The Web of Language

blog navigation

Dennis Baron's go-to site for language and technology in the news
All Articles

blog posts

  • Is Donald Trump smarter than a third grader?

    One regrettable feature of the presidential campaign season is the inevitable ranking of candidate speeches by reading level. And so, after the first Republican debate, Politico’s Jack Shafer announced with glee that Donald Trump “talks like a third-grader,” while Ted Cruz’s language sounds more ninth grade. However, anyone who spends time around schoolchildren will tell you neither claim is true.

    Shafer calculates candidates’ grade level by running transcripts of their debate responses through a formula known as the Flesch-Kincaid reading scale. Whether or not you agree that Trump is simple and Cruz, high-brow—among Republican candidates, simple has proven to be a vote-getter and high-brow is a dirty word—the fact is that formulas like Flesch-Kincaid, designed to measure the understandability of writing, fail miserably at that task, and they’re completely useless for rating speech.

  • With T-shirts at work, you can’t always say what you want

    In 2011, Southern New England Telephone suspended 183 employees who refused to remove T-shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of AT$T” on the back. The National Labor Relations Board sided with the phone workers, but the company appealed the NLRB’s decision in federal court. Defending its action, the phone company argued that the mass one-day suspension was justified because the T-shirts “could cause customers to believe that AT&T employees were actually convicts.” AT&T might as well have argued, “We’re the phone company, we don’t have to think it's funny.”

  • To those who want more grammar in school: Get off my lawn!

    To anyone who thinks that English is in a bad way because of texting and the Facebook, and that the way to reverse this is more grammar in school, I say, please, get off my lawn. Because you clearly don’t know anything about language and you don’t understand why the kind of grammar instruction we associate with schools should be left behind, not expanded.

  • Who defines marriage?

    On June 26, in the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court extended constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. The Court’s action redefined marriage, delighting supporters of marriage equality—according to surveys, that’s most Americans—and infuriating opponents. It also raises an important question about making legal meaning: who are the definers?

  • Marriage equality, guns, health care, and the myth of judicial objectivity

    In Bread and Jam for Frances, a children’s book about a family of badgers, Frances’s best friend, Albert, eats his lunch bit by bit so that the sandwich, the pickle, the egg, and the milk come out even. Supreme Court decisions are a bit like that. In decisions on marriage equality, health care, and the Second Amendment, the justices interpreted the facts of each case and chose their arguments to make their decision come out right.

  • Can a Facebook post land you in jail?

    The United States Supreme Court answered this question last week with a resounding “maybe.”

    That “maybe” comes in the case of Elonis v. United States. Anthony Elonis wrote some violent-sounding posts on Facebook detailing what he’d like to do to his ex-wife, an FBI agent, assorted police officers, and a local but unnamed kindergarten. The words seemed threatening, and so Elonis was arrested and convicted for sending threats across state lines in violation of the Interstate Communications Act.

  • So how do dictionaries define marriage, anyway?

    During oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, Chief Justice Roberts wondered whether making same-sex marriage legal would nullify traditional dictionary definitions of marriage:

    Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between and man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable.

    The Chief Justice can relax: new definitions of marriage won’t replace older ones, and expanding the legal scope of marriage won’t invalidate or discourage heterosexual unions. As Justice Ginsberg observed,

    You’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.

    So just how do dictionaries define marriage?

  • What if printed books went by ebook rules?

    I love ebooks. Despite their unimaginative page design, monotonous fonts, curious approach to hyphenation, and clunky annotation utilities, they’re convenient and easy on my aging eyes. But I wish they didn’t come wrapped in legalese.

    Whenever I read a book on my iPad, for example, I have tacitly agreed to the 15,000 word statement of terms and conditions for the iTunes store. It’s written by lawyers in language so dense and tedious it seems designed not to be read, except by other lawyers, and that’s odd, since these Terms of Service agreements (TOS) are all about books that are designed to be read.

  • Charlie Hebdo shows there’s always some speech that isn’t free

    On January 7, 2015, terrorists attacked the offices of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve, including the editor and several cartoonists. Much of the world denounced this brutal attack. French president François Hollande expressed outrage over the murder of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists, and millions of ordinary people rallied at the Place de la République in Paris, in the squares of other French cities, and in cities abroad as well, to reassert their commitment to free speech. Je suis Charlie became the chant of the day. 

    But Charlie fever proved all too brief. On January 11, the same world leaders who were chanting “Je suis Charlie” called for increased police powers to spy on the internet activities and mobile phones of terrorists, suspected terrorists, people who might one day become terrorists, and for good measure, just about everybody else on the planet, including cartoonists. There was little outrage that this surveillance, calculated to protect everyone’s speech, could actually wind up suppressing speech. And by the time the survivors of the Charlie Hebdo massacre published a new issue on January 14, with a cover of Muhammad shedding a tear and holding a sign that says, “Je suis Charlie,” many of those who had condemned the murder of cartoonists now said, free speech is important, but insulting religion invites serious consequences. 

  • Arabic Pledge of Allegiance brings protests

    To celebrate Foreign Language Week, established by proclamation by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to “highlight programs that encourage American youth to broaden their horizons...and understand and communicate with people of other nationalities and nations,” a student at Pine Bush High School in upstate New York recited the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic over the school’s PA system during morning announcements. Students immediately protested, and the school superintendent received “complaints from district residents who had lost family members in Afghanistan and from Jewish parents who were equally outraged by the reading” (the school had been sued in 2013 for antisemitism). FoxNews headlined their report of the story, “One nation under Allah.”

    Responding to the furor, Pine Bush High School immediately canceled Foreign Language Week and ditched plans to have the Pledge recited in Japanese, Spanish, or Klingon. From now on, Pine Bush will only pledge in English, and it will only celebrate Foreign Language Week in English. After all, English is a foreign language in North America.

  • The internet of things? More like the internet of snitches.

    We call it the internet of things, but it’s really the internet of snitches, because snitches reveal things about us we might prefer to keep under wraps. These devices in our cars, refrigerators, and DVRs regularly track and report not just their status, but our status as well: what we’re doing with the devices, and where. It’s an indirect report, to be sure, but it erodes our privacy all the same. Now, two new web-enabled gadgets— a TV and a doll—directly record and report what we say, which is the very definition of snitching, and our ebook readers, which have been around a bit longer, can even peek inside our heads to expose what we think.

  • "She" -- Chelsea Manning and the first-ever court-ordered pronoun

    In what could be the first-ever case of a court-ordered pronoun, a U.S. Army tribunal has ordered prison officials to use a feminine pronoun when referring to Chelsea Manning, who has changed her gender identity from male to female. . . . In plain English, the Army doesn’t have to call her Chelsea, but it does have to call her ‘she.'

     

  • Why is National Grammar Day different from all other days?

    Today is National Grammar Day, otherwise known as the Feast of Purism. It is the holiest day of the Purist calendar.

    It is the day all foolish children ask, why is National Grammar Day different from all other days?

    On all other days, you tell the foolish child, “It is different because I said so.” But on National Grammar Day, you must make the foolish child listen to yet another endless retelling of the story of our liberation from the tyranny of prescriptive grammar.

  • Don't make English official, ban it instead

    It's International Mother Language Day, and once again, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation to make English the official language of the United States. Supporters of the measure say that English forms the glue that keeps America together. They deplore the dollars wasted translating English into other languages. And they fear a horde of illegal aliens adamantly refusing to acquire the most powerful language on earth.

    I would like to offer a modest alternative: don’t make English official, ban it instead.

     

     

  • 2015's word of the year is "autocorrect"

    The word of the year for 2015 is autocorrect. It may seem strange declaring the word of the year for a year that is only just starting. We’ve just named 2014’s word of the year, after all, and it is torture, because 2014 had plenty of that. But even though we tend to look back at the end of the year to the events that shaped it—the top ten news stories of the year, the films most annoying to North Korea, the best countries that have been invaded, the most significant airbag failures, the grammar rule most honored in the breach—at the end of the year we also start making predictions about the year to come: will politicians continue cozying up to white supremacists or will they be too busy smoking Cuban cigars? Will film makers see that featuring dictators in low brow comedies may put studio mainframes at risk, but it’s great for box office? Will dictators release their own annoying films depicting unpleasant things that might happen to Hollywood directors? Plus, autocorrect represents a highly-refined, first-world kind of torture, and considering what 2014 was like, some correction seems in order.