Dirtside's Journal: Basic language concepts from an ign'ant programmer

A man is holding an object which you recognize as a book. You ask him, "Which book is that?" He responds, "This is not a book. It is a turtle." You contest this, saying, "No, that is a book." Which of you is correct?

On the most basic level, the answer is neither. Language is arbitrary; its meanings are not inherent in the laws of physics. The fact that a collection of facing pages bound together by protective covers is called a "book" is a matter of linguistic history and evolution, but there is no reason why the word has to be "book". This is noted by the fact that in Spanish, that same object is called a "libro", in French "livre", in Japanese "" (no, I don't know how to pronounce that, but it probably doesn't sound anything like "book"), and so on.

So a particular set of sounds (the "b" sound, followed by the "ooh" sound, followed by the "k" sound; or the "l" sound, followed by an "ee" sound, followed by a "b" or "v" (which are very similar) and a rolled "r" sound, and finally a long "o" or a half-spoken "uh") can denote a particular item, and the sounds don't have to be similar at all. If everyone in the U.S.A. agreed to start using the word "yorunch" instead of the word "book", that would be just as valid.

My point here is that there is no law of nature or physics that demands that a particular object or concept be referenced by a particular set of sounds or symbols. The English word hasn't even been "book" forever; it's evolved over time, from earlier (similar) words, like "bece" and "bok". Ultimately, language is a common social construct -- it only exists insofar as it exists in the minds of sentient beings. Even if you have a recording of a language that nobody speaks, the connection between a sound and an idea (i.e. between a word and the thing it references) only exists in your mind.

So if language is nothing more than a mass hallucination (albeit a useful one), why does it matter when people "misspell" things, or use "incorrect" grammar? In the most basic sense, it doesn't. Sounds are sounds; the universe does not care whether I can understand the sounds you make. So let's move up a level: If I speak a language, and you do not speak that language, we cannot communicate, and as sentient beings, communication is important to us. An improved ability to communicate with each other helps us get the things we want, whatever they may be. So from that point of view, it is in our interests to improve our ability to communicate -- not to the exclusion of all else, of course, but as a part of our abilities.

So when someone "misspells" something, that means that they have created a word (either written or spoken, or in some way expressed) that is different from common usage. Common usage is, usually, the way the majority of the speakers of a language spell or use that word. If 99% of English speakers spell "book as "boook" (with three o's), then "boook" is now the de facto common usage, and someone writing "book" will probably be seen as either misinformed, archaic, or simply ignorant. Of course, what is "common" usage varies wildly -- if 50% of English speakers spell it "book" and the other 50% spell it "boook", which is the common usage? Well, usage pattenrs tend to vary by area, so even if 50% of all English speakers spell it "boook," they're more likely to be concentrated together, so that if you are in the middle of Boooktown USA, 99% of the people within 10 miles of you spell it "boook". So in that locale, "boook" is common usage, and over in Booktown, "book" is common usage.

Regional variations in spelling and usage of particular words within a language that is for the most part consistent is where we get dialects from. American English and British English can be called two dialects of the same language (English). Of course, you could also say that American English is a dialect of "proper" English (namely, British English) or even that British English is a dialect of "proper" English (i.e. American English). Which words are used depends on the historical evolution of the language; in English's case, it originated in England, spawned an American offshoot in the 1600s, and both languages have evolved somewhat separately but along very similar courses for the last four hundred years. (Meanwhile we have Australian English and others showing up in other places around the world.)

Different languages exist in different ways. French as spoken in France, for example, is defined on the authority of the Academie Francaise, one of France's governmental agencies. English, by contrast, is defined by its usage -- if you open up an English dictionary, what you are looking at is usages, not definitions.

Essentially, the French are trying to preserve the state of the language, and control its evolution. Of course, it's not feasible to actually control the way that millions of people talk, but if those people are willing to take your guidance on how to use the language, then it more or less has the intended effect. But if every Frenchman except for the ones in the Academie decides to ignore what the Academie says, there's little they can do about it -- French would evolve on its own.

English, by contrast, is defined by its usage. In other words, there is no central governing authority that specifies the English language. Indeed, English evolves continually -- new words enter the language (in recent decades, they have almost all been technical words), and some words fall by the wayside. Something that may be considered incorrect usage now, was perfectly correct 50 or 100 years ago. But it's a slow process and is very fluid.

So when someone says, "You're using that word wrong," what they're really saying is, "Your usage of that word does not conform to modern common usage in this region!"

Lexiographic confusion

[Kiwi]

I have seen this kind of lexiographic confusion cause a lot of flame wars with online discussion boards. As a linguistic student myself, it is nice to see someone explain this form a Linguist's perspective.

- Sam