguistic foundation of culture: Daniel Webster purposefully constructed American English such that it was differentiated from British English at the time. The oddities we see of "color" v. "colour" are a direct result of his intentional revisionism. Separating the language from the country marked our independence more vividly than anything else. Why else, do you think, is it so offensive for others to speak in a language you can't understand right in front of you? Why do African Americans speak in Ebonics, instead of standard American English? Why do Martin Yan and Jackie Chan butcher their speech with Chinese mishaps, when they both speak perfectly good English? Why do the various academia utilize jargon, obfuscating what is in actuality fairly plain?
July 30 2005, 00:01:11 UTC 6 years ago
Also, on the relationship of language to culture: Noah Webster's Americanization of spelling was one of the few successful intentional changes of language. In almost all other cases, a language just evolves within the community using it. If speakers of different branches don't often come into contact, trying to communicate on a variety of subjects, then they'll speak in different ways.
From your last few sentences, it sounds like you have some ideal form of English in mind; "Why do Martin Yan and Jackie Chan butcher their speech with Chinese mishaps, when they both speak perfectly good English?"
Their speech with Chinese mishaps, or Ebonics, or academic talk, is also "perfectly good", as in useful, as long as the intended audience understands, and it's actually better (easier, and can convey more shades of meaning to someone with similar language experience) if the speaker is more used to speaking that way.
Yes, different motives probably enter into how someone chooses to speak (identity to project, trying to impress/exclude/communicate effectively to certain listeners), but I think it's fundamentally about what someone feels most comfortable with. If you're still hung up on some "correct" version of English, just consider how you speak: you could employ proper grammar regardless of the context in which you speak and the audience to whom you are talking, carefully avoiding contractions as if you were writing a formal essay. But speaking that way all of the time, although I'm sure you could do it, would not be worth the extra hassle, as long as people understand you. Same thing with an accent: with practice, you could learn to speak with a Southern accent and idioms, and you could be perfectly understood by Southerners, but why would you do that if they (or whoever you usually communicate with) can understand you just about as well now?
And some related trivia about language evolving when two cultures meet: the English language has separate words for animals and their meat because the English had French cooks and servants, who called the food by the French animal names: thus, we raise chickens but eat poultry (poulet, I think), raise cows but eat beef, raise pigs but eat pork, etc. (There seems to be an exception for many of the animals English nobles would hunt. I guess if you go to all that trouble to kill Cornish game hen or rabbit or wild boar, you tell all your guests that's what it is, regardless of what the servants say.)
July 30 2005, 01:21:51 UTC 6 years ago
Regarding "perfectly good" English and the intentional mishaps, both actors, and you must call them that, commit these mishaps for the purpose of comedy. Their exaggerated mistakes are an added dimension of humor in the media they show. Yan's gives Americans a sense that he's an authentic Chinese cook, because no real Chinaman would speak English well. Chan's is one facet of his stuntsmanship, as his inability to communicate with other characters makes his actions that much more amusing. When I say "perfectly good", I mean that there is an acceptable minimum standard that qualifies as English, and they both purposefully step outside of it. Southern drawls and Northeastern inflections don't. They remain grammatically sound.
Ebonics and academic talk are also both quite valid. But I ask you this: do you regularly speak in Ebonics? The answer is no. Why? You're not part of that culture. Do certain communities of African Americans regularly speak in Ebonics? Yes. Why? They're part of that culture.
The key is culture differentiation. The use of dissimilar language creates a field of "I'm not like you" between two people. How do you decide someone's snobbish? He sticks his nose up, he looks down on you, he pronounces distinctly, and without saying so explicitly, makes it VERY clear that you are an insect worth precisely 4 nanoseconds of his time. It's a different language, even if the dialect's near identical (it never is). That's the effect of academic jargon: I know what this complicated and mystical word means; YOU do not. Sucks to be you.
And yes, I do need to brush up on my history. =P Noah Webster, not Daniel. I like the trivia.