The Power of Language: “Are you gay?” – George Green

“Man, that’s gay” gets dropped on the daily
We become so numb to what we’re saying – Macklemore ‘Same Love’
If some people actually listened to the lyrics of popular mainstream music, then they would truly understand the somewhat obvious messages intended by the artist. Macklemore’s clear attempt to promote equality between the heterosexual and LGBT communities however, has definitely fallen on ‘deaf ears’ through my recent experiences of returning to my hometown. People really do become numb to what they say.
“Are you gay?”
A seemingly harmless question to some, where they think it is OK to ask someone such a personal question. No regard for the person whatsoever; but I’m not writing to moan. I’m simply writing to inform people to think before they speak.
The question does much more than what meets the eye. Some may say now ‘well, how am I offending you by asking you that question?’ or wait wait wait, a better one would be, ‘I haven’t got a problem with gay people or anything’ – a line which typically follows the question asked.  I personally got this one whilst attempting to enjoy a drink in a local bar, by a couple of ignoramuses.
Language is a powerful product produced by human beings, I’m sure we all agree (especially if you’re a linguist). We can use it to persuade, influence, scare, threaten, motivate…the list goes on. The functions of language are endless. However, this particular question has posed great problems for me in the past and I’m sure many other people ‘coming to terms’ with their sexuality.
The question for me is more of a challenge. I mean, you wouldn’t ask someone if they were straight, would you? You know, for confirmation or anything. When people used to ask me, I would immediately deny any association with me being gay or bisexual. In fact, it really damaged me in the end. The question had the power to cause a lot of physiological problems. When someone asked me if I was gay, I knew I was, but I said ‘no’ because I thought, ‘well if you’re asking whether I’m gay or not, it must mean that there’s something wrong with me, if I was’. Like I said previously, when has anyone ever said to someone ‘are you straight?’
How can such a question cause so much anguish? This really links back to what we’ve all studied throughout our degrees (or currently studying). What does this question actually mean? On the surface, it may seem to require a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. However, the question does much more than that depending on the situational factors of the addressee. Is this more evidence that meaning is subjective or possibly…contextual? I think so…
I think there are two perspectives we could look at this discussion from, and also, gleam light into two fields of study; a linguistic one and societal one. From a linguistic perspective, where does the meaning of that question come from? And what does it mean for the individual? From a societal perspective, is there really equality when someone says ‘I’m not against gays or anything but, are you gay?’
For the latter, I’m going to say…no.
I’m going to leave you now to ponder over the question. But, don’t think too much into it. I mean, that would be a bit gay, wouldn’t it?
#ThinkBeforeYouSpeak

Is Football Like Language?

As you all know, or at least should know, the World Cup is underway in Brazil, and also, rather predictably, England got off to a losing start. After posting about fashion’s similarities to language (fashion being something I know little about), I thought I’d write something about football’s similarities to language (football being something I like to think I know a lot about).

The connection between football and language, like that between fashion and language, may seem like something that requires a painful mental stretch to reach, but, after thinking about it for a while, I think I’ve found quite a few similarities.

The first comparison to make is that, much like in language, change is not a particularly well received thing in football. The introduction of the ever so logical and much needed goal-line technology was resisted by many people within the game. They said that the human error of referees was something that made the game unique and pure, paying little to no attention to the fact that goals being given/not being given due to referee or linesman error is wholly unfair, as England found out at the World Cup four years ago (we would have won if Lampard’s goal stood…). We see such resistance towards change in language. The meaning of literally changing is a perfect example of this, as is, like, people, like, using like in their sentences a lot. Changes in language may be less considered and deliberate than changes in football, but in both, changes are resisted by those pesky prescriptivists.

That comparison is less romantic than the ones I really want to make though.

Like language, football has a rhythm. This is (or was) especially evident when watching Spain play football, their tiki-taka style of quick short passing seems to have a beat. To me, admittedly not to all, it’s captivating and enthralling to watch, and when they do it to the best of their ability it is poetic in nature and it can be something quite beautiful.

If football can appear poetic, then surely, there must be players that write more elegantly than others. Watching England play Italy yesterday, and watching Andrea Pirlo glide around casting footballing spells,  it is clear to me that he is one of the players that proves this hypothesis. He makes the game look much easier than everyone else, and makes it look like they are trying ever so hard to do what he can do with one eye closed and a glass of merlot in his hand. Similar to a great piece of writing, Pirlo’s football makes that of others look significantly less skilled than his.

Along with it’s poetic nature, football also has narratives and storylines. In single matches, like Holland against Spain on Friday, it can be one of a successful underdog coming out on top; a David and Goliath contest, I suppose (I am fed up of hearing that though). The prevailing narrative of the current World Cup is probably one of redemption for Brazil. In 1950, Brazil got to the final of the World Cup, the last time it was in Brazil, and came up against Uruguay. Their fans were certain that they’d win, and were almost celebrating winning the tournament before they had. A mistake. Uruguay came up with a surprise (David and Goliath again), and won 2-1. Brazil was a nation in mourning, football means a lot to the people there.

This year, the first time the tournament has been held in Brazil since then, the pressure is massive an Brazil to make up for the shock and disappointment of 64 years ago, and the narrative this brings will unfold over the next few weeks; Brazil will be desperately hoping, praying for a happy ending.

For England, we always hope, and this year we have a good team, last nights loss against another good team isn’t the end of the world. Two wins in the next two games and we’ll go through, and who knows, maybe we’ll do what Uruguay did to Brazil all those years ago.

Then again, we might have the same old story for England: Tragedy.

 

Nigel Farage and not Talking Like a Politician

As we are all aware (I hope), the UKIP were quite successful in the European Elections last week, and, as I disagree wholeheartedly with what they stand for, I’ve been reading furiously about what could have caused people to vote for them. One factor that I’ve seen mentioned a number of times is the way in which Mr Farage presents himself as ‘anti-establishment’.

Of course, he’s not ‘anti-establishment’, he’s a privileged former city worker with a bit of a racist streak (when he’s tired), which, to me, screams establishment.

Regardless of this fact, I would hazard a guess that this is something that captures voters and drags them to Farage, and, to give him some credit, he’s good at presenting himself as something he’s not (or lying…).

We are all aware of the way politicians like to twist questions and answer in such a way as to mention everything their aides have told them to, and that’s annoying. If an interviewer asks a question, we want to know the answer to that question, not the one that it’s been manipulated and transformed into.

This is where Farage is a bit different. I don’t want to say he’s ‘straight talking’, he obviously knows what he’s doing (most of the time), but it does seem that somewhere in the “diabolical plan to be perceived as ‘anti-establishment’ and chuck all the foreigners out” he’s written: ‘appear as though I’m not a politician’.

Obviously, a good way to go about this is to do things politicians don’t, like go down the pub and drink a nice ale or seven and smoke, or to be more direct in the way he answers questions. Being the leader of a minor party (despite what he might say) allows him to flout the political rules somewhat, because if it leads to a slip up, there’s not a lot to be lost.

Again, to begrudgingly give him credit, he hasn’t slipped up much, he’s outlined what he thinks and some people agree, and he’s not really strayed from his message, so his loyal followers have done just that, followed him, ale in hand, sticking up for the good people of Britain (as long as they’re not from somewhere else).

In recent weeks however, when asked about the UKIP’s policies about anything whatsoever that isn’t immigration or leaving the EU, he’s reverted back to that old establishment ploy of twisting questions and answering them in a way that gets his desired message across. He’s conforming to the standards of those people he’s so actively trying to prove he’s not.

Whenever he or his party is asked about domestic problems, the first answer is to blame the foreigners, he has to get the message across that they’re to blame, he has no policies regarding domestic problems; the UKIP don’t have a manifesto. With the European election, this was a major issue, but I’d suggest it’s not going to be at the top of the public’s list of worries when the focus shifts to the general election, and Farage, if he wants to be taken seriously, will need answers to questions about the issues at the top of such a list that don’t just blame immigration. If he has a whole manifesto lurking behind him in the shadows, it seems unlikely to me that he’ll be able to keep up his ‘straight talking’ appearance without contradicting the party’s policies somewhere along the line.

I also don’t want to forget that he has slipped up already, in an interview when he was asked what the difference between living next door to Romanians or Germans was, he said ‘you know the difference’ and later blamed his comments on ‘tiredness’. It’s hard to imagine a career politician making such a mistake and revealing themselves as a racist when tired.

A combination of slip ups and increasing pressure could (and hopefully will) lead to his ‘anti-establishment’ image crumbling and people realising that he’s just one of the politicians after all, and the dreadful UKIP ‘blame anyone but those responsible’ bandwagon will be derailed.

Even if that happens, we might get the Tories in again, and they hate blaming those responsible too…

Is Language Like Clothes?

Yesterday I posted a link on the Facebook page to an article in the Guardian comparing language to fashion, and after thinking about it, I decided that I’d write a blog about that subject (but not exactly that subject).

Now, I don’t know much about fashion and its history (other than that double-denim has never been acceptable, Tim), so I’ve decided to approach this from a subtly different angle, and compare language to clothes, as I think I’m more knowledgeable about the purpose of clothes that I am about the whole fashion thing.

Essentially, clothes are functional items, they keep us warm when it’s cold outside and preserve our modesty and protect us from ungodly sights on the bus to university. I think language is fundamentally a similar, practical thing, it helps us to communicate with our fellow hunter-gatherers when we are on the chase for our dinner around the vast expanse of the supermarket, and it allows us to communicate when we are building our shelter (or buying it – no, renting it – as is more often the case these days).

Clothes and language have other purposes though, aside from being used for the rather bland tasks mentioned above. Both can be used to make a statement about ourselves. At home with our significant other (or alone, in my case) we may be rather loungey with what we wear and how we speak, using a series of grunts and points to communicate and wearing the physical form of points and grunts, the jogger and the hoodie.

When we go outside of the house, we may try to make ourselves more aesthetically and audibly pleasing by throwing on a pair of jeans and throwing about some actual words (some of you may not, you know who you are, you probably grunted at what I just said). We are by no means at the height of fashion or literary genius, but, because we’re a self-conscious bunch, we’ve made a small effort to become more pleasing on the eyes and the ears of other human beings we may encounter on our travels, who knows who you might meet? One day I’ll meet someone…

Sorry, drifted off into my own thoughts there, anyway… *awkward cough*

Finally, if we go out to a fancy do, we may dress up in our best ball gown/dinner jacket and make ourselves appear fabulous, our clothes have become a statement of style, we want to impress. While we’re wearing such elaborate clothing we may as well also dress up linguistically, add a bit of zhoosh (I have no idea how to spell that word) to the words we speak and the way we say them.

You wouldn’t go to a posh do in your joggers and your hoodie, so why go in your language equivalent?

Or you may not care how you dress or how you speak, instead deciding to combine denim bottom halves and denim top halves, and talking in a similar nonsensical manner.

Thanks for reading again, I hope you are entertained and enlightened. Peace.

The Look Up Video – What I think

Hi again, it’s been a while, I hope you’re well.

After an interesting discussion yesterday about the Look Up video that’s been doing the rounds on Facebook, I thought I’d share my opinion in a bit more detail than a Facebook comment allows.

First of all, if you haven’t seen the video, here’s a link (I don’t do technology well so if it’s not a hyperlink just copy and paste or whatever): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Granted it’s an interesting watch and raises a good topic for discussion. I think it’s wrong about most things though and I’ll explain why.

First of all though, of course all this technology can be a distraction, we all have those friends who sit on their phones at the pub or in other situations where they’ve chosen to socialise, but on the whole do we really think that the bad that comes of social media is not worth the good? I think we should accept that these things happen, and yes they’re annoying, but it’s just the opportunity cost of something that, really, is wonderful and miraculous.

‘We open our computers and it’s our doors that we shut’. Yeah, maybe, sorry about that, I don’t want to be out in the world ALL THE TIME. I wasn’t there, but I assume before social media or computers came about we could make a sweeping statement like ‘we open our books and it’s our doors that we shut’. At least now we can open our computers and communicate, if the point here is that we aren’t communicating enough with each other that – to me – is clearly a flawed statement, we’re communicating much more, just in a different way. If it’s that we’re not out enough, that’s just personal preference and how things can change.

‘A world of self interest, self image, self promotion; where we all share our best bits, but leave out the emotion’. I don’t know where to start with this, maybe I’m deluded in some way, but to me, this seems almost completely incorrect. Obviously there are people who are self obsessed, and maybe social media gives them more of a chance to fulfil their selfish agenda, but the majority of people I know are not like this. It’s a huge disservice to the population as a whole to make such a generalised statement suggesting that because people share pictures of themselves when they think they look good or share a funny story to make others laugh that they are somehow doing life wrong. They’re doing life right. Being happy with yourself and letting others know it isn’t bad, is quite obviously good. As for leaving out the emotion of course on social media we do. Or, maybe we don’t. People deal with their emotions in different ways, some let it out on Facebook for moral support from the masses, some share it with just their close friends to keep it more private and some keep it purely to themselves  to keep it completely their own. This isn’t a social media issue, this is personal preference and should be respected as such.

‘Being alone isn’t a problem, let me just emphasise; if you read a book, paint a picture, or do some exercise you’re being productive and present, not reserved and recluse’. So if I’m on social media and talking to my friends I’m somehow not being as productive as a person doing one of the things listed here. What makes that a more valuable use of my time? If I go to the gym and get fitter what more am I gaining than if I’m trying to be funny on Twitter? People might say I’m looking great but at the minute people tell me that I’m making them laugh. To be honest I’d rather do that. Social media IS social, communicating to people through this medium does not make you reserved or a recluse, it’s just a different way of talking. Lots of my friends live in Guernsey, I can’t talk to them face to face, I’d rather spend an hour chatting to them on Facebook than reading a book. That’s just me though, reading a book is fine, it’s your time, do what you want.

‘I can’t stand to hear the silence of a busy commuter train.’ I’m silent on a train, you might be too, it’s not because of technology, I just don’t want to talk. It’s a good time to relax, to think, to listen to music, have time to myself. I don’t think it’s a crime not to talk to a stranger next to you, nor is it strange if you do. Different people do different things in these situations, but I’ll hazard a guess that before mobile phones some people still didn’t like to talk to strangers and some people did. A bit like now.

‘It’s not very likely you’ll make world’s greatest dad, if you can’t entertain a child without using an iPad’. Well there can only be one world’s greatest dad so you don’t have much of a shot at that. You also may be a woman. Besides this though, what’s wrong with entertaining your kid with an iPad, why is something else more valid? You can do loads with an iPad from puzzles to games there just all in one place, organised, not in separate boxes in an untidy space. Of course going outside and interacting is important but so is being inside, one on one. Getting to know your kid takes a lot of different things (I assume, I’m not a dad) and I don’t think many parents just give up if the iPad isn’t quite doing the job.

‘We’re a generation of idiots, smart phones and dumb people’. No, we’re not, people are fascinating and intelligent, that’s a stupid thing to say. That comment just made me angry and upset. If that’s what you think I feel sorry for you, I really do.

And finally the guy that asks for directions. Okay, if he was on his phone he wouldn’t have had to ask someone for directions and that story wouldn’t unfold. But what if he was on his phone looking at a map? He gets to his destination earlier and bumps into the girl who bought coffee before him and she spills it on him. They exchange numbers and go on a date, live happily ever after in a similar kind of fairytale. That wouldn’t have happened without a smartphone. Hypotheticals don’t really make your point valid because I can just come up with a counter example.

So it’s not all bad in fact it’s mainly good. Think of all the charity campaigns that have gone viral recently and you can immediately see the power of social media. If you’re out with your friends then maybe don’t spend all of your time on your phone, but if you’re home alone with not much to do, chat to your friends 100s of miles away and maybe tell your Twitter followers a joke. Or read a book. Or go to the gym. All equally acceptable choices for what to do with your time.

I’ll end with this: You can make someone’s day without even seeing them, isn’t that marvellous?

Thanks for reading and I welcome any responses.

 

 

Correcting Errors

Hello again, friends (you are my friends you have no choice in the matter). I’m back again and I’m going to write a blog, so here goes.

Recently, with a research project coming up, I’ve been trying to think of something to research (as you do). While doing this I’ve noticed a lot of people on Facebook/Twitter etc. correcting the spelling and grammar of others. I’m not sure why they do this, maybe I’ll research it, but I think its strange so I’m going to right about it now.

I don’t really see what the point of correcting other people is, clearly there not trying to upset anyone, so why would anyone get upset?

You all know the people I’m talking about, they usually begin there comment with a cocky little ‘*’. This is when you know a correction is coming up. The poor innocent person who made the error is in for it, the grammar nazi has found them and theirs no excape.
‘*you’re’
‘what?’
‘You mean you’re, not your, idiot.’
Is usually somewhere along the lines of what goes on. Its a very strange thing to get you’re self worked up about, its a harmless error, and clearly you know what the other person is on about if you can correct them.

Maybe the people doing this have literally had the worst day ever and need to take out there frustrations, but do they have to do it like that? Belittling people is pretty mean, and doesn’t exactly show you off in a good lite. Yes, maybe if the person making an error put there instead of their on there CV they might not get a job, but equally if you put on your CV, ‘correcting grammar of the imbecilic and uneducated’ under the hobbies section, you probably won’t get the job either.

Literally my favourite thing, though, is when these grammar nazis ‘correct’ something thats already correct. This happens literally all the time with literally. It does actually mean the thing I just used it to mean, but these angry people love ‘correcting’ this usage with phrases such as ‘do you even know what literally means’. Yes I do, do you not understand exaggeration? I’m not saying I like using literally like this, I think their are better ways of saying the same thing, but who cares?

So, the next time you see a sign that says ’10 items or less’ instead of boiling over in outrage thinking that it should say fewer, why not just think, oh yeah, I know what that means, not a problem. And the next time someone makes a grammar or spelling error on Facebook, Twitter, or even a blog, try not to get worked up about it and rip their throat out.

Thanks for reading again, hope you had a great time.

 

 

 

What did that image say?

Hi all! How are you doing?

I recently posted a few links on the page which I found rather interesting, and thought you might too. Whether you read them or not is a different story entirely, but if you did, I hope you enjoyed them. If not, maybe you will want to read this and see where takes your keen linguistic mind!
I have decided to write about the well-known expression; “A picture is worth a thousand words” or “A picture speaks 1000 words”.

The idea stemmed from a link I saw on Facebook, which displayed 30 of the most powerful images ever taken. (The link is a few posts down in a comment box under my previous link). The title of the link ‘A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words’ immediately got me thinking; hmmm, what exactly does this mean and where did this saying come from? Now you’re thinking it too. I can tell.

It doesn’t literally mean a picture sprouts lips and speaks to you. Although that would be cool, (yet slightly terrifying), we do not attend Hogwarts. We attend the University of Brighton, which is far better. So, I’m going to have to look at this from a less magical perspective. Yes, I’m crying too.
I think that the saying refers the concept that a complex idea, emotion or thought process can stem from looking at a single, still image. It also outlines what I believe is one of the main goals of visualization, which is; the ability/possibility to absorb large amounts of data quickly and efficiently. Simply, an image can tell a story just as effectively as a large chunk of descriptive text.

I decided to look into the origin of the saying, all be it, very briefly.
As far as I could see, one of the earliest known references to the expression is from a 1911 newspaper article where the editor Arthur Brisbane, speaks about journalism and publicity, and says “Use a picture. It’s worth a thousand words.”
I also read that the modern use of the phrase stems from a different article dating back to December 8th, 1921 (10 years later). It was from an issue advertising trade journal Printers’ Ink, in which a man called Fred R. Barnard (an advertising manager) wrote; “One Look is Worth A Thousand Words” to promote the use of images in advertisements on the sides of streetcars.
A later ad by Barnard appeared on the March 10th, 1927 in an issue with the phrase “One Picture worth Ten Thousand Words,” which he mistakenly credited as being a Chinese proverb so people would take it more seriously. How cheeky! As a result, the expression is also sometimes mistakenly attributed to Confucius who was a Chinese teacher, editor, politician, and philosopher. A link below shows a collection of his well-known quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/confucius.html
Many things had been thought to be ‘worth ten thousand words’ well before pictures got in on the act:
“One timely deed is worth ten thousand words” – The Works of Mr. James Thomson, 1802.
“That tear, good girl, is worth, ten thousand words” – The Trust: A Comedy, in Five Acts, 1808.
“One fact well understood by observation, and well guided development, is worth a thousand times more than a thousand words” – The American Journal of Education, 1858.

Over time we’ve come to accept that “a picture is worth a thousand words”, (almost like a cultural truth), purely because of a photos ability to convey so much meaning with so little.
In the age of social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram and where cameras are found on mobile devices, photos are shared more frequently than ever. Does this mean that an images powerful ability to convey so much feeling, information and complexity gets taken for granted? Something for you to think about. Maybe someone would like to write a following blog on that? Hint, hint.

There are some images that you will never forget. A lot of the time they will be personal to you and maybe only you will ever understand their true values and stories.
Is it because the image holds precious memories? Reminds you of a happy time? Maybe it takes you to a bad place that you would rather forget, but can’t? Or maybe you just simply, like it?
I find that I never really appreciate an image until days, weeks, months or even years later. When the image is captured, it’s in the moment. Days, weeks, months or years later your life could be very different.
You should never underestimate the power of an image, as it could become something that you never want to forget in the future.
So, next time you are about to delete a photo or throw away an old drawing. Stop! Yes, that abruptly. Look at the image again and take yourself back to the time it was taken. Do you really want to throw something away that holds such significance into a piece of your past?

Deep stuff right!

I hope you have all learned a little something from this blog, even if it’s ‘I never want to read Emma’s posts again’. Thankyou for reading this far though and sorry it was so long!

xxx

Some Sayings are Really Stupid

Well hello again. It’s me again. I know I’ve been writing a lot recently but I’m really enjoying it, so I’m going to carry on if that’s okay with you (I’ll carry on regardless so it’s best if it is okay with you).

Today’s blog was inspired by a conversation I had with Maisie (hi Maisie) on the bus this afternoon. In this conversation I said the common phrase ‘all’s fair in love and war’. This got me thinking (as many things do), firstly, that the above phrase is stupid, and secondly, that loads of common phrases are stupid.

“Why is this stupid Liam?” I hear you all vigorously exclaim. Well, the first issue I have with this phrase is that it claims all is fair in both love and war. No it’s not. Killing innocent people in a war is not fair, they have families, friends, and even enemies that’ll miss them if you (excuse the saying) ‘pop a cap in they a**’. If you pop a cap in someone’s a** because they have coveted your boy/girlfriend that is also unfair and frankly rather silly on your behalf. They also have families, friends and enemies that’ll probably miss them.

So, we have decided that you shouldn’t pop a cap in the a**es of anyone innocent in a war, or for the purposes of love (I don’t want to get into war politics at the moment). But (yes but) I have another issue with this phrase, and this is it – how can you compare the fairness of things in a war with the fairness of things in a situation influenced by love? Well, you can’t (or shouldn’t, some modals here to keep Jelena interested (first years you’ll understand and be scarred next year)). As I’ve said, I don’t want to get into war politics, but if you, as a country, are being invaded by some people who want to take over and introduce some bad things to the country like a heavy metal national anthem and cold meats for breakfast you may be entitled to protect yourselves and pop a cap in the invaders’ collective a**. I would use the invading imagery to refer to something bad in a love situation but that would be crude so I won’t. But if someone where to *ehem* y’know, with your girl/boyfriend, it isn’t as acceptable for you to pop a cap in their a**.

Blimey, that was a long explanation.

I’ve got a few more sayings/phrases that I don’t like, and I can see by the gleeful look on your face that you would like to hear more, so here goes:

The first was one that Maisie said (remember her from earlier? She was on the bus). ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones but what you say won’t hurt me’. Rubbish, absolute rubbish. Small sticks and small stones won’t break my bones, but what you say might hurt me very much. What if you say my hair is bad? Or my hands are too small? You think those things don’t hurt me? Well they do! They do I tell you!

Another one is ‘everything happens for a reason’. You may find comfort in thinking this, if so carry on, but everything doesn’t happen for a reason. Well it might happen for a reason, but that would be a cause and effect type thing, where the ‘something’ that happens is the effect, and something caused it. In that case, it did happen for a reason. That’s not what the saying means though, the saying means if something bad happens there is something good coming in the future. It’s a bit like karma (a load of rubbish). Just because something bad happens doesn’t mean something good is going to happen, why would that be the case? Why does the universe owe you anything? If you wan’t something good to happen, go and make it happen, don’t just wait for it to happen because something bad did in the past, that’s not how life works.

Sorry about that rant, I got carried away.

The final one I’ll say today is ‘it’s always in the last place you look’. Nooooooooooooooooooooo, it’s not is it? WOW, that really is profound. It’s always in the fourth to last place I look because I like to look for things I’ve already found. Obviously it’s going to be in the last place you look.

Thanks for putting up with me again, I hope you have been thoroughly entertained, any funny sayings or daft phrases you can think of are welcome in the comments section below or on Facebook.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend, peace out.

Luna in the Taliban

I was worried at first. Islamic fundamentalism at one of Luna’s innocent-looking playgroups? (I suspected the one in the local Church Hall…) Sharia Law in Worthing by 2025?

Of course, I needn’t have. It was just Luna’s mangled pronunciation of ‘Camper Van’, although I haven’t worked out exactly why. Other slips, which I blogged about before Christmas, are more predictable. There’s still recognizable vocalic and consonantal harmony in the odd word. And ‘Milk’ is still /mʊk/ – the dark [l] causes the front vowel to move back – which provides an amusing version of Bob the Builder, which, in another of Luna’s religious moments, becomes Bob the /bʊdə/ (Buddha). We even have our own lyrics to the theme song:

“Bob the Buddha, Can he fix it? The greatest achievement is selflessness…”

But, of course, her linguistic skills are moving on in leaps and bounds. As far as I can tell, she understands pretty much everything we tell her, and her speech is vastly more developed than it was a mere four months ago. I’m observing it entirely unscientifically, but if I’d say the average length of Luna’s utterances (Mean Length of Utterance is a scientific term used to get a rough idea of children’s syntactic ability) is between 2 and 3 words. ‘Luna happy’ is thankfully, and to my eternal joy, something she says often (though is it, I wonder, because of the kind of stuff she’s discovered at the Church Hall playgroup?). ‘Doors (outdoors) windy’ is another. Three word utterances she’s come up are ‘Mummy play farm?’, ‘Danma (Grandma) come here!’ and ‘Peppa kissing George’.

Notice a couple of things. Firstly, Luna already got some means of communicating, and therefore must have some underlying knowledge of, different moods or illocutionary force indicators. She uses very pronounced question intonation in the interrogative example, and appears to already have English imperative and declarative word order. Secondly, notice the absence of auxiliary verbs, which indicate the absence of functional categories in Luna’s syntax. When I put her Wellies on at the weekend, Luna said ‘Daddy! Luna feet hiding!’ Again, no auxiliary, and no genitive ‘s’. What do they teach them at playgroup?

Don’t answer that…

Actually, this morning she crossed some kind of boundary and actually produced a five-word sentence. It was 5.45 am and she rolled over the bed to my partner (Luna had only moments before greeted me with a playful Karate chop to the larynx) and said ‘Read Luna book in bed?’

It’s no exaggeration to say that her vocabulary is expanding hugely, and very quickly. The ease with which children acquire word meanings is something that amazes me constantly, and if you fancy a good read over the Easter hols, I point you in the direction of Paul Bloom’s masterly ‘How Children Learn the Meanings of Words’. A beautiful book.

And me? I’m spending Easter in the Taliban.