A question about morphological change

[Hofmann]

Let's say I'm in charge of education in my country. Let's say the educated elites speak English, while the rest try to. My English sucks, so I say that this color is green. Since I'm in charge of education, that information gets put into textbooks, dictionaries, and other forms of official media. In turn, the masses are educated using official materials, and think that this color is green.

 

Then one day, someone says that this color is not green, but red, and this is actually green. But nearly everyone else disagrees, and still thinks this is green, while there is no word for this color.

 

Acknowledging the principles of linguistic descriptivism, who is right?

[MPhillips]

The majority are right. An example from my personal experience--my grandmother used to say, quite innocently and correctly of course: "I'm feeling very gay today", which doesn't mean I'd ever say it or recommend that other people do so, unless they know what those around them would think of such a statement.

[Demonic_Duck]

Surely the principles of linguistic descriptivism don't concentrate on the question of who is "right", but simply describing the way the language is used?

 

I'd say an accurate description is as follows: people from your imagined nation will get along fine with green and blue-yellow until they try to communicate with people from other English-speaking nations, at which point there will be some significant misunderstandings.

[MPhillips]

I agree with Demonic Duck's point, in descriptive linguistics there's no "right & wrong" such as you'd find in "schoolmarmish" prescriptive grammar books. Rather than saying the majority are "right", perhaps I should have said something like "when it comes to linguistic differences of opinion, the expedient solution is to accord oneself with the majority"--but of course it's a lot easier just to say "they're right". I may not like the fact that my grandma's word for "happy" means something else entirely to the vast majority of English speakers alive today--but the only practical course of action is to go along with them.

[James3]

I studied search engine optimization for a while, and I'm reminded of how, at one time, people who wanted to travel to France, and stay in a Hilton in Paris searched for paris hilton. And then, almost overnight...that changed...and searchers by the boatload had other expectations when they googled that.

[MPhillips]

Another similar, but more recent example from Am. English is "dike", when I was a kid it was the standard, everyday, native word for an embankment used to prevent floods (it's what the little Dutch boy stuck his finger in to save his town); now it's become taboo and you have to say "levee". It kind of gets my goat--but I've given up about it.

[Basil]

 

 

 I may not like the fact that my grandma's word for "happy" means something else entirely to the vast majority of English speakers alive today--but the only practical course of action is to go along with them.

 

Absolutely.

 

Sometimes it can prove impossible to reverse the cultural tide or merely even plug a burst linguistic dike.

[Lu]

Acknowledging the principles of linguistic descriptivism, who is right?

I'm not a linguist, but aren't you asking the wrong question? A linguistic descriptivist won't say who is right, they'll just note down that in your country, people call this colour 'green'. They'll put a note in dictionaries that in addition to the meaning 'colour between blue and yellow' in most English-speaking countries, 'green' in Hofmann-land means 'red'. That description can then of course be used as a weapon in the disagreement between various language-lovers in Hofmann-land, but the descriptivists themselves don't pick a side.

 

Incidentally, when (if) people in English-speaking countries these days tell the story of Hansje Brinker who stopped a flood with his finger, do they say he put it in a levee?

[Shelley]

Well language is not a static thing, it is forever changing growing and adapting. Twenty years ago the word tablet meant something you took for a headache now its a nifty bit of kit I use to help me learn Chinese and do a load of other things.

 

In Chinese there have been additions, changes and corruptions over the hundreds, thousands in fact years the language has been around.

 

My brother when he was a small kid used to call red green and green red, it turns out he had a problem with names of colours and nothing wrong with his eyes as my mother suspected. For some reason he thought the names were reversed, a bit of gentle coaching and he soon fell in to step with the rest of the world.

 

I don't think people should say that this or that is linguistically wrong because it really is one thing were the majority is right simply because you really have no choice, if you want be understood you need to conform with the majority.

 

English from 500 years ago is not the same English we speak now, the meaning can be understood but you need to be aware of the changes.

 

However it is interesting that written Chinese can be understood from thousands of years ago, another reason I wanted to learn Chinese to be able to read the old texts, but as I learnt more about Chinese I discovered that although this is basically true, you do need to learn classical Chinese to read these texts.

They are readable but not by the vast majority of people.

 

I believe it is a waste of time trying to "reverse the cultural tide or merely even plug a burst linguistic dike." 

 

However much it may seem wrong, you need to let the language take its course and acknowledge the need to keep up with the changes.

[renzhe]

It's interesting that you should mention colours.

In Spanish, the word for this colour is rojo. In Portuguese, it's vermelho. At the same time, bermejo in Spanish denotes a gingery, brown colour.

rojo itself is interesting. It means red in Spanish, but in Galician (a language very close to Portuguese) it means reddish brown or golden (roxo), so the opposite of the Spanish usage. In Portuguese, it's a dark shade of red (roxo), in Catalan it's blonde (ros), in French it's russet (roux), while in Italian it is red again (rosso).

Given that these languages all developed from Latin, I'd agree that it's hard to argue that Spanish speakers are "wrong", or that Portuguese speakers are "right", given the original meaning in Latin (dark red).

Another interesting example is the word "aluminum". From a descriptivist view, it is correct American English, even though it is obvious today that it was originally a spelling mistake.

[Hofmann]

Well, by "who is right" I was talking about the masses versus the one person, but I get it.

 

So, the majority is right even if their information was originally misinformed and prescribed to them.

[Lu]

Well, if the masses say x but you have good reason to know that y is in fact correct while x is not, you're better off using x until you have convinced a sufficient amount of users that y is better, because otherwise everyone will agree that you are wrong. In matters of language, it doesn't really matter who is right, the question is who you are communicating with and what they think is right.

[renzhe]

Look, for example at the tragic fate of the word "momentarily".

It means "at this particular moment", but nowadays usually means "shortly". Simply because incorrect usage has spread until it became the commonly accepted meaning.

Being an obsessive pedant, I still get upset about the use of the word "alternative". There can be exactly two alternatives, A or B, never more than that. You can have an "alter ego", you can't have 15. But this particular battle was lost long ago and it's pointless to argue. It used to be wrong, now it is correct, that's one way in which languages evolve.

[realmayo]

I think 'alternative' is an interesting point, similar to split infinitives: both of those 'old rules' of usage have nothing to do with the English language, and all to do with Latin. While a change in the use of a word like 'gay' might confuse some, there are no Romans around to object to split infinitives. 

 

I think the real question is: how comfortable are you with deviating from an intuitive understanding of the language. In the case of Latin grammar like split infinitives or 'alternative', the rules that are broken are Latin ones and aren't intuitive to English speakers. So most people are not uncomfortable with the change.

[James3]

Reminds me of how, at least in the U.S., people use to only use the word "insure" when they were speaking of insurance. These days, however, it's all but replaced the word "ensure". The masses, like cattle, are adopting this usage in droves...but it still annoys me when someone asks me, in writing, "to insure that I've taken all necessary precautions" blah blah blah. No, it's not "insure", it's "ensure"!! But just like all of the previous examples...this is a losing battle.

[Lu]

Although in my opinion the battle is only lost when you'd use 'insure' in your cover letter when you apply for a job with, say, a university or a fairly high government position.

It helps perhaps to realise that you (general you) also use lots of words that would have made well-educated people of 50 years ago cringe. It's all relative.

[陳德聰]

Words are all just symbolic and the sounds arbitrary, so...

But given that in your example the change has institutional backing, which is generally what props up languages in the whole language vs. dialect gobbledygook, I'd say you've got enough people thinking they are right to call that a legit variation.

[lechuan]

If red/green were interchanged...

If those words happen to be used in other words/expressions in the language, then they are likely to raise red flags. ie. You would not point to a hot stove a say it is red-hot.

And you wouldn't be too happy to receive a red hat from your wife.

[Takeshi]

Hehe, this reminds me of Hong Kong English.

 

Actually this is a little complicated because the people of Hofmann's country are not native speakers of English, but they are second language learners. Linguistic descriptivism doesn't really concern itself with second language learners. If I am a second language learner of Chinese and I think 青 means red, and I tell all my friends it means red, and we all think 青 means red, just because all of us use the word to mean red together, it doesn't make our "Chinese" correct.

 

But then Hofmann's case is quite strange because the whole country thinks "green" refers to the colour red. Above I said that linguistic descriptivism doesn't really consider itself with second language learners, but what if "second language learners" are so pervase? If the whole country was attempting to learn Traditional English but failing to do so properly because of their poor learning materials, then they would be considered wrong.

 

But imagine if Hofmann's country considered "English" to be a prestigious language that should be used in formal situations or something. Imagine the whole school system was completely conducted in "English" (as stipulated by Hofmann), and the native vernacular language was not used in formal situations. "English" wouldn't really be these peoples' "native language" persay, but it would be something that "belongs to them" in a sense.

 

Actually, it might even become some peoples' native language if some random couple decides to talk to their kid in only "English" (as they understand it), and then their kid's native language would be "English" (as stipulated by Hofmann). Once such a kid exists, by linguistic descriptivism he is right, hands down. He is a native speaker of Hofmann English, and in his grammar, he correctly uses the word "green" to refer to what we call red.

 

Anyways, as I just said, this is exactly the case of what is happening in Hong Kong. Hong Kong English (HKE) has many unique properties that makes it different from traditional varieties of English. Yet as a linguist, I wouldn't really want to call HKE speakers "wrong" when they use certain forms exclusive to HKE. Yet, HKE isn't (really) a native variety like Singaporean English (though I am sure there are the odd native speakers here and there because of parents who randomly decided to talk to their kid in English), so linguistic descriptivism doesn't officially consider them "right" yet exactly...

 

Basically, as far as I understand it, linguistic descriptivism hasn't really been developed to account for cases like HKE where a "non-native" variety is pervasive and independent.

 

I guess the thing is, when these people speak "English", are they intending to speak Traditional English? If so, they are wrong. Are they intending to speak "Hofmann English" or "Hong Kong English"? If so, they are right. That's how I see it anyways.

 

EDIT: How do you tell what they are "intending" to speak? Easy; their resistance/willingness to restructure their grammar when they are met with Traditional English data.

 

For example. Let's say a Mainland Chinese learner of English for whatever reason remembered the word "deal" wrong. He thought it meant "seal" (like a stamp). So then in an interaction with a native Traditional English speaker, he tries to use the word "deal" to refer to a seal, and the confused Traditional English speaker eventually finds out and corrects him and says "no, it's not a "deal", it's a "seal". Chances are the Mainland Chinese learner of English would restructure his grammar and try to stop using "deal" to mean "seal" and try to remember to use the word "seal". In such a case, he is obviously trying to learn a Traditional variety of English and was simply making a mistake.

 

Let's say the same thing happened to a Hong Kong English (HKE) speaker. In an interaction with a native Traditional English speaker unfamiliar with HKE, he uses the word "chop" to refer to "seal", and the confused Traditional English speaker eventually finds out and tries to correct him and say "no, it's not a "chop", it's a "seal". Chances are, the HKE speaker would refused to restructure his grammar and say "in Hong Kong, we call it a chop". In this case, he is obviously intending to be speaking HKE, and is not trying to speak a Traditional variety of English, so he is correct.

 

I think this same principle holds true even with lexical differences as crazy as green meaning red.

 

EDIT: Sorry if the "chop" example is kind of dumb. I was trying to think of something characteristic of "Hong Kong English" quick. I'm not sure if this use of "chop" is already acceptable in Traditional varieties or not. For my argument's case, let's pretend it isn't.