Blogs

Julie Sedivy has blogged for Discover magazine, Psychology Today, and the delightfully geeky Language Log. Here are a few of her posts:

The More Names Change, the More They Sound the Same (The Crux—Discover magazine)

February 7, 2013

These days, I can’t seem to keep straight which of his friends my son is hanging out with on any given day—was it Jason, Jaden, Hayden, or Aidan? Their names all have a way of blurring together. My confusion reflects a growing trend for American boys’ names to sound more and more alike, according to a recent New York Times piece reporting on data gathered by Laura Wattenberg of BabyNameWizard.com.

It’s not as if the pool of available names is shrinking though. Quite the opposite. A couple of generations ago, parents mostly stuck with a handful of tried-and-true classics (James, Richard, William); the ten most common names were shared by more than a third of boys in 1950. These days, only nine percent of boys sport the ten most common names. But this recent burst of innovation in names shows more restraint than variety when it comes to their sounds. For example, 36 percent of newborn American boys have names that end in “n”, as compared to just 14 percent in 1950.

This might seem paradoxical, but in fact, it’s a fairly typical aspect of name invention (as my co-author Greg Carlson and I have discussed in our book Sold on Language). When creating a new word of any sort, whether it’s a common noun, verb, baby name or even a brand name, there’s a tendency to gravitate toward known sound patterns. Truly original names, like Quatergork, or Ponveen haven’t yet made it into my son’s social circle. Novelty, it seems, thrives best when it’s a variation on the familiar.  (Read More)

 

One Fracking Word or Another (Language Log)

June 28, 2012

I live in Alberta, where the oil and gas industry takes up a good chunk of daily media coverage. Since I sometimes get asked to comment on the persuasive effects of various wording choices by politicians or companies, I was especially interested to come across claims of evidence that public opposition to the method of natural gas extraction known as fracking might be bolstered by its problematic name. (Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, and the process involves injecting a highly pressurized fluid underground to create fractures in rock layers to release gas.) The finding originates from a survey conducted by the Public Policy Research Lab at Louisiana State University, which, as stated in the report, was designed to investigate the following:

It was hypothesized by the Public Policy Research Lab that the actual word “Fracking” may have a negative connotation that is separate from the environmental concerns that often accompany discussions of the process. Due to the harsh consonant sounds in the word itself, and an undeniable similarity to a certain other four letter word starting with the letter “F”, it seemed plausible that some of the negative public sentiment about “Fracking” may result from how unpleasant the word itself sounds. (Read More)

 

Votes and Vowels: A Changing Accent Shows How Language Parallels Politics (The Crux—Discover magazine)

 March 28, 2012

There’s been a good bit of discussion and hand-wringing lately over whether the American public is becoming more and more politically polarized and what this all means for the future of our democracy. You may have wrung your own hands over the issue. But even if you have, chances are you’re not losing sleep over the fact that Americans are very clearly becoming more polarized linguistically.

It may seem surprising, but in this age where geographic mobility and instant communication have increased our exposure to people outside of our neighborhoods or towns, American regional dialects are pulling further apart from each other, rather than moving closer together. And renowned linguist William Labov thinks there’s a connection between political and linguistic segregation.

In the final volume of his seminal book series Principles of Linguistic Change, Labov spends a great deal of time discussing a riveting linguistic change that’s occurring in the northern region of the U.S. clustering around the Great Lakes. This dialect region is called the Inland North, and runs from just west of Albany to Milwaukee, loops down to St. Louis, and traces a line to the south of Chicago, Toledo, and Cleveland. (Read More)

 

Is Your Language Making You Broke and Fat? (The Crux—Discover magazine)

February 27, 2012

Keith Chen, an economist from Yale, makes a startling claim in an unpublished working paper: people’s fiscal responsibility and healthy lifestyle choices depend in part on the grammar of their language.

Here’s the idea: Languages differ in the devices they offer to speakers who want to talk about the future. For some, like Spanish and Greek, you have to tack on a verb ending that explicitly marks future time—so, in Spanish, you would sayescribo for the present tense (I write or I’m writing) andescribiré for the future tense (I will write). But other languages like Mandarin don’t require their verbs to be escorted by grammatical markers that convey future time—time is usually obvious from something else in the context. In Mandarin, you would say the equivalent of I write tomorrow, using the same verb form for both present and future.

Chen’s finding is that if you divide up a large number of the world’s languages into those that require a grammatical marker for future time and those that don’t, you see an interesting correlation: speakers of languages that force grammatical marking of the future have amassed a smaller retirement nest egg, smoke more, exercise less, and are more likely to be obese. Why would this be? The claim is that a sharp grammatical division between the present and future encourages people to conceive of the future as somehow dramatically different from the present, making it easier to put off behaviors that benefit your future self rather than your present self. (Read More)

 

The Unbearable Loss of Words (Language Log)

January 12, 2012

Everyone has a private terror—often abetted by a checkered family medical history or having witnessed the torment of a loved one—of being struck with some particular affliction. For some, it’s the ravages of a slow and painful cancer. For others, it’s being caught in a freak accident that renders them quadriplegic in their prime. For me, it’s the fear of surviving a stroke that blasts away tracts of neural tissue in the left hemisphere of my brain, leaving me with profound aphasia.

As usual, the degree of fear is based on a calculus of probability and of loss. In my case, there is the specter of probability: My father suffered a fatal stroke in his sixties. His own father, unluckier, was bedridden after a stroke in his early forties until another one finished him off a few years later. But it’s the prospect of the loss that is overwhelming. How could I, ardent worshipper at the altar of language, ever cope with being left unable to talk or write fluently about language or anything else? For that matter, would I even be able to think about language? Or think in any meaningful way at all? It’s the afflictions that strip you of who you are that seem most unthinkable.

So it was a sense of morbid attraction that led me to Diane Ackerman’s newest book One Hundred Names for Love, in which she documents the stroke and subsequent language deficit suffered by her husband, novelist Paul West. (Read More)

 

The Language of Power in the Anti-Prestige Age (Psychology Today)

March 2, 2011

You’re not likely to hear this on NPR, or the CBC, or—God forbid—the BBC:

“The last few days have seen protests spreadin’ throughout the Arab world, and leaders there are becomin’ increasingly nervous about the possibility of large-scale unrest landin’ on their doorsteps. Containin’ the uprisings is provin’ to be an unexpected challenge for dictators who have become accustomed to holdin’ on to power for decades.”

We expect broadcasters at national radio outlets to have a little bit of linguistic class, and this includes not dropping g’s* and turning ing into in‘, pronouncing nuclear as nucular, or seasoning their speech with generous dashes of double negatives. All of these are markers of non-standard speech and, like using the wrong fork at dinner or being seen in public with shrimp cocktail toes, can catapult a hopeful professional straight out of a respectable social class.

People can be unforgiving in their judgments of speakers whose speech is sprinkled with non-standard elements. In a 2006 study led by socio-linguist Bill Labov, people heard recordings by an (alleged) aspiring radio broadcaster; if the speaker deigned to drop g’s a mere one tenth of the time, thirty percent of listeners suggested that he try another line of work.

But Presidents, it seems, are an entirely different matter.

In the political world, too much prestige is a liability, and strategists counsel candidates to downplay their Ivy League credentials—and, if they did have the poor taste to acquire a Yale degree, to be sure to emphasize the fact that they earned only middling grades. (Read More)

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.