I still have MMMBop stuck in my head...

EXNOMINATION

Lakoff describes Roland Barthes' theory of EXNOMINATION:

"If you are a member of a dominant group, your attributes are
invisible, as your role in making things the way they are is not noticeable ...
Exnominated groups become 'normalized': they become apolitical and nonidealogical. They just are. Their rules become the rules" (54, 55)

Curtain #1...

Curtain #2...

Is satire a savior in this war?

Fanfreakingtastic!

In one word, Fanfreakingtastic!

This is, with out a doubt, the best book I have read in any subject throughout my college career! Robin Lakoff, though writing from as a descriptor of the intricacies of language and tone, doesn’t let her obvious mastery of the English language fall below an intellectual collegiate reading level. Her hidden insincerity is more than amusing as she relates certain issues in our present and past where semantics and word choices can become the seat of controversy and/or public favor.

Throughout the first chapter, she looked at the overabundance of semantics in America. If the word “nigger” is offensive, why is it in the dictionary and why is the fact that its offensive not stated immediately in its definition. She eloquently states that the word may not be offensive to everyone as many Americans use it as a form of greeting. She also states that its only a type of person who needs to look in the dictionary to define themselves. An uneducated person would see her as a racist, but not I. I see that it’s only certain people who dwell on such things in order to create controversy.

Should the word holocaust only portray the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews? Should they have hold of a word that has different definitions? Should a word be thrown into a single definition or would the common use of it take away from its meaning? Her points are endlessly amusing and thought-provoking. Her chapter on the status quo only enthused me more as she broke down certain topics that violate/perpetuate the norm and show how the language used can hold sway. I am currently reading the politically correct chapter but wish to reread the second chapter.

I'm one of Us

I just want to commend Robin Lakoff for pointing out her bias from the beginning. Robin, I appreciate it. Although, I found The Language War to be a slug—I felt like I was dragging my feet through 12 inches of snow, Lakoff did have many very interesting points: I would like to start with her analysis of Henry Hyde. Generally, I am one of the first to admit that hypocrisy is a part of life, although, it may not appear to be hypocrisy from the hypocrites perspective. I also tend to find hypocrisy amusing—as I did in Hyde’s case:

1. His stances on campus speech codes and support of the Communications Decency Act are so blatantly opposite extremes of the same argument, First Amendment rights. I am curious as to how Hyde would have defended his position.
   
   
2. Hyde was supporting the curtail of campus speech codes at the same time he

“was enthusiastically supporting a May 1991 Supreme Court decision (Rust v. Sullivan) that forbade medical personnel in hospitals of clinics that received and government support from so much as mentioning abortion to their clients (Lakoff 102)”

Funny stuff. And now, more Republican Hypocricy. In an article on AOL News, two abortion clinics in Kansas called for Bill O'Reilly and Phill Kline to be investigated after O’Reilly made claims of having Kansas abortion records. O’Reilly claims that George Tiller was performing abortions on women because they were depressed. I picked this article for two reasons:

1. Bill O’Reilly’s choice of words—
   
   “executing babies!”
   
   
   
   
2. and one point that is buried deep in the article:

“Tiller, one of the few U.S. doctors to perform late-term abortions, has been targeted by protesters for years, his clinic was bombed in 1985 and he was shot by a protester in 1991” (AOL NEWS).

Some of the tactics used in protest of abortion clinics aren't amusing.

Lakoff says that what politicians are trying to do is pin their opponent as the "other". Well, in O’Reilly’s attempt at controlling meaning, he is clearly trying to pin Tiller as an OTHER. Most normal people do not “execute babies;” therefore, Tiller is the "extremist" outsider and O’Reilly has asserted his meaning-making control.

But O’Reilly may not have been effective at all. The public is generally knowledgeable about abortion, and may find that, in fact, O’Reilly is being extreme in his claims. This could potentially have a reverse effect on O’Reilly, positioning him as the extremist. Time will tell.




Another section of Lakoff’s book that I found rather interesting was exnomination. I was familiar with this concept before this book, because once I attended a feminist discussion panel. A member of the audience asked why there isn’t masculinism since there was feminism. The answer was, basically, that ...

everything already was masculinistic and because it was the “status quo” no one realized it. Feminism exists in order to achieve balance. (As Lakoff would say, re-nominate the exnominated.)

I feel that Lakoff’s title is perfect. She weaves through the texts that display that politics is a

battle over semantics

and as long as we are the exnominated party, we will have little to complain about.

In this book, I also found the importance (and ambiguity) of pronouns . I knew all along that pronouns were non-descriptive. I knew that using a pronoun was a way to vary sentence structure. But pronouns are powerful little words.

Snapshot #1

I said, " look, I don't get what your problem is!"

He said, "you stepped on my cat!"

I said, "that was your cat?"

He said, "Duh!"

I said, "Well then, I'm sorry...now shut up and leave me alone."

Lakoff Wannabe

How I am Presenting My Analysis of Lakoff
In a somewhat rhetorical fashion, I am structuring this blog entry the way Lakoff has presented her arguments throughout “The Language War”. I will do this with Italics and parenthesis containing comments indicative of an outsider. (This just means it is more conversational and designed to simplify and explain.)

Pronouns Show Where the Speaker Stands
I will attempt to construct this e-paper in such a way that you can get to know Robin Lakoff’s work the way I have. Though it may differ slightly from your understanding of it, I do not want this to divide us into you and me. There should be no them or they when discussing our views on this subject since it applies to all. Everyone will have a unique interpretation. (Like Ramage explained, you can only get the gist of someone.) This is just a piece of the puzzle. As part of the blog it serves the purpose to contribute to the collective examination of Lakoff.

The Title’s Ambiguity Represents the Complex Nature of Words
Even if you are unfamiliar with Lakoff’s book, it is evident from its title that it has something to do with a conflict involving language. It is unclear, however, exactly what is intended by labeling it “The Language War”. Is it referencing a war fought over the use of words, or does it mean one fought with them? I don’t think that there is a definitive answer to this, and that is the reason for the vague title. (In any case, it raises some interesting linguistic questions and challenges.)

A War over the Meaning of Words
Lakoff says “Culture, after all, is the construction of shared meaning.” She states that we are interested in different media related stories because they are about how we define of ourselves. She states that there is an ongoing struggle to hang on to our personal meaning of words. We are comfortable when we know what is going on and are able to express ourselves. This is not always possible though because even if we say what we mean, people hear what they comprehend according to the connotations they have assigned. (Repetition helps to create this shared meaning.) If you are told countless times that you are dumb, you will know that word by how others perceive your actions. (Say, if you can not pass tests, you will fall into the culture’s definition of dumb and be forced to live with that label despite other elements of your personality that may make you smart.) Do you fight for your meaning of smart and dumb, or does the population decide your fate?

A War with Words
How do we assign meaning to words? With other words! (This merry-go-round of meaning can be dizzying.) This is where the status quo has the upper hand. (This applies to the conservative party as well, according to Lakoff.) Tradition needs no explanation because it is innately understood, even if it is wrong. The issue of politically correct words illustrates this point well. The Black Panthers successfully made it p.c. to call African Americans ‘Black’. This aided in the civil rights movement because African Americans were no longer defined by something that would make them seem inferior. Being ‘black’ (not ‘colored’ implying that they were diverging from the norm) enabled them to define themselves.

dog bites man. thats plausible. man bites dog? thats just unlikely.

I cracked open Lakoff's book and began to read it with the expectations pretty low. Besides dealing with those wonderful patrons at the restaurant I waitress at, I had yet another reading to pick apart and relate to. Don't get me wrong, Language War was interesting, but if I had the chance to actually sit down with it without 10,036 other things on my mind I'd like it so much better. Yet theres a lot of stuff I decided made sense. More so then Rhetoric. Compared to The Language War, my trip to Ramageland was like driving thru Death Valley in a car with no AC in between Paris Hilton and The Nanny. Talking simultaneously. Yeah that bad. Sorry Ramage... I just didn't dig your flow that much.
So 2 glasses of wine after work ( it was a rough day. ) and half a pack of cigarettes later saw me at The Markedness of the Feminine and the Female, and about gender-based markedness. Its no longer policeman. Its policemen, policewomen. Language from long ago was based the same as society was run, with a male dominant factor. Besides women not really emerging from homemaker status until the post-war years when the girls had to bring home the bacon, naturally the language was male oriented. Just shows how language varies with time and culture and how the woman's movement changed society, which in turn changed the language.
Welp. DUH. sorry guys, I'm really not going to enlighten anyone with my paper. Besides I think everyone else's points are way better than mine. I can't really draw personal parallels to exactly what Lakoff was saying in The Language War, even though I understand where shes coming from. I understand that language has the ability to mean more than what it marks. You could open a dictionary and find so many words that have come to mean something else than just what theyre supposed to be. Then theres language and reality. Language has the power to make things reality. Philosophically, I could ask "Am I real?" "Am I an illusion?" Language would prove me to be real. People can see me. I can be described collectively using the same words by different people, therefore I myself am a collection of verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. I am composed entirely of words and phrases. I am the result of society.
Then theres the question of logical and illogical, of plausible and of unlikely. The whole dog bites man, man bites dog example makes sense. If we hear that a dog bites a man, we assume that the dog was pissed off, it was playing hard, it was protective. But a man biting a dog? Why the heck would a human being bite a dog? What kind of person bites a dog? The questions that arise in our minds from the simple swap of words is astounding. Society is Language War for this reason. You've got these words and these exceptions and its just the way we've been taught or programmed to think. You've got your girl that sleeps around. Shes such a hussy. Then you've got your guy that gets the chicks. He's the man. Forgive me for bringing this typical arguement up but seriously, it also links to the whole markedness of feminine and the female language barrier. Not in the name, but in the context.
Okay, so I'm not so proud of my readings with Lakoff. I'm having trouble getting really into her book. Im just tired and cranky and really hoping for a winning lotto ticket. Maybe next time I write I'll be on a beach, looking alot like that saucy doggy up there.

Robin Lakoff, One Witty Linguist

I'm not sure if I'm just easily amused or not, but I knew that Robin Lakoff's book would be good right from page one. The title itself, "The Language War," alludes to some great call-to-action--the struggle to gain, re-gain, and/or maintain control of language. Carting my nice hardback version to and from Advanced Composition class in Lytle (the furthest building from the dorms; think Pluto to Earth, if you need a reference point), made me feel important.

But more importantly, anyone who can find a way to legitimately reference the "Ebonics debate of 1996-1997"(1) in the second paragraph of her book (which looks like an abridged version of the Bible) has my respect. And this is just the beginning...

Way to go, Robin!!

Speaking of Lakoff's introductory chapter... (called "What I Am Doing Here, and How I Am Doing It"), I counted the useage of some form of the noun "linguist" over twenty-five times. This was just during the first five of the fifteen pages in the chapter. I'm not sure why I counted, but I do know that i stopped and skipped ahead a few pages in order to get to the next chapter.

Once Lakoff gets over her obsession with asserting that she is a LINGUIST and what LINGUISTS do--she actually gets down into the "nitty gritty" of her book and uses examples that not only make since, some of them are funny.

The first two chapters, "Language: The Power We Love to Hate" and "The Neutrality of the Status Quo" examined the impact that words have on everyday situations, for instance what is "normal"--or rather, what is considered normal as defined by what is socially acceptable in a long line of so-called traditionally-accepted values and roles, i.e. the opinion of the general public becomes, in effect, "fact" (think of this as a Wiki-society).

"The Neutrality of the Status Quo" exposed the problem of gendered language, especially in the English language. In my American Women in Literature class, we discussed this issue as well. Most standard terms were originally worded in masculine terms, for example, policeman, congressman, etc. While in other languages, such as German, the words for person (Mann) and people (Leute) are considered "neuter" and different from the gendered words used for woman, man, girl, boy, and child. However, this does not mean that English is the only language who has gendered language. The word for teacher in German is Lehrer. However, this refers to a male teacher--a female teacher is a Lehrerin.

Even most insults in the English language actually revert back to a woman. "Son of a bitch" obviously refers rather directly to someone's mother. Even "bastard," an insulting term usually used by women and directed at men, actually calls back to the behavior of his mother--who has APPARENTLY had sex and born a child out of wedlock. Once again, the only reason people give a shit about that in the first place is because we live in a "Wiki-society," where the "social values" of either a) the majority or b) the powerful have been passed down for generations upon generations and have made people judgmental.

FOR EXAMPLE:

1) "The baby cried. The mother picked it up" (43).
2) "The baby cried. The mother ate a salami sandwich" (43).

As far as conformity goes, the first chain of events is a success. The mother who goes immediately to her baby's side the moment s/he starts crying is "good." The second example, unfortunately, is "bad" in terms of traditionally accepted parenting. When I read this example in Robin Lakoff's book to some of the residents that live on my wing in Schuylkill Hall (where I'm a Community Assistant), they had an immediate adverse reaction. This included saying things like: "What kind of mother would do that?" and "What's wrong with her?"

The second example in its semantics alone makes assumptions about women as a gender. By saying "the baby" and "the mother" the words seem to imply that woman is "mother" first and foremost. The fact that when a mother does anything other than care for her baby when it demands attention commands such a negative response, seems to beg the question: Why can't women have other interests/responsibilities/tasks/duties/jobs/etc. not related to motherhood?

Snap judgments based off of a deviation from the social "norm" are not different from other forms of prejudice that exist in society: prejudice = judging someone based off of how a group acts/should act. This "mother" in Lakoff's second example is judged because her experience of motherhood simply doesn't fit the mold. But...Is she even the baby's mother? Or did you just assume she was because she happens to be a WOMAN standing near a CRYING BABY. Where is the father? What if the baby is just crying for attention and s/he doesn't "need" anything (such as to be changed or fed). Since when are we in a position to criticize someone's parenting skills without invitation?

Kudos to Lakoff for shedding light onto this issue that most people don't even notice.

The difference between saying "I will" and "I promise" is defined by the exact meanings of the words "will" and "promise" themselves. If something will happen, it is being predicted to occur at some future time and date. However, if something is promised to happen, it becomes more concrete or "performative" (22) as Lakoff says. This reminded me of a teacher I had in elementary school. If a student wanted permission to use the bathroom, they were expected to say "May I use the bathroom?" If someone asked "Can I use the bathroom?", the teacher would give the smart-ass reply, "I don't know, can you?"

Lakoff's laundry list of indirect ways to apologize made me laugh, especially the highly-discussed "The cat looks upset" (24). I think it is alot easier for people thesedays to make trite observations rather than to take responsibility and be genuinely sorry for something they have done.

Society as a whole is looking for new ways to take responsibility off of its proverbial shoulders. For example, the new Lexus can parallel park itself using magical and mystical sensors that guide the vehicle into the space. Now...when one of those sensors inevitably breaks, whose fault will the collision be? What will THAT apology sound like?

In this great and magestic "Wiki-society" (otherwise known as America), you have been called to action. By Robin Lakoff, by her book "The Language War," by every soldier fighting the "War on Terror" instead of the Iraq War, and hopefully by your inner-idealist every time you hear the political rhetoric of today. So much of language is out of our hands today, and into the pockets of the powerful in government and big corporations.

But aren't all things that are worth having or understanding worth fighting for?

Welcome to "The Language War."

Language--something worth fighting for

In "The Language War" Robin Lakoff says

"Language is not 'just words'. It enables us to establish our selves, and
ourselves, as individuals and as members of groups; it tells us how we are connected to one another, who has power and who doesn't."

Language is how we define ourselves and our identity, and it is very powerful. How you phrase a sentance can either put the speaker in a dominant or submissive role. This is shown with the example of a cat getting stepped on, where the offender can appologize nicely and take the blame ("I'm sorry"), or turn the blame onto someone else ("Why was the cat there?")

One way of getting this language power is by creating public language. With the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas sexual harassment case, women created a motto "They just don't get it." It gave women interpretive power to decide what "it" is and how you "get" it. Also, the issue of sexual harassment was forced into public notice. It is accepted now, and when I applied to work at a grocery store, they even showed a video on what was considered sexual harassment.

There is a lot of "political correctness" in language these days. Feminists argue against the use of "man" as equal meaning to "human being," making "women" seem less human. They've gone so far as to ask for a gender neutral Bible. Instead of "mailman" they want "mailwoman" or "mailperson." Or to take gender completely out, "mailcarrier." I personally do not mind the use of "man" and consider it to include women. In spanish "ellos" means them, male, and "ellas" means them, female. But if there is a group of men and women together, "ellos" would be used. It is just understood, under the masculine term. The issue in political correctness is replacing somewhat OFFENSIVE words with others that are not.

"The Language War" quoted

"In the name of 'sensitivity' to others and under pain of being denounced as a sexist or racist, the postmodern radicals require everyone around them to adhere to their own codes of speech and behavior."

Also,

"P.C. attempts to redistribute power from the priviledged class...to the oppressed masses."

They say "African American" rather than "negro" and "mentally challenged" instead of "retarded." This created a renaming of many things to show how ridiculous it can get, with "follically challenged" (just say it--bald), or "vertically challenged" (short.) Apparently Australia can't use the word "mate" in public anymore.

"What next? banning 'no worries' so as not to offend the worried, or banning 'Down Under' So as not to offend those of us who live in the 'Up Over.'"

That's just culture destroying.

"Politically correct" reminds me of a song by Gretchen Wilson, "Politically Uncorrect" (Yes, to you grammar police out there, even the title is incorrect.) Her video reminds us how it is definately not politically correct to talk about God, among other things. ("Nothing wrong with the Bible," the songs says, which those P.C. feminists obviously didn't agree with.)

We can't say "Merry Christmas" anymore, because we might OFFEND someone who celebrates Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, Winter-een-mas, you name it. Instead we are supposed to say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings."
Keep that in mind--December is approaching, mate.

I know the meaning of MMMBop

First of all, The Language War by Robin Lakoff is so much easier to understand and to read than Ramage's Rhetoric. (And I have to add that I feel sorry for anyone who pays $37.60 for this book... I'm sad that I paid $18.44 for it...) In all honesty, reading Ramage made me want to do bad things. (Ok.. I'm sorry; I'm horrible. No more Ramage talk.) Anyway, Lakoff is able to explain things in a way that I can understand. She keeps me engaged by using things I'm actually interested in as examples, such as movies like Thelma and Louise or The Godfather.

The only part of her book that I absolutely did not like AT ALL, was her introduction. While reading it, thoughts of Ramage came back, and I think I may have cried a little. However, I still decided to continue on to the first chapter (probably because I didn't want to fail this class) and was impressed. I knew what she was saying, and I wasn't bored!

The first thing I found intriguing was when she explained that apologies, and non-apologies, are also a part of language and can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what is said and how it is said. This brings me to the cat example that Lakoff uses. While each sentence is a form of apology, they progressively get worse and lay the blame on different people. Lakoff explains that politicians use a similar form of this "non-apology"--what they say may seem apologetic, but they either don't mean it or are only saying it to get people off their back. Public apologies are meant to make the person apologizing look good and seem sincere without degrading themselves.

The next part that I liked was "Meaning and Marking" in Chapter 2. We associate different words and phrases to mean different things. Lakoff uses the examples of the word "normal" to mean natural, simple, or expected.

"The baby cried.

The mother picked it up."

However, we find it very bizarre to read,

"The baby cried.

The mother ate a salami sandwich."

Immediately, thoughts form in our heads that this woman must be a horrible mother (No Wire Hangers!), even though we have no background information to the tale. Is the father tending to the child? Are we speaking of a different mother than that of THIS child? Or is the mother trying to break the child of an excessive crying habit? Once we hear a word or phrase that does not sound "normal" or "pleasing," we are so quick to reject it, and are even fast to deem it "abnormal" or "crazy."

This brings me to my own example. When many people from my generation hear the name Hanson, the word MMMBop almost immediately fills their mind. Then the moans and groans usually follow, along with a picture of 3 blond boys that "look and sound like girls." Because of these negative connotations that started NINE YEARS ago, many are still skeptical of the band and fail to give them half a chance. Although they don't sing songs like MMMBop anymore, and have cut their long blond hair off, and are now all married (to women, by the way), the meaning of the word "Hanson" to many people is still, "That stupid MMMBop song."

My example could also be used in "Making Words, Making Sense" in Chapter 3. Lakoff argues that definition is more ambiguous than it is neutral, and that it could be used or manipulated to help powerful people gain more power. Immediately, my mind trails to the phrase "death tax." While a death tax is the exact same as an estate tax, that one small change in the wording causes a freak out among some Americans who have no reason to be angry.

The last part of the reading that really grabbed my attention was in the beginning of Chapter 4 when Lakoff makes an example of Thelma and Louise. The last thing I ever thought of when watching the movie was if people were offended by the fact that these women are freakin' awesome. While I have no problem with any of the content of the movie, it was kind of shocking to learn that there were mixed feelings about it when it first came out. Lakoff says that most women who saw the movie cheered at how Thelma and Louise handled their different situations (and by handling, I mean shooting people and driving off a cliff), while most critics and men questioned whether it was appropriate to portray women to behave in a violent manner such as this. Not only that, but Lakoff mentions that, through the issue of sexual harassment in Thelma and Louise, the movie also brought up the fact that

"too many men treat women as

children, sex objects, or possessions."

Lakoff says that because of the popularity of the movie, it

"universalized the problem,

presenting it from a female perspective, and gave

us a language, visual and verbal, in which to discuss it."

The language of sexual harassment came about because of one movie... what a beautiful thing.

All in all, I do like Robin Lakoff's The Language War, and not just because it isn't Ramage. Lakoff does an excellent job in keeping her readers engaged, and in displaying her information in a way that is easy to understand and even easier to follow. I, for one, love any book that gives me a reason to use Hanson as an example... Although, maybe I'm just an obsessed psycho...

Yo son, you's got the language, kid

When I first looked at The Language War I thought to myself, “Oh god, please not another one of these godforsaken rhetorical texts. Mahoney, why do you curse this class? Should I be spiteful? Spite I will. Spitey McGee here!” Well, that didn’t happen. Sorry, did I go too far? It happens. Thankfully enough, though, the book wasn’t like the other foreign text we read. (Ramage) Although Robin Lakoff does provide us with this lengthy account, it defers from Rhetoric: A User’s Guide with it’s much simpler way of explaining things. Thanks Robin. ( See above )

In the introduction, Lakoff goes on to offer us a number of questions of which I will account for here.

“How do stories we tell and hear, privately
and publicly, give us our understanding of ourselves and the society we
inhabit?” (pg. 7)

As she goes on to say, we must, as a whole, begin to analyze linguistic data so that we may be able to understand what effect it has on social, economic and political reality. So much of our common language influences the way others act and react that it should almost be a forgone certainty that we study the effects of this.

• How does modern slang influence our society?
• What about the apology, or the unconscious, un-apology?
• How do we begin to study these seemingly simple tools of language?
  

Well, I’ll talk about one of the examples Lakoff presents. On page 28 Lakoff talks about the extended interpretation apology.

• This means that there is ambigous language which presents either a positive or negative connotation, which the individual has to interpret.

"If I say, 'You’re a real genius,’ the literal interpretation is
the positive one, you’re smart; the ironic, that is, the nonliteral one, is
negative, you’re an idiot. On the other hand, I can’t normally say, ‘You’re a
real idiot,’ meaning ironically that you’re smart."

This example made me laugh a jolly old second or two—mostly because my friends and I use this logic all the time. Instead of politely telling someone, ‘hey, maybe that wasn’t the smartest thing you could have said,’ we have to belittle him, offering our best use of sarcasm to make him feel completely unwelcome. It’s a product of environment, I’m assuming. This theory of the extended interpretation apology most likely has been around for the past decade, because people grew tired of saying the same tired response to the same pathetic person over and over again. Most likely, that pathetic person realized his ineptitude rather quickly and either

• a) shut up forever; or
• b) became a little more aware of what he said in public.

It works out in the long run. A little further on in the reading, at page 58, I came across a section that talked about the rhetorical roles of

Republicans

and

Democrats.

The discussion centered around the battle between the two parties and how they could potentially one-up each other. What struck me as déjà vu, was when Democrats retailiated in a Frank Luntz type approach. As a way of gaining an upper hand on the Republicans, the Democrats would invoke the term “extremist” instead of “liberal” when talking about the Republicans. “In the epithet wars that were the 1996 Congressional and Presidential campaigns, “extremist” proved to be a more dangerous label than “liberal.”

Again, I laughed when I read this section. I thought, “By golly, was Frank Luntz at the bottom of this, or do others find pleasure at creating havoc with response-driven language?” It showed what lengths parties would go to gain an upper hand—by using all of their rhetorical powers, they would finally defeat the other!

Finally, I just want to point out pg. 78, where Lakoff says this,

“I am tempted to suggest that one function of prescriptivism, amply attested here, is that worrying about how people talk avoids the necessity
of paying attention to what they say—which could be a real problem. "

This was in response to the example in the text which was about the man in the elevator who was berated by three unknown occupants who, probably by there need for constant one-upmanship, corrected his grammar. This bothered me a lot. What’s the deal with grammar? Do we always have to keep our guard up around everyone?

• OOPS, SORRY I USED THE WRONG TENSE—SHOOT ME NOW.

Seriously, not everyone has a stick up their butt all the time.

To those that do, I recommend this: Watch Save the Last Dance. Watch this scene:

• Derek: “Yo Sara, ya wan me to hep ya out wit some moves?”
• Sara: “Why yes, that would be quite swell, my newly found chum.”

*They proceed to go into a seemingly empty high school where Sara gets the stick out her ass and learns the ways of hip-hop and grunting.*

*End Scene*

That will help. It isn't always about the way something says or writes something, but rather, it's about the message that one tries to get across.

Alright, well I must say, this book was a great read considering the previous text we had to deal with. But, without the prior knowledge about Ramage and his rhetorical ways, I’m not sure if it would have had the same impact that it did. In that respect, I thank you Ramage and Mrs. Lakoff.

Watch Your Language

The Language War by Robin Lakoff was such a refreshing text to read after struggling to comprehend the lack luster Rhetoric: A User's Guide by John D. Ramage. He is a very intelligent guy but his book just wasn't my cup of tea. However when I began reading Lakoff's introduction it led me to believe that I was walking down those dreadful roads of Ramgeland once again (The science of linguistic theory would scare almost any college student). The most intriging characteristic of Lakofff is that she incorporates recent historical events that the reader can relate to. And by doing so, her credibility as an author shot through the roof in my eyes.

The Ronald Reagan and Coretta Scott King reference was extremely helpful in understanding the manipulation of language when apoligizing (or at least trying to). When discussing the possibliity of making Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, Senator Jesse Helms conspired that the civil rights leader was under communist influence. Reagan responded with the half witted remark, "We'll know in about thirty-five years, won't we?" Obviously, racial and political tension increased after these comments were made. Mrs. King said Reagan apoligized. Reagan said he was misinterpreted. The White House said the President never issued an apology. What a confusing mess this turned out to be! The problem with apologies, specifically public ones is that they are indirect with blame being focused on anyone but the offender. As we construct meaning from language, we can not underestimate the power of the speaker. We have the right to criticize a president for these offensive remarks because of his elite position in government. This power influences perception, usually leading to negative or positive thoughts that form meaning. And with this superiority, Reagan dodged the bullet (not the real ones) by construcing what King perceived as an apology, but in actuality was an evasive tool used by skilled rhetoricians.

"Power is the most persuasive rhetoric"

-Friedrich von Schiller

Another important point that Lakoff presents is that the menaing of language is based on expectations and prior knowledge. Her example, "Dog bites man, man bites dog" explains this. The interpreter has pre-conceived notions about the natural tendencies of man and dog, while ignoring the possiblity of alternatives. Lakoff describes these expectations as frames which help us form meaning (finally, it all makes sense). A dog could definitley bite a man, but a man biting a dog in retaliation seems improbable. What an analogy! Ramage probably would have explained this with ancient Greek philosophy or Chinese Taoism (yawn). The formation of these frames is really just a basic function of human behavior. Our personal experiences in life will always influence our interpretation of language.

I also recieved a better understanding of the assumptions we make while interpreting language. This could be verbal or non verbal, but in either case, it is based on universal meaning. Lakoff's example of the juror selection of the Japenese woman who giggles and hides her face when forced to answer embarassing questions showed me how this concept works in the real world. The criminal defence attorneys thought that her actions were a sign of disrespect. However, in Japenese culture women do this when they are embarassed. Assumption relies on generalizations that usually do not consider the impact of culture on language creating a gap between speaker and listener. In this particular case the Japenese woman is not chosen as a juror because of this cultural barrier. These misinterpretations reoccur everyday in the melting pot of American society.

Honestly, thank you Robin Lakoff for saving me from the horrifying realms of Ramageland. That book should have included a cyanide pill on the inside cover (Just kidding Mr. Ramage) I could have said worse but I'll watch my language.

I Like The Cut of Your Jib, Robin Lakoff

Let me start off by saying that I am OH-SO-THRILLED! that we are finished with our journey through Ramageland. Well I guess techinally we aren't because we still mention that dreaded name from time to time...but at least we are finished having to read it for homework. I would rather jam my hand into a bear trap than read that book again. The funniest part about that though, is that I am taking another class revolving around rhetoric next semester with THE WONDERFUL MAHONEY.

(That's right Mahoney! I'm coming back, and I will be prepared for all of your devil's advocate ways.)

My guess is that I will be reading Ramage again, and much sooner than I would ever dream. It will be nice though, in a sense, because everyone else will be confused and it will make me laugh. Enough rambling (which I am assuming is ok to do because this is supposed to be about our take on the readings, right?)...on with The Language War!

One of the most fascinating parts of the book, for yours truly, was the section that began on page 23: Apologies As Language Politics. Lakoff tells us that when we apologize, in a sense we are doing it to show that we have done or said something wrong. We want to show the person or people we hurt that we acknowledge that it was wrong. However, it isn't that cut and dry. Essentially we are only apologizing to either shut the person up, or to make ourselves feel better. Have you ever apologized to someone and they listen to everything you have to say, nodding their head all the while, and you think they understand, but when it comes down to finally excepting your apology they won't?

ISN'T THAT INFURIATING?!

And it's even worse when you apologize and someone won't except it so you turn it on them like it was their fault in the beginning. A perfect example of that involved my friend Lauren and I. We were swimming in Narrowsburg, New York with our other friend, Joel, at a place called Skinner's Falls. We decided to get out of the water and change from our bathing suits into clothes so we wouldn't be walking around feeling damp and gross all day. While we were changing, Joel started to walk through the bushes that were guarding us. Lauren got really angry and picked up a huge rock. She proceeded to throw it in the direction the noise was coming from...

We heard a thud and saw Joel walking toward us with a dazed look on his face and blood pouring from his skull. Lauren apologized to him but I think he was just too shocked to answer (plus he had already lost a lot of blood) so Lauren got especially livid. She started yelling at him and saying he was the one that should be sorry because if he hadn't been trying to "sneak a peak at some naked boobies" the rock would've never been thrown. I was pretty amazed at her reasoning. Joel never apologized and he recieved 26 stitches in his head. He also told us that he was only coming for us because he had found some kind of "cool rock", he wasn't trying to sneak a peak. Lauren knew it was really her fault that Joel got a massive head wound, but she won't admit it to this day because he never accepted her apology.

POLITICAL APOLOGIES ARE HILARIOUS TOO! A perfect example I found had to do with President Clinton apologizing for things he didn't even do only to avoid apologizing for the huge thing that he did do. "President Clinton appears to be perfectly happy to make explicit apologies for bad behavior by his predecessor (to African Americans for the Tuskegee syphilis experiments of the early twentieth century; to Hawiians for the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani at the end of the nineteenth), but he waffled and talked directly around a direct "apology" to his wife and the public at large in the Sixty Minutes interview of the Clintons in January 1992, in response to reports of his marital infidelites; and public dissatisfaction with his apology for an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky in 1998 almost led to his ignominious demise (30)." Way to take responsibility Bill instead of being ignorant. And to the rest of the politicians out there, why make an apology if you really don't mean it? Are we back in first grade again? It only makes you look worse if you recant on an apology later.

The last thing I found interesting that Lakoff pointed out was in chapter two. She brought attention to something everyone in class probably already notices: the gender of words. For instance, she points out that the word man is attached to so many occupations. "Policeman, congressman, chairman as well as other more general terms (spokesman, freshman, layman). (45)" And did you ever notice how certain occupations are just naturally associated with a specific gender. Doctors, dentists, plumbers, and carpenters are usually seen as being men; whereas secretaries and nurses are seen as belonging to females.

WAKE UP AMERICA, SEXISM IS RIDICULOUS!!

"Women's work" just doesn't exist anymore, no matter how badly some people may want it to.

Robin Lakoff's book has proved to be much more of an enjoyable read than I had originally anticipated. As soon as we finished with Ramage my blood ran cold as I thought of what the next book was going to be. But don't worry Professor Mahoney, you made a very wise choice with The Language War. GOOD JOB!

US versus THEM

War corresepondent Robin Lakoff clearly depicts her take on the age-old, ongoing battle of The Language War.

The battle?

US versus THEM

US= Republicans/Conservatives = Those who have created and controlled the
meaning of language in our society in order to
uplift their group while subordinating others.
This group is fighting changes in language
which will give a voice to the minority groups
not before represented in our language.

THEM = Everyone else = Those with no previous say in making meaning of
language, specifically females and non-whites. This
group being suppressed by language
created by "US" also includes those in the majority
group fighting alongside them for a voice.

Many of US are clueless. They are like the alcoholic who grew up with alcoholic parents. Once the problem is pointed out:

1. Alcoholic gets help


OR

2. Alcoholic suffers and dies of cyrrhosis of the liver .

The subordinating language US uses is like alcohol in the alcoholic family. They point out the problem and ...

1. US can own the problem and join THEM in the battle for a voice in our
language

OR

2. US can continue to fight against THEM for control of language meaning.

(MAYBE .... someone should explain exnomination to US ... )

This makes obvious the definite separation in our societal language between

US

and

THEM.

BUT ... all is not lost.

Language is constantly evolving. Old discriminatory attitudes fall to the wayside slooowwwly but SURELY. It seems as if the battle against US is strengthening as more of US learn and understand the concept of

EXNOMINATION.

RACISM and SEXISM are wrong no matter who practices it. Unfortunately, so many aspects of our language and how we speak to each other support it. I think it's awesome that Lakoff has pointed out so poignantly that our language has been created by and has remained an enabler for racist and sexist people to subtly maintain control over non-white humans and females. Without pointing fingers at members of a group, Lakoff should use her power of eloquent writing to help win this battle in the

LANGUAGE WAR!

Where Language War took Me

While reading Language War by Robin Lakoff my mind drifted off to several side bar conversations. To me that is the first sign that I am reading something meaningful.

The first thing that caught my attention was the discussion on the apology and non apology. This tripped me out because a couple of days prior I was having an argument with my one of my male companions Steve* ( its hard being pretty ) Right in the middle of my argument he told me that I was right and said “ I apologize.”
I instantly starting laughing because I realized that he had used one of my own tricks on me.

When ever someone is mad at me about something( especially guys) I let them explain their piece and then I say…

"You know what, Your right..I m sorry”

This is the quickest way for me to end an argument because I am giving them what they want. Of course they are still upset, but what can they say…I apologized. And if they insist on continuing the conversation, I have the right to become irate with them because after all I apologized… What else do you want from me?

This method irritates the hell out of people and it irritated me when Steve apologized. I knew that he had no idea, nor did he care what I was angry about. He just knew that he had taken the heat off of himself.

Robin Lakoff says that in apologies the maker :

(1) Acknowledges wrongdoing

2) Acknowledges that the addressee is the wronged party

(3) Admits needing something (forgiveness) from the addressee to make things RIGHT AGAIN

Although by making the apology you are putting yourself at a vulnerable state by acknowledging that you were wrong, you get credit and are looked at as a humble person worthy of being forgiven. Lakoff explains that it is not important how sincere the apology, it is just important that you make one. This has been my method all along. I should have written this book...lol

However, when it comes to government officials it irritates the hell out of me because I, like the rest of the country knows that they are only doing it because they will be looked badly upon if they don’t.

This is another part of their propaganda tactics along with having speech writers and using professional propagandist such as Luntz who feed politicians word for word what to say.

I also found it comical when Lakoff discussed the current fade of the “un apology.” This is when politicians apologize for events and circumstances that they had no control over or any part of. After reading the examples she gave such as when President Bill Clinton apologized to African American for the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, I did recall hearing apologies by authoritative figures. I always associated these actions as the politicians doing the “RIGHT THING”.

I never thought to associated them with a political tactic.

This then brought me to think about what Lakoff said previously in the chapter about language.

“Language is, and always has been, the means by which we construct and analyze
what we call, reality”

It is the language that the politicians use to persuade and win over the public. And we, the public pay more attention to the words that are coming out of their mouths rather then their actions. We have been programmed by politicians since the beginning of time to believe in what they say. To believe that they have our best interest at heart and if we check box A at the polls THEN they will prove it.

Bloggity Blog Blog Blog....Blog

Robin Lakoff has taken what could have been a confusing book into a very interesting read. This, of course, is obviously about our previous book by Ramage. However, I'm not going against the book because I did enjoy the odd paths he was taking us throughout the book. Lakoff's use of language shows us how it is used every day and in the most interesting ways.

Lakoff touches on different issues in the country. One part, in particular, that caught my eye was the section on page 44.

THE MARKEDNESS

OF THE

FEMININE (AND THE FEMALE)

This really got my thoughts running about different terms that we use in our country. It's just interesting to see that Lakoff points out the generalization of the species in terms of the male definition even though the females have their own defined word. "In most of these cases, the term for the male of the species is morphologically simpler.

ex: "tiger" vs. "tigress," that is, "tiger-ess" (45).

This same concept applies to the human race for males and females.

Lakoff also uses different occupations to reinforce the male stigma that's behind them, such as policeman, spokesman, and even the school term of 'freshman'. Yet, the jobs that use language to define between the gender in the position are turning to unisex words to include both in one word. One great example is the idea of a waiter/waitress. From working at Cracker Barrel,

we refer to them as 'servers' as are many other restaurants. This idea would probably be in favor of Lakoff's book because she even notes how feminists believe English speakers to assume 'humans' and 'males' as the same thing. Getting rid of the male/female definition breaks that idea of it being the same therefore making the idea of 'servers' less sexist.

Lakoff's book is rather amusing and almost makes me want to get interested in politics. However, I don't see that actually happening for quite some time. It's the topics, such as women's issues, that really strike my fancy. Who knew that language has such power over people and it all depends on how you present it. Lakoff does make you realize how often we generalize words like getting the attention of friends, "Hey guys..guess what! I just got a puppy!" regardless of their gender. This doesn't seem to bother many of us, but this does make me cautious for the day that I'm teaching a classroom full of students. Knowing my luck, I'll get the one girl who gets offended and starts a riot in class.

Discrimination Against Words

With a title like, The Language War, I had honestly expected Robin Lakoff’s book to be as cryptic and confusing as Ramage’s deceptively simple titled Rhetoric: A User’s Guide. If anything Lakoff’s book is more of a tutorial on language than Rammage’s could’ve ever hoped to be, using easy to understand language and explaining its points clearly instead of dancing around the topic. Reading The Language War has caused several moments of “Oh, so that’s what so-and-so meant in that earlier text.”

The book has caused me to consider things about language that I never really thought of before. For instance, one short segment that struck me as interesting was when Lakoff made the statement that “The very dictionary has become overtly political.” This is something that I’ve never really considered before. To me, the dictionary is a cold list of words and basic definitions. Lakoff explains because of differences such as cultural, gender, societal and so on that words have different meanings when used in a different context or spoken to a different group of people. Because words don’t all have a single meaning anymore, the way a dictionary portrays a word may be incorrect to certain groups of people or the word may have uses that the dictionary has not defined correctly. Lakoff gives the example of an article by Torri Minton in the San Francisco Chronicle that talks about the widely popular Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defining the racial slur of “nigger” to mean “A black person” only later in the definition amending that it is offensive. This definition lead to obvious trouble with the African-American community. Lakoff goes on to explain why this is important saying, “the dictionary is our maker of meanings, our semantic arbiter: the definition in the dictionary states who you are, your identity still depends on how authority views you.” Today, Merriam-Webster has now tacked “Usually offensive” in front of their definition to rectify the problem. I found it astonishing that something as perceivably neutral as the dictionary was embroiled in the same language war as politicians and other persuaders. In retrospect I feel kind of dumb for not realizing this. If language shapes our reality, and the dictionary is our language, the dictionary is part of what creates reality.

I wasn’t very surprised when the topic of the dictionary resurfaced in chapter three of the book, “Political Correctness" and Hate Speech considering the very issue with the African-American community over the word “nigger” was one of “political correctness,” and that very example is used again in the chapter. Although the dictionary is supposed to be “impersonal” and “scientific” and perhaps strives to be so today, Lakoff brings up early dictionary writers such as Dr. Samuel Johnson using the dictionary for political agendas. The dictionary creates connotations for words that end up becoming frames for use in persuasion. Words like addiction bring to mind pictures of drugs and the word addiction implies an illness that a person cannot control, but not all addiction is an illness and many addictions are in no way related to drugs even though the dictionary cites these chemical abuses as part of the word’s definition.

This and other examples in The Language War have gone beyond what I perceived as using language for persuasion purposes, teaching me that no language is truly neutral. I think the concern with things such as the dictionary may be going to extremes to prove that everything has an unconscious political bias but I realize as I write this that by injecting my own opinion on the subject I too am skewing this very writing to my own personal opinions. I don’t see what’s wrong with that though, if it’s impossible to achieve true neutrality then why should we strive to do so? Why should we be concerned with political correctness if what we say or write could be twisted into whatever someone else wants it to be? I personally think there’s a line between purposefully aiming to insult someone or push a political agenda and doing so subconsciously or having your words taken out of context. I think a neutral, unbiased world would be a pretty dull place to live in, and while it’s good to read between the lines and find the true meaning, we should be cautious not to overreact.