Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
25 September 2009
Thesis Statement: Throughout time linguist have studied how language has evolved. Although there have been many observations theory suggests that language is learned through biological and cultural experiences.
Quote 1:
"Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently."(Pinker, 18)
In this quote Pinker is stating that language is not learned through culture but is a biological makeup in our brain. I will use this as evidence of some credibility and as a counterarguement.
Quote 2:
"It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking childern, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that childern tend to speak not merely that language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple, 4)
As Dalrymple implies in this quote, childern learn to speak their language through their parents. I will use this as evidence and credibility that childern have to start learning some where, and they mostly around their parents at such a young age.
Quote 3:
"Childern learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends, and others as sources and examples- and by using other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language." (Daniels, 19)
This quote is be used to sum up my arguement that language is learned through both biological and cultural experiences. As stated in the quote above we learn from our parents, which is considered biological. Then on the other hand, we learn from friends and other sources around us which would make up for the cultural experienes devoted to our language.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Recipe for Learning Language
Bekah Medford
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
The Recipe for Learning Language
Thesis statement: Looking into the recipe of learning language one will find two types of ingredients: biological and cultural. Many people believe that learning language is strictly biological, while others believe language is learned culturally. In reality, the biological and cultural elements are blended together to create a unique, personal, learned language.
Quote 1: “Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more several abilities to process information or behave intelligently… I prefer the term ‘instinct’.” (From “An Instinct to Acquire Art,” by Pinker)
I choose this quote because it is an example of how many people believe language is biological. Language is descriped fully biological in this quote. One main reason I choose this quote was the conclusion. Pinker calls language “instinct.” I agree that language is part instinct.
Quote 2: “Children tend to speak not mearly the language but ther dialect of their parents.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
Though not as long as my first quote I pulled out this quote because I think it brings up a great point. This is an example of children getting part of language culturally. A child cannot be born is a certain dilact just because they are born in a certain place. They are trained by listening to people talk in their surrounding environment. Learning languae culturally is describe in this quote.
Quote 3: “ Its factous to expect most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
This quote is showing the contrasting opinon to quote 1. I thought it would be a good idea to bring this quote in to convey that diversity. I think this quote makes a lot of since. It has another comprehensible point on why language is somewhat culturally learned. A child with a higher education from a different cultural may be trained better than a child with no education. This will lead the first child to be more effiecent in talking with his language or using his language.
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
The Recipe for Learning Language
Thesis statement: Looking into the recipe of learning language one will find two types of ingredients: biological and cultural. Many people believe that learning language is strictly biological, while others believe language is learned culturally. In reality, the biological and cultural elements are blended together to create a unique, personal, learned language.
Quote 1: “Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more several abilities to process information or behave intelligently… I prefer the term ‘instinct’.” (From “An Instinct to Acquire Art,” by Pinker)
I choose this quote because it is an example of how many people believe language is biological. Language is descriped fully biological in this quote. One main reason I choose this quote was the conclusion. Pinker calls language “instinct.” I agree that language is part instinct.
Quote 2: “Children tend to speak not mearly the language but ther dialect of their parents.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
Though not as long as my first quote I pulled out this quote because I think it brings up a great point. This is an example of children getting part of language culturally. A child cannot be born is a certain dilact just because they are born in a certain place. They are trained by listening to people talk in their surrounding environment. Learning languae culturally is describe in this quote.
Quote 3: “ Its factous to expect most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
This quote is showing the contrasting opinon to quote 1. I thought it would be a good idea to bring this quote in to convey that diversity. I think this quote makes a lot of since. It has another comprehensible point on why language is somewhat culturally learned. A child with a higher education from a different cultural may be trained better than a child with no education. This will lead the first child to be more effiecent in talking with his language or using his language.
Linguistic Origins: Culture vs Nature (?)
Thesis:
The debate over linguistic origin has been ongoing throughout the era. Dr. Pinker and Mr. Dalrymple have both made compelling arguments for biology and culture respectively. In spite of this, my verdict stands: human linguistic development originates from a fine blend of biological and cultural influences. No matter how well Pinker and Dalrymple’s arguments are, they do not stand strong enough to justify that language originates from just nature or culture alone.
Quotes:
1. Dr. Pinker talks about the rules of language being somewhat hardwired into children, and how if they are brought up in a language that does not have those grammatical rules, they will create them. Honestly, I cannot fine his exact quote right now, but I will….
I will be using this quote as evidence, credibility, and a counterexample.
2. “It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents.”
I’ll be using this quote as well for evidence, credibility, and counterexample
3. “But everyone ought to have the opportunity to transcend the limitations of his linguistic environment, if it is a restricted one—which means that he ought to meet a few schoolmarms in his childhood. Everyone, save the handicapped, learns to run without being taught; but no child runs 100 yards in nine seconds, or even 15 seconds, without training. It is fatuous to expect that the most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.”
Again, used for credibility, evidence, and counterexample
Further thoughts:
The quotes in general I plan to use to “describe” the views of natural and cultural linguistic origin, so that I may take ideas from each and show how they can cooperate.
I feel that once I have established a fairly strong background of Pinker, Dalrymple, and their views, I can then show how their ideas in fact can sync quite nicely, into a very thoughtful theory of language.
The debate over linguistic origin has been ongoing throughout the era. Dr. Pinker and Mr. Dalrymple have both made compelling arguments for biology and culture respectively. In spite of this, my verdict stands: human linguistic development originates from a fine blend of biological and cultural influences. No matter how well Pinker and Dalrymple’s arguments are, they do not stand strong enough to justify that language originates from just nature or culture alone.
Quotes:
1. Dr. Pinker talks about the rules of language being somewhat hardwired into children, and how if they are brought up in a language that does not have those grammatical rules, they will create them. Honestly, I cannot fine his exact quote right now, but I will….
I will be using this quote as evidence, credibility, and a counterexample.
2. “It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents.”
I’ll be using this quote as well for evidence, credibility, and counterexample
3. “But everyone ought to have the opportunity to transcend the limitations of his linguistic environment, if it is a restricted one—which means that he ought to meet a few schoolmarms in his childhood. Everyone, save the handicapped, learns to run without being taught; but no child runs 100 yards in nine seconds, or even 15 seconds, without training. It is fatuous to expect that the most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.”
Again, used for credibility, evidence, and counterexample
Further thoughts:
The quotes in general I plan to use to “describe” the views of natural and cultural linguistic origin, so that I may take ideas from each and show how they can cooperate.
I feel that once I have established a fairly strong background of Pinker, Dalrymple, and their views, I can then show how their ideas in fact can sync quite nicely, into a very thoughtful theory of language.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Defining human and Animal Communication
THESIS:
Humans have domesticated a good number of animals over their span of history, among these are pets. As humans with emotions, we tend to get so attached to that fluffy dog or cat that we start to give them human characteristics that only belong to us. We are all guilty of this, including myself. We want that animal to be a part of our family so much that we begin to mistake simple animal behavior for something way beyond. Animals cannot communicate with human beings; they can only do sophisticated tricks for things like food and comfort. They do not understand what the words of our language are, but they can do certain things when they hear the placement of our sounds, tones, gestures, and even facial expressions. Animals are just adapting to where they can survive and be comfortable.
Quotes:
“The Standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a particular sound-stimulus or ‘noise’, but does not actually ‘understand’ what the words in the noise mean.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
I plan to use this quote to explain to my audience that animals merely respond to a noise that they have been trained to. For example: A human trains its dog that “come” means to go to the position of its master with means of food and comfort. The animal sees this as a good thing, as it helps it survive, and will follow the noise that it is trained to. The dog does not understand the meaning of come, but it knows it will be rewarded so it obeys.
“ As in may critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees are cleaver creatures who learn to produce a certain type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are essentially performing sophisticated ‘tricks’.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
This quote is perfect for me to begin my rant about how the animals that are able to sign or use symbols are merely just doing what the dog, in my latter example, is doing. The only difference is that the chimpanzee has found a more clever way to accomplish what the dog is trying to do.
“Therefore, in a number of cases, vocal interactions in animals do conform to the basic
requirements of turn-taking organization, both in its general context-free aspects
and in contextual flexibility.” (From “Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication” by Oller, D. Kimbrough. Griebel, Ulrike.)
I am using this quote to argue with it of course….animals only show turn based organization because that’s how everything flows. All causes have an effect, and to be honest humans are more of a disordered turn system. We talk to each other all the time while the other is talking, so this theory that humans and animals share a turn based system of communication is wrong.
Humans have domesticated a good number of animals over their span of history, among these are pets. As humans with emotions, we tend to get so attached to that fluffy dog or cat that we start to give them human characteristics that only belong to us. We are all guilty of this, including myself. We want that animal to be a part of our family so much that we begin to mistake simple animal behavior for something way beyond. Animals cannot communicate with human beings; they can only do sophisticated tricks for things like food and comfort. They do not understand what the words of our language are, but they can do certain things when they hear the placement of our sounds, tones, gestures, and even facial expressions. Animals are just adapting to where they can survive and be comfortable.
Quotes:
“The Standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a particular sound-stimulus or ‘noise’, but does not actually ‘understand’ what the words in the noise mean.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
I plan to use this quote to explain to my audience that animals merely respond to a noise that they have been trained to. For example: A human trains its dog that “come” means to go to the position of its master with means of food and comfort. The animal sees this as a good thing, as it helps it survive, and will follow the noise that it is trained to. The dog does not understand the meaning of come, but it knows it will be rewarded so it obeys.
“ As in may critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees are cleaver creatures who learn to produce a certain type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are essentially performing sophisticated ‘tricks’.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
This quote is perfect for me to begin my rant about how the animals that are able to sign or use symbols are merely just doing what the dog, in my latter example, is doing. The only difference is that the chimpanzee has found a more clever way to accomplish what the dog is trying to do.
“Therefore, in a number of cases, vocal interactions in animals do conform to the basic
requirements of turn-taking organization, both in its general context-free aspects
and in contextual flexibility.” (From “Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication” by Oller, D. Kimbrough. Griebel, Ulrike.)
I am using this quote to argue with it of course….animals only show turn based organization because that’s how everything flows. All causes have an effect, and to be honest humans are more of a disordered turn system. We talk to each other all the time while the other is talking, so this theory that humans and animals share a turn based system of communication is wrong.
Learning Language: Biological, Cultural, or Both?
Tyler Gunnin
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/25/09
Thesis Statement- As we develop and mature as humans into the full perspective of the world and the languages it has to offer, the genes given to us from our parents that give us the knowledge of language, is also supported through the outside surroundings giving us our education of speaking through both biological and cultural methods.
Quote 1
Children will learn their native language adequately whatever anyone does, and the attempt to teach them language is fraught with psychological perils... But happily, since every child is a linguistic genius, there is no need to do any such thing. Every child will have the linguistic equipment he needs, merely by virtue of growing older. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan to use this in my essay to show that he is describing that we learn language as we grow older in a biological and cultural sense. He notes children learn adequately whatever anyone does, and by the virtue of growing older. The fact that he states this shows that I can have a counterargument and credibility.
Quote 2
If so, why choose language of all the gifts that they gave him? Presumably, he means that they gave him the opportunity to learn standard English, even if they did not speak it themselves. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay by showing that this quote states that our parents give us the opportunity to not only learn english, but it also says that even if they did not speak the language that is being learned, the culture affects our knowledge of language. This also gives a nice counterargument to the matter at hand.
Quote 3
Over and over again, Pinker stresses that children do not learn language by imitation; rather, they learn it because they are biologically predestined to do so. “Let us do away,” he writes, with what one imagines to be a rhetorical sweep of his hand, “with the folklore that parents teach their children language.” It comes as rather a surprise, then, to read the book’s dedication: “For Harry and Roslyn Pinker, who gave me language.” -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay as another counterargument and for establishing credibility. Pinker states that we are predestined to learn language. Although he says this in his writing, he dedicates his book to his parents who gave him language. By doing this, it shows that Pinker is in agreement that although we may be influenced by the culture around us, we are also given the genes to learn and speak language by our parents.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/25/09
Thesis Statement- As we develop and mature as humans into the full perspective of the world and the languages it has to offer, the genes given to us from our parents that give us the knowledge of language, is also supported through the outside surroundings giving us our education of speaking through both biological and cultural methods.
Quote 1
Children will learn their native language adequately whatever anyone does, and the attempt to teach them language is fraught with psychological perils... But happily, since every child is a linguistic genius, there is no need to do any such thing. Every child will have the linguistic equipment he needs, merely by virtue of growing older. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan to use this in my essay to show that he is describing that we learn language as we grow older in a biological and cultural sense. He notes children learn adequately whatever anyone does, and by the virtue of growing older. The fact that he states this shows that I can have a counterargument and credibility.
Quote 2
If so, why choose language of all the gifts that they gave him? Presumably, he means that they gave him the opportunity to learn standard English, even if they did not speak it themselves. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay by showing that this quote states that our parents give us the opportunity to not only learn english, but it also says that even if they did not speak the language that is being learned, the culture affects our knowledge of language. This also gives a nice counterargument to the matter at hand.
Quote 3
Over and over again, Pinker stresses that children do not learn language by imitation; rather, they learn it because they are biologically predestined to do so. “Let us do away,” he writes, with what one imagines to be a rhetorical sweep of his hand, “with the folklore that parents teach their children language.” It comes as rather a surprise, then, to read the book’s dedication: “For Harry and Roslyn Pinker, who gave me language.” -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay as another counterargument and for establishing credibility. Pinker states that we are predestined to learn language. Although he says this in his writing, he dedicates his book to his parents who gave him language. By doing this, it shows that Pinker is in agreement that although we may be influenced by the culture around us, we are also given the genes to learn and speak language by our parents.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Blog Prompt for Friday, Sept. 25
Dear All,
This week for your blog you will be preparing to write your first formal paper. Here is what you need to do.
The title of your blog should be your topic. That is, in the "Title" block should be something like: "Learning Langauge: Biological or Cultural?," "Defining Animal and Human Communication," or "Language Authority in the United States."
Write your thesis statement/s. Remember that it should be CLEAR, PRECISE, and DEBATABLE. As discussed, sometimes, a thesis "statement" can be more than one sentence.
Record and cite (author, page number!) three quotes from the reading that you think you could use as material to establish credibility, as evidence for your argument, or as a counterargument that you will address.
After each quote, explain in a few sentences what the quote means and how you plan on using it in the essay (credibility, evidence, counterargument).
I will not be checking the length of your blog, but this is not an invitation to slack off. Your explanations of the quotes will take some effort! I will be grading you on how well you followed directions, and how well you pulled the material together as the basis of your paper. Your writing should be in formal Standard English -- I will mark down for poor or sloppy grammar.
We will be going over these blogs in class on Friday!
This week for your blog you will be preparing to write your first formal paper. Here is what you need to do.
The title of your blog should be your topic. That is, in the "Title" block should be something like: "Learning Langauge: Biological or Cultural?," "Defining Animal and Human Communication," or "Language Authority in the United States."
Write your thesis statement/s. Remember that it should be CLEAR, PRECISE, and DEBATABLE. As discussed, sometimes, a thesis "statement" can be more than one sentence.
Record and cite (author, page number!) three quotes from the reading that you think you could use as material to establish credibility, as evidence for your argument, or as a counterargument that you will address.
After each quote, explain in a few sentences what the quote means and how you plan on using it in the essay (credibility, evidence, counterargument).
I will not be checking the length of your blog, but this is not an invitation to slack off. Your explanations of the quotes will take some effort! I will be grading you on how well you followed directions, and how well you pulled the material together as the basis of your paper. Your writing should be in formal Standard English -- I will mark down for poor or sloppy grammar.
We will be going over these blogs in class on Friday!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A reliable dictionary???
Sam Redden
September 19, 2009
“Word of the Day”
The English language is a forever growing language. Words are added to our vocabulary everyday; most of these words being slang, of course. I was unaware that there was an online dictionary that held all of the modern day slang. The Urban Dictionary is polar opposites of the Oxford English Dictionary printed in 1989. This dictionary has all the term that you would see in a standard research paper. Both of these dictionaries have a “word of the day” posted on their website. By just looking at these two words and analyzing the differences of the meanings, I had a clear interpretation of the two dictionaries.
My interpretation of The Urban Dictionary is that it has the credibility of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where people can write their own takes on words and events. This dictionary is written by whoever feels like writing a word that day. Dictionaries are typically more trusted when they are written by lexicographers that devote their life to produce definitions that society agrees with. The only time I would use this dictionary is if someone called me a foul name that I did not recognize. For example, the “word of the day” for this dictionary is “pirate bath” which is “The process of washing just the arm pit area and the private area with a wash cloth or handful of water.”
In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more trusted dictionary. It is not vulgar, and I would feel completely comfortable buying it for my grandmother as a Christmas gift. It is impossible to go online and edit the definitions. The word of the day for this dictionary is “festivity” which is “Festive quality, condition, or nature; fitness for occasions of rejoicing; mirthfulness, cheerful urbanity; also (of writing, etc.), agreeable elegance.” This definition is descriptive because it assumes that the reader already knows the meaning of “festive.”
If I had to choose between the dictionaries, I would choose the Oxford English Dictionary because the Urban Dictionary just strikes me as a joke. I admit to using some of the words and phrases that make up the Urban Dictionary, however I would not use it in formal writing.
September 19, 2009
“Word of the Day”
The English language is a forever growing language. Words are added to our vocabulary everyday; most of these words being slang, of course. I was unaware that there was an online dictionary that held all of the modern day slang. The Urban Dictionary is polar opposites of the Oxford English Dictionary printed in 1989. This dictionary has all the term that you would see in a standard research paper. Both of these dictionaries have a “word of the day” posted on their website. By just looking at these two words and analyzing the differences of the meanings, I had a clear interpretation of the two dictionaries.
My interpretation of The Urban Dictionary is that it has the credibility of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where people can write their own takes on words and events. This dictionary is written by whoever feels like writing a word that day. Dictionaries are typically more trusted when they are written by lexicographers that devote their life to produce definitions that society agrees with. The only time I would use this dictionary is if someone called me a foul name that I did not recognize. For example, the “word of the day” for this dictionary is “pirate bath” which is “The process of washing just the arm pit area and the private area with a wash cloth or handful of water.”
In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more trusted dictionary. It is not vulgar, and I would feel completely comfortable buying it for my grandmother as a Christmas gift. It is impossible to go online and edit the definitions. The word of the day for this dictionary is “festivity” which is “Festive quality, condition, or nature; fitness for occasions of rejoicing; mirthfulness, cheerful urbanity; also (of writing, etc.), agreeable elegance.” This definition is descriptive because it assumes that the reader already knows the meaning of “festive.”
If I had to choose between the dictionaries, I would choose the Oxford English Dictionary because the Urban Dictionary just strikes me as a joke. I admit to using some of the words and phrases that make up the Urban Dictionary, however I would not use it in formal writing.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Trippin'
Tyler Gunnin
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Superior definition?
Mary Lowe
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
Measurement of someone's heart!!!
Carmen Solis
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
"Nifty" is a nifty word. My Favorite word.
Leila Shearon
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Snatch
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
Words, Words, Words
Bekah Medford
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
You Want to Get Blazed
It is very peculiar and almost funny how in the English language we have so many different meanings for words. The one I chose to look up is “blazed.” According to Urban Dictionary, it is to be really high from smoking marijuana. However, with Oxford English Dictionary, it means to burst into flames. It is crazy to think about how many meanings some of our words actually have. But who is right and who is wrong? Urban dictionary is available to the public to post their own definitions, where as Oxford English Dictionary is from an actual “source.” But now that I think about it, which can you believe or trust? On Urban, everyone seems to agree on the fact that blazed is to smoke weed, and if people today are referring to the word as that, then is that not right? But, on OED, it never once mentioned anything about drugs.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
Can We Create The Ultimate Dictionary?
Tyler Benson
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What Did You Call Me?!?
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)