Assumptions and Colloquialisms
|
Well, friends, here is the thing: in the last issue of GrebelSpeaks, Aaron Bueckert graciously gave us an article of this same title, subtitled “How our speech is conditioning us for stupidity”. And you know what I say? Enough is enough! Alright, now allow me to rephrase this paragraph for Aaron’s sake, so he doesn’t feel conditioned for stupidity:
“Warm and informal introduction, the [not] specified item of discourse is currently present: whilst encapsulated in the most recent controversy of GrebelSpeaks, Aaron Bueckert undertook to transact free of charge on our part an article of this same title, subtitled ‘How our speech is conditioning us for stupidity’. Furthermore, do you have knowledge of my [future] sentences? Tautology! All this is just, immediately give me permission to repeat this paragraph in a different form for Aaron’s sake, for the purpose of increasing his emotional state in regards to how speech is having an effect on his intelligence.”
Of course, this rephrasal is all said very tongue-in-cheek (not that anyone’s tongue is literally puncturing a cheek, but I think you catch my drift :)). But let me ask, do you feel like you were picking up what I was putting down? Was the paragraph any clearer the second time around? Perhaps it made your head spin. It certainly claimed a larger chunk of real estate on the page (not to mention time and effort!). Ahhh! Colloquialisms are everywhere! Not literally, of course.
We use colloquial language every day, and it is effective for communication, because the language we speak is not a formal system. Here is what I mean: math = formal system, English = not so much a formal system. In mathematical and logical language, it is possible to state things with 100% precision and accuracy with no ambiguity. For example, consider the following statement:
∀x[∃y[(x,y ϵ ℝ & ~(x > y)) → x = y]]
Confusing? Here is an unambiguous translation: “For all x, there exists a y such that if x and y are elements of the Reals and not that x is greater than y, then x is equal to y.” That should clear it up, right? No? Okay, let’s try this translation: “There is no number greater than itself.” That sounds better, I can understand that... but this is not a translation - it is an interpretation, and it’s slightly ambiguous in its use of the term “number”. Since it is not a translation but merely an interpretation (and not the only such interpretation of the statement), it does not (literally) contain all the information inherent in the mathematical statement and it would not be a simple matter to put it back into the precise mathematical language we started with. However, it is arguably the only important information contained therein (I will leave that debate up to the mathematical philosophers).
But here is my point: the reason why you probably like the interpretation over the translation is because you already tacitly understand that there is more to communication than precision, accuracy, and retaining information. Our use of colloquialisms, shortcuts and ambiguities reflects this; we often trade precision to save breath, or perhaps for more abstract objectives, such as elegance and prose.
“English speakers today appear to have an inherent predisposition to the consideration that speech requires assumptions.” By that, I am going to assume that Aaron means (at least in part) that we assume definitions of words in order to speak them, and in order to understand them. Of course, strictly speaking, I could assume his sentence means that Aaron has observed the English speakers of yesterday and the English speakers of today and noticed that the latter are more likely to consider that one’s vocalization necessitates any prior assumptions of another. But I would not be justified in assuming this. Why? Why am I justified in assuming the former interpretation and not the second? Because the second one doesn’t make a lot of sense. I know Aaron, and I know the context and purpose of his writing. Now, granted, I could still be wrong in my assumptions, but I at least know for sure that the second interpretation of his sentence is ludicrous and not what he meant - though the ambiguities of the language we are speaking allow for it. I must assume certain definitions of words and phrases in favour over other possible ones if I have any hope of understanding his meaning. As long as we are communicating in English, there is no way around it, and I for one would rather stick with this language than speak math.
Now let’s take a closer look at the substitution that Aaron abuses and that I attempted to reproduce.
Jim: Hello!
Percy: Hi!
Jim: Sup?
Percy: Nothing much, what’s up with you?
Jim: I’m doing alright.
Jim: Generic greeting!
Percy: Random synonym!
Jim: Would you like to have supper with me?
Percy: Vacuum, what personal possessions are you carrying with you at your current altitude?
Jim: Accomplishing noble things, for the good of all.
Is the second exchange really what Jim and Percy are actually saying? Or is it merely a series of syntactic and semantic substitutions designed to kill any meaning? The types of substitution used here range from meta-language description in the first two lines, to syntactic reinterpretation in the last two lines, to entire semantic restructuring of sentences in the third and fourth lines. And what does Aaron say about this? “... there is a big difference between altering language in order to express thoughts more clearly, and arbitrarily altering definitions of words.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. So then, are Jim and Percy really conditioned for stupidity, or are they making good use of assumptions and colloquialisms to communicate mutual acknowledgement in a culturally relevant way? I think your intuition is the best guide to the answer in this case.
But what is the danger of assumptions? Here, I must concede that Aaron has a strong point: it is true that we often make assumptions that we shouldn’t and it is often tied into our speech. But the problem is not simply in that we make assumptions - yes, I have already argued that assumptions are necessary for speech communication - it rather lies in the fact that we make different assumptions.
Finally we reach the heart of Aaron’s message. A professor might assume that by asking a student to “compare” cats and dogs, that the student will only find similarities, whereas the student is assuming that by “compare” the professor means “find similarities and differences”. Formally, only the professor’s assumption should be allowed, but both the professor and the student ought to be aware that the word “compare” does sometimes mean “compare and contrast”. As such, it is the responsibility of the professor, as the “speecher”, to make his or her meaning clear with context and/or qualification. And it is the student’s responsibility, as the “speechee”, to try to make the same assumptions as the professor. This is what we get for speaking a language as ambiguous and powerfully dynamic as English.
As you have probably guessed by now, my subtitle has no direct alignment with my thesis (just to further my point about meaning in language), but to the contrary of Aaron’s thesis that our speech is conditioning us for stupidity, I would rather say that a powerful language like English can lead us to a deeper understanding of one another and the world around us, as long as we are cognizant of the assumptions and interpretations we are applying to the speech we hear.
And thusly I end with a request: that you continue to make assumptions, but don’t make assumptions about your assumptions, be intentional about choosing the right ones. And continue to use colloquialisms; they’re the bomb.
“Warm and informal introduction, the [not] specified item of discourse is currently present: whilst encapsulated in the most recent controversy of GrebelSpeaks, Aaron Bueckert undertook to transact free of charge on our part an article of this same title, subtitled ‘How our speech is conditioning us for stupidity’. Furthermore, do you have knowledge of my [future] sentences? Tautology! All this is just, immediately give me permission to repeat this paragraph in a different form for Aaron’s sake, for the purpose of increasing his emotional state in regards to how speech is having an effect on his intelligence.”
Of course, this rephrasal is all said very tongue-in-cheek (not that anyone’s tongue is literally puncturing a cheek, but I think you catch my drift :)). But let me ask, do you feel like you were picking up what I was putting down? Was the paragraph any clearer the second time around? Perhaps it made your head spin. It certainly claimed a larger chunk of real estate on the page (not to mention time and effort!). Ahhh! Colloquialisms are everywhere! Not literally, of course.
We use colloquial language every day, and it is effective for communication, because the language we speak is not a formal system. Here is what I mean: math = formal system, English = not so much a formal system. In mathematical and logical language, it is possible to state things with 100% precision and accuracy with no ambiguity. For example, consider the following statement:
∀x[∃y[(x,y ϵ ℝ & ~(x > y)) → x = y]]
Confusing? Here is an unambiguous translation: “For all x, there exists a y such that if x and y are elements of the Reals and not that x is greater than y, then x is equal to y.” That should clear it up, right? No? Okay, let’s try this translation: “There is no number greater than itself.” That sounds better, I can understand that... but this is not a translation - it is an interpretation, and it’s slightly ambiguous in its use of the term “number”. Since it is not a translation but merely an interpretation (and not the only such interpretation of the statement), it does not (literally) contain all the information inherent in the mathematical statement and it would not be a simple matter to put it back into the precise mathematical language we started with. However, it is arguably the only important information contained therein (I will leave that debate up to the mathematical philosophers).
But here is my point: the reason why you probably like the interpretation over the translation is because you already tacitly understand that there is more to communication than precision, accuracy, and retaining information. Our use of colloquialisms, shortcuts and ambiguities reflects this; we often trade precision to save breath, or perhaps for more abstract objectives, such as elegance and prose.
“English speakers today appear to have an inherent predisposition to the consideration that speech requires assumptions.” By that, I am going to assume that Aaron means (at least in part) that we assume definitions of words in order to speak them, and in order to understand them. Of course, strictly speaking, I could assume his sentence means that Aaron has observed the English speakers of yesterday and the English speakers of today and noticed that the latter are more likely to consider that one’s vocalization necessitates any prior assumptions of another. But I would not be justified in assuming this. Why? Why am I justified in assuming the former interpretation and not the second? Because the second one doesn’t make a lot of sense. I know Aaron, and I know the context and purpose of his writing. Now, granted, I could still be wrong in my assumptions, but I at least know for sure that the second interpretation of his sentence is ludicrous and not what he meant - though the ambiguities of the language we are speaking allow for it. I must assume certain definitions of words and phrases in favour over other possible ones if I have any hope of understanding his meaning. As long as we are communicating in English, there is no way around it, and I for one would rather stick with this language than speak math.
Now let’s take a closer look at the substitution that Aaron abuses and that I attempted to reproduce.
Jim: Hello!
Percy: Hi!
Jim: Sup?
Percy: Nothing much, what’s up with you?
Jim: I’m doing alright.
Jim: Generic greeting!
Percy: Random synonym!
Jim: Would you like to have supper with me?
Percy: Vacuum, what personal possessions are you carrying with you at your current altitude?
Jim: Accomplishing noble things, for the good of all.
Is the second exchange really what Jim and Percy are actually saying? Or is it merely a series of syntactic and semantic substitutions designed to kill any meaning? The types of substitution used here range from meta-language description in the first two lines, to syntactic reinterpretation in the last two lines, to entire semantic restructuring of sentences in the third and fourth lines. And what does Aaron say about this? “... there is a big difference between altering language in order to express thoughts more clearly, and arbitrarily altering definitions of words.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. So then, are Jim and Percy really conditioned for stupidity, or are they making good use of assumptions and colloquialisms to communicate mutual acknowledgement in a culturally relevant way? I think your intuition is the best guide to the answer in this case.
But what is the danger of assumptions? Here, I must concede that Aaron has a strong point: it is true that we often make assumptions that we shouldn’t and it is often tied into our speech. But the problem is not simply in that we make assumptions - yes, I have already argued that assumptions are necessary for speech communication - it rather lies in the fact that we make different assumptions.
Finally we reach the heart of Aaron’s message. A professor might assume that by asking a student to “compare” cats and dogs, that the student will only find similarities, whereas the student is assuming that by “compare” the professor means “find similarities and differences”. Formally, only the professor’s assumption should be allowed, but both the professor and the student ought to be aware that the word “compare” does sometimes mean “compare and contrast”. As such, it is the responsibility of the professor, as the “speecher”, to make his or her meaning clear with context and/or qualification. And it is the student’s responsibility, as the “speechee”, to try to make the same assumptions as the professor. This is what we get for speaking a language as ambiguous and powerfully dynamic as English.
As you have probably guessed by now, my subtitle has no direct alignment with my thesis (just to further my point about meaning in language), but to the contrary of Aaron’s thesis that our speech is conditioning us for stupidity, I would rather say that a powerful language like English can lead us to a deeper understanding of one another and the world around us, as long as we are cognizant of the assumptions and interpretations we are applying to the speech we hear.
And thusly I end with a request: that you continue to make assumptions, but don’t make assumptions about your assumptions, be intentional about choosing the right ones. And continue to use colloquialisms; they’re the bomb.