缺乏表达力的美国社会
八十一子
偶然浏览了一本书,书名《缺乏表达力的社会》 Inarticulate Society: Eloquence and Culture in America(作者 Tom Shachtman, Free Press, 1995),觉得不错。其中关于公众的语言表达能力与民主制度的观点很值得讨论。
作者指出,美国文化正在变做一个“次生型口头文化 (secondary oral culture)“。所谓“次生型口头文化“是相对“原始口头文化 (primitive oral culture)“而言。原始口头文化存在于没有发展出书面语言的人群里,例如非洲、北美、澳洲的原住民,以及其他地方如中国的一些少数民族。这样的文化形态的特征是没有文字或只有简单的符号来纪录文化活动和历史,一切文化传承基本依靠口耳相传。原始口头文化覆盖下的人们考虑问题比较简单,相对缺乏思辨能力。这些特征在一定程度上也是次生型口头文化的形态特征,例如民众在文化消费方面对视听媒介如电视、无线电广播的依赖,以及普通人阅读能力的低下。作者指出,在 1960年代,电台、电视台播音员使用8000到10000个英语词汇,而1990年代的电视播音员使用的词汇量在5000左右。播音员使用的词汇量在短短三十年间出现了如此大幅度的下降,让人惊异。虽然词汇在电视上出现的频率并不等同于在百姓口头的频率,但这样的词汇量下降反映出电视节目制作人有意无意地选择使用简单词汇的趋势。简单词汇常常难以表达复杂概念。电视用词量的大幅度的下降因此引起作者忧虑。
根据语言学家统计,美国的英语为第一语言的五岁孩童的词汇量在四千到五千,小学毕业达到一万左右,高中毕业一万七千左右,大学毕业在两万左右。即便电视播音员使用的词汇跟孩童的词汇覆盖面完全不一样(实际上两者的覆盖面重合应该是很大的),两者加起来也才一万,勉强达到小学毕业水平。由此可见,电视播音员用词量下降到5000左右时已经不足以用来认真、深入地讨论公共领域里的许多复杂问题,例如政治、经济、外交、军事等。这应该是一个值得忧虑的现象。
美国文化"口头"化主要责任在于电视。这是老生常谈,却也是洞见。电视节目的制作和播放经费来源主要是广告收费,当然就要被广告商执其牛耳。广告的对象是大众里的"最大公约数"——文化水平相当于小学四年级的人群。为了把这群人吸引到电视屏幕前,新闻娱乐化、政治广告化是必然的结果。电视节目因此不但不能提高大众的文化水平,反而迫使大众在低级水平思维。社会成员思辨能力的下降使得他们不信任甚至厌恶善于言辞的人。苏格拉底式的辩论在公共领域不复存在。根据我看到的民意测验和分析,共和党的总统候选人布什先后战胜民主党的戈尔和克里,在一定程度上,归功于前者的陋于言辞,让美国民众里的"最大公约数"比较放心。近年来流行一种说法,认为美国男性公民出现"巴特辛普森化"(巴特辛普森是美国电视里的著名漫画人物,代表简单、诚实、教育程度偏低的蓝领工人)。事实是否如此,我没有考证。不过,看布什总统在2004年竞选中口口声声表明自己在耶鲁大学时是一个三流(平均成绩C)学生,觉得这个说法怕是有些道理。布什显然有刻意迎合巴特辛普森之嫌。选举结束很久之后我才知道,原来克里在耶鲁时也是一个C学生。看来克里当时要是也努力宣扬自己的大学三流成绩,说不定就不被老百姓当作马萨诸塞州的学者,也就不败走麦城了。
作者认为公民的语言能力是民主社会要素之一。普通公民词汇量的大小不仅仅反映了他们的表达能力的高下,更重要的是体现了他们作为个体的理解能力的强弱。现代社会严格的社会分工并不要求每个成员都有能力做苏格拉底或孔子老庄式的哲学思辨,但一个理想的民主社会却要求多数公民具备独立思考能力和相当程度的表达能力,以便在公共领域里参加有关公众利益的讨论和对公共事务的管理。具有独立思维能力的人不太容易被别有用心的人误导和利用。孟子说“君子可欺以其方,难罔以非其道",就是这个道理。理解能力的基础是词汇量,而词汇量的扩大依赖于大量、广泛的阅读。公民疏于阅读,不准确、不严格、不优雅的语言充耳塞目,等于是在直接地挖民主社会的墙脚。这个说法很有刺激性,但也是个大胆假设,尚需小心求证。不过依我看,美国社会最近一、二十来年的极端右倾,尤其是伊拉克战争被轻易兜售给美国人民这个事实,说不定跟次生型口语文化的泛滥有一定关系。记得战前舆论一边倒,在电视上几乎没有任何异议。一个言论自由的社会为什么出现这样的情形?我想,在一定程度上是因为持反战意见的一方常常需要引用复杂的事实和逻辑,这对于注意力短暂的电视观众是个难以忍受的考验,多半会促使他们转换电视频道,而这是广告商不愿见到的。至于纽约时报、华盛顿邮报这样的正统报纸为什么也把不同意见藏在第八页、第十页等只有极少数人读的版面,则需要寻找更深层的原因。
逻辑严谨、表达准确的语言对于思辨能力以及公民社会、民主制度的重要性比较容易理解,而语言的优雅与民主制度的关系或许不容易一眼看穿。这需要从民主政治本质上是妥协政治这一点来理解。富兰克林就曾经指出美国独立宣言的签署是妥协的结果。当时殖民地十三个州的很多代表并没有得到本州人民的授权,不愿意或不敢签字。富兰克林就提议把签字人的名义改为签字仪式的证人,结果皆大欢喜,都签了名,这才有了美国独立的第一步。可以想像,在坚持原则的前提下,具备说服力的语言的重要性。和煦、谦让的语言给谈判对手留出下台的台阶、退让的余地,也给自己留下周转空间,必然比咄咄逼人要好得多。可惜"绅士辩论"在美国的政客中已经不多见。在讨论社会的焦点问题时,无论是妇女堕胎权、同性婚姻、进化论教育,还是环境保护、医疗保险、金钱政治、反恐战争,辩论双方都宁愿在电视上采用"五秒钟声爆"先声夺人。这样的争辩难以说服对方,徒然强化分歧,殊不可取。
《缺乏表达力的社会》一书的作者没有来得及讨论互联网的影响。互连网给我等百姓提供了一个人人有话说、人人可说话的公共领域,一则可喜,一则可忧。可喜的是这样的公共领域应该有助于思想的交流和公民社会的形成。可忧的是互联网也在迅速蜕变成为一个声光媒介,适于兜售快餐。互联网上能否培养出一代苏格拉底,还要再看看。
我在中国旅行时,看到图书出版业近年来非常兴旺,令人欣慰。但中国似乎也正在向次生型口头文化社会突飞猛进。这不仅表现在电视广告对社会生活的全面侵蚀,也表现在书面语的严重口语化和不规范性,尤其是报刊语言的简陋,更不要说错别字在大众影视和印刷媒介的地毯式轰炸。不久前我在广州中山大学校园散步,看到商学院大楼墙上一幅巨大的硕士招生广告大字直书"卓而不凡",分明是误用成语"卓尔不群",真不知道起草广告的人当的是什么老师!中国过去的毛泽东时代对文化的摧残使中国社会文化沉积变得相当薄弱,同美国相比,"次生型口头文化"的泛滥有可能会对中国社会造成更大的危害。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/07/2007
八爷的这篇切中时弊!关键问题是真正能安下心来读书的人越来越少了。Sound bites代替了一切,唉。。。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/07/2007
这篇真到位。
我正好对朝鲜蓟的名字有些异议,再开一线吧。
表达力缺乏可怕,混乱更可怕!
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/07/2007
说的好——唉,我这句就正是缺乏表达力的体现,除个好字不会别的了。
这里也涉及教育的精英化还是平民化,这两个一向是矛盾,现在当然是一切都趋于平民化的。又想起电影Idiocracy,那里人讲话就用时下我们听到的最多的词,不过只是那些词,所以各个象白痴。有时看一两百年前人写的书,再看我自己说的话,就觉着自己是白痴。 - posted on 07/07/2007
顶八十一子这一篇, 抓住了一个很重要而被忽视的问题.
说具体的. 我觉得很多北京土话和东北土话对我们国语玷污很严重. 其他地区也有不好的方言. 但是,北京土话和东北土话有媒体的传播, 危害更大.
我特别反感"忽悠"一词. 我不明白它的意思之前, 问过几个说它的人, 给我的答案竟是, 只能意会, 不能言传. 如果我们的语言充满了这种"只能意会, 不能言传"的词汇, 那还能准确严禁吗? 向cafe里的所有人发誓, 我决不直接使用此词, 并向响应者先鞠一躬.
八十一子 wrote:
缺乏表达力的社会
- posted on 07/08/2007
极其有趣的话题,谢老八。但我稍有点不同的想法,如有冒犯,恳请大家砸砖,一起探讨。
先提出几个问题:
1. 人之间的沟通理解,有多少是依靠语言的呢?
2. 引老八原文:“在1960年代,电台、电视台播音员使用8000到10000个英语词汇,而1990年代的电视播音员使用的词汇量在5000左右。老百姓词汇量在短短三十年间出现了如此大幅度的下降,让人惊异,也让人忧虑。”真是这样的吗? 那么这些年来高科技领域里,医学领域里新出现的词汇难道不是词汇吗?也许形容词在减少,但专业词汇肯定是在增加而不是减少。
3.自由离不开思想,思想更离不开表达,但表达有许多种方式。缄默是一种表达,不知选择也是一种表达。自由思想者更多时候是缄默的。按照中国传统书生的标准,玛雅绝对是考试不及格,不仅算术不及格,词汇量更是不够的那种,但我不觉得我自己没有独立思考的能力。
另外,这种半学术的“忽悠”:)人的书,我一般保持距离,其中数据尤其令人怀疑。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
st dude啊,普通话/国语曾经就是满人说的北京话,所谓的官话呀,玷污从何说起呢。一个语言一旦成了官话必定是简化的过程。至于是否全国人都该说一种语言可以讨论。说实话,我有一年跟人凑热闹看春晚,看见小品都用方言,跳舞全是少数民族,可全国各省市电台主持人都说同一个调的普通话,感慨万千哪。
另外,“忽悠”的意象很丰富,很生动啊,汉语讲究的从来也不是准确,恕俺不响应st dude的号召,何况,我还想听各位在这儿忽悠呢:) - posted on 07/08/2007
忽悠实在是生动形象的一个妙词。
今天这麽了?和浮生心心相印 :-)
浮生 wrote:
st dude啊,普通话/国语曾经就是满人说的北京话,所谓的官话呀,玷污从何说起呢。一个语言一旦成了官话必定是简化的过程。至于是否全国人都该说一种语言可以讨论。说实话,我有一年跟人凑热闹看春晚,看见小品都用方言,跳舞全是少数民族,可全国各省市电台主持人都说同一个调的普通话,感慨万千哪。
另外,“忽悠”的意象很丰富,很生动啊,汉语讲究的从来也不是准确,恕俺不响应st dude的号召,何况,我还想听各位在这儿忽悠呢:) - posted on 07/08/2007
我先抢答为快。医学和其他专业词汇确实是前所未有地增加了,但这些jargon其实并没有增加人们之间的communication, 反而block了人们的ariticulateness, 因为外行人不懂。实际上,各行各行人为地制造这些gatekeeper language作为赚钱的手段。比如律师。文学也不例外。New Criticism也是一例。
我基本同意这个结论,但原因是很复杂的。除了电讯时代的影响和平民化,多元化似乎也是一个很重要的原因。女性主义和少数族裔所导致的political correctness对语言的影响不可忽视。比如,空姐现在叫做flight attendant,秘书现在叫办公室助理,且不用说其他形形色色与种族有关的词汇。语言正在从抽象变成具体,从多彩变得中性,从descriptive变得factual。
据说黑人是将口头语言当作他们身份的一个重要象征,他们将书面化看作是白人化。
玛雅是非常articulate的,所以不用担心。:)
玛雅 wrote:
极其有趣的话题,谢老八。但我稍有点不同的想法,如有冒犯,恳请大家砸砖,一起探讨。
先提出几个问题:
2. 引老八原文:“在1960年代,电台、电视台播音员使用8000到10000个英语词汇,而1990年代的电视播音员使用的词汇量在5000左右。老百姓词汇量在短短三十年间出现了如此大幅度的下降,让人惊异,也让人忧虑。”真是这样的吗? 那么这些年来高科技领域里,医学领域里新出现的词汇难道不是词汇吗?也许形容词在减少,但专业词汇肯定是在增加而不是减少。 - posted on 07/08/2007
若教的话,总是让人觉得“胜读十年书”,但猜马甲差了一点,不如八爷,你光往阿猫阿狗身上去想,忘了爱忽悠的爷们儿。:):):)
Ruozhi wrote:
我先抢答为快。医学和其他专业词汇确实是前所未有地增加了,但这些jargon其实并没有增加人们之间的communication, 反而block了人们的ariticulateness, 因为外行人不懂。实际上,各行各行人为地制造这些gatekeeper language作为赚钱的手段。比如律师。文学也不例外。New Criticism也是一例。
我基本同意这个结论,但原因是很复杂的。除了电讯时代的影响和平民化,多元化似乎也是一个很重要的原因。女性主义和少数族裔所导致的political correctness对语言的影响不可忽视。比如,空姐现在叫做flight attendant,秘书现在叫办公室助理,且不用说其他形形色色与种族有关的词汇。语言正在从抽象变成具体,从多彩变得中性,从descriptive变得factual。
据说黑人是将口头语言当作他们身份的一个重要象征,他们将书面化看作是白人化。
玛雅是非常articulate的,所以不用担心。:)
玛雅 wrote:
极其有趣的话题,谢老八。但我稍有点不同的想法,如有冒犯,恳请大家砸砖,一起探讨。
先提出几个问题:
2. 引老八原文:“在1960年代,电台、电视台播音员使用8000到10000个英语词汇,而1990年代的电视播音员使用的词汇量在5000左右。老百姓词汇量在短短三十年间出现了如此大幅度的下降,让人惊异,也让人忧虑。”真是这样的吗? 那么这些年来高科技领域里,医学领域里新出现的词汇难道不是词汇吗?也许形容词在减少,但专业词汇肯定是在增加而不是减少。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
Darn it! Who are you anyway? YOu probably don't know I'm worst at solving riddles, and I don't have patience either. Let me 阿 you one more time: 阿拉兄弟? If you're a man, why do you want to be 木子丑? to be the match of 木子美? :-) I know she's hunting for a husband. :-)
木子丑 wrote:
若教的话,总是让人觉得“胜读十年书”,但猜马甲差了一点,不如八爷,你光往阿猫阿狗身上去想,忘了爱忽悠的爷们儿。:):):) - posted on 07/08/2007
老八的文章让我想到“Bart Simpson State”的说法,就是说美国的年轻男人以没文
化为荣,把没文化当作street smart 的同义词。
政客要在声光媒介的汪洋大海中抢镜头,优雅的语言怎么能够上新闻? 就是要一语
惊人,越极端越抢眼球。连总统,副总统都骂三字经。“和煦、谦让的语言”根本
没用,我觉得现在的媒体文化就是reward the rudeness,越是在reality show上出
口伤人的主持人,收视率越高,赚钱越多。
文化界也是,前一阵看到一篇文章抱怨说以前的学者大半辈子搞研究,到50岁后用
后半生写一部著作。现在不同,赚钱要早,出名要早。很多畅销书的语言都是很差
的,而且含水量极大,基本上一本书的内容一篇短文的长度就可以讲完。
- posted on 07/08/2007
精彩精彩,大家的讨论很精彩,当然八十一字的文章也很“独立思考”。
喜欢这样的文章,能引起人去思考一些大多数人都麻木的现象。
美国我不清楚,去年在旧金山的时候也看看电视,觉得节目都很适合家庭,比较轻松,例如教人如何做菜之类的。华人喜欢追韩剧,这个,似乎全世界的华人妇女都一样,包括我妈,不过,我自己是不看的。很多年没看过电视,国内的电视节目这些年来走得都是娱乐大众路线,和美国也差不多,追求最大公约数,风气越来越恶俗,电视剧一如既往的弱智,走的都是当年琼瑶阿姨的风格,节奏特拖沓,台词特冗长,爱情都是曲曲折折的,男女主角都是哀怨迷离的。现在还流行什么超女,快男,一班小孩,书没有读完就提前进入商品社会被人消费......
文章的观点我大部分都同意,只有一点可能得商榷:究竟如何是好的表达?当然,有错别字,用错成语,发音不准,肯定是不好的,这个是不用说的,但是否都像西方政客一样,雄辩而华丽就是好的表达呢,这点,我觉得玛雅说得好,表达不仅仅通过语言,也不应该只以语言的丰富作为唯一标准。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
Susan wrote:...
很多畅销书的语言都是很差
的,而且含水量极大,基本上一本书的内容一篇短文的长度就可以讲完。
同意Susan,还有杂志上有些文章,看一段还明白,看了十多页愈看
愈糊涂了。。。
- posted on 07/08/2007
我来试试,是不是尚哥哥?
要是我猜对了哪?
Ruozhi wrote:
Darn it! Who are you anyway? YOu probably don't know I'm worst at solving riddles, and I don't have patience either. Let me 阿 you one more time: 阿拉兄弟? If you're a man, why do you want to be 木子丑? to be the match of 木子美? :-) I know she's hunting for a husband. :-)
木子丑 wrote:
若教的话,总是让人觉得“胜读十年书”,但猜马甲差了一点,不如八爷,你光往阿猫阿狗身上去想,忘了爱忽悠的爷们儿。:):):) - posted on 07/08/2007
我出去跑了一圈步,路上也想到了可能是你尚哥哥。啧啧,还教授呢,马甲一件比一件破,尚嫂也是,怎么也不给补一补. :)
July wrote:
我来试试,是不是尚哥哥?
要是我猜对了哪?
Ruozhi wrote:
Darn it! Who are you anyway? YOu probably don't know I'm worst at solving riddles, and I don't have patience either. Let me 阿 you one more time: 阿拉兄弟? If you're a man, why do you want to be 木子丑? to be the match of 木子美? :-) I know she's hunting for a husband. :-)
木子丑 wrote:
若教的话,总是让人觉得“胜读十年书”,但猜马甲差了一点,不如八爷,你光往阿猫阿狗身上去想,忘了爱忽悠的爷们儿。:):):) - posted on 07/08/2007
我觉得这个表达力的问题是一个更普遍的文化现象的表现,是长期以来就有的文化精英和社会大众之间的差异问题。这个问题的显现,是由于现代各种媒体的发达,大众声音更多被听到而已。
在西方在美国,语言的退化主要是经济原因,被商业广告主导追求收视率的媒体,自然使用面向低文化水平的大众语言,反过来又影响大众。在中国则有政治原因,共产党执政以来,“工农大众”的语言大量出现在各种媒体,文革时期简单粗暴的政治语言是个极端表现,造成长达几十年,影响几代人的党文化。
这个现象未必就是个“时弊”,没什么值得惊异忧虑的。任何社会中的文化精英总是少数。一个是由极少数文化精英和众多毫无话语权的文盲组成的社会,相比于另一个大众有更多话语权的社会,哪个更令人担忧呢?
另一个“时弊”是白字百出的网络语言。这也没有什么可担心的,甲骨文,文言文不都死了吗?大伙不还都活得好好的?让语文老师们去哭吧,我不在乎。也劝文化精英们想开点,大可不必杞人忧天,痛心疾首的。:-) - posted on 07/08/2007
st dude wrote:。。。
我特别反感"忽悠"一词. 我不明白它的意思之前, 问过几个说它的人, 给我的答案竟是, 只能意会, 不能言传. 如果我们的语言充满了这种"只能意会, 不能言传"的词汇, 那还能准确严禁吗? 向cafe里的所有人发誓, 我决不直接使用此词, 并向响应者先鞠一躬.
看来我得不到你的一躬了。我特喜欢'忽悠"这个词,顽皮活泼,生动形象,正因为没有明确定义(那个词又有明确定义呢?好多在字典里有定义的词也是被循环定义的),就特别好用。
我也反感有些词,“打造”,“脑海”之类,用的滥而又滥,谁不喜欢这些词我给谁鞠一躬。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
guanzhong wrote:
我也反感有些词,“打造”,“脑海”之类,用的滥而又滥,谁不喜欢这些词我给谁鞠一躬。
我不仅反感“打造”,甚至痛恨,看见就恼。你得鞠两躬吧!俺不理解的还有不说渠道用管道,不用掌握用掌控等等诸如此类。 - posted on 07/08/2007
普通话/国语曾经就是满人说的北京话,所谓的官话呀,玷污从>何说起呢。你说的是腔调, 口音. 普通话根本不是北京方言. 我说普通话, 我从不说北京话. 你别搞错呀.
另外,“忽悠”的意象很丰富,很生动啊,生动? 第一, 请告诉我“忽悠”倒底是什么意思, 就把我当老外, 给我解释. 如果你解释不清, 何谈生动? 是不是跟着起哄, 说得好玩热闹吧?
浮生 wrote:
st dude啊,普通话/国语曾经就是满人说的北京话,所谓的官话呀,玷污从何说起呢。一个语言一旦成了官话必定是简化的过程。至于是否全国人都该说一种语言可以讨论。说实话,我有一年跟人凑热闹看春晚,看见小品都用方言,跳舞全是少数民族,可全国各省市电台主持人都说同一个调的普通话,感慨万千哪。
另外,“忽悠”的意象很丰富,很生动啊,汉语讲究的从来也不是准确,恕俺不响应st dude的号召,何况,我还想听各位在这儿忽悠呢:) - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
你是跟着她起哄, 还是真的? 如果是真的, 我需要向中文系教授汇报. 有人教育你, 不需要我.
July wrote:
忽悠实在是生动形象的一个妙词。
今天这麽了?和浮生心心相印 :-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
鹿希 wrote:
我不仅反感“打造”,甚至痛恨,看见就恼。你得鞠两躬吧!俺不理解的还有不说渠道用管道,不用掌握用掌控等等诸如此类。
鹿希,快来接着,给你鞠三躬了! - posted on 07/08/2007
99教授的这篇小文,切中的问题太多了,先逮住一点说一点。
词汇量缩小是媒介平民化的大趋势,但是否就代表庸俗化恶俗化,其中不一定有必然关联。我同意平民化的过程是重商的过程,同时也是去文学化的过程,这本来无可厚非,商业本来就是人类交流的最主要途径。如果电视已经沦为纯商业的工具,那么用电视数据作为文学或哲学指标本来就比较片面了。
其次,词汇量缩小,如果只是莎士比亚专用词的消失,也并不代表思辨能力的降低,除非缩小到伦敦市民的八百个日常词汇的水平。如果用心去比较GRE和GMAT的词汇量,可以肯定的说GRE词汇覆盖面远为宽广,但GMAT里的辩证文论水平决不能说相对GRE低下。 一个涵盖更广的自然、科学、哲学、历史、工程、人文、医学范围,另一个主要局限社会人文商业方面,双方的深度可谓对等。再一个例子,案例讨论就是各人表达不同的论点和意见,每人都拼命为自己的立场辩护。国际学生最初听得云里雾里,不敢发言,后来仔细观察,当地学生也很多是半瓶醋,但同样的观点,他们可以用不同的话语表达得天花乱坠,其词汇并不偏生(小词多,大词少),但语言组织方式层出不穷,容易给人信服感。苏格拉底时期的思辨,很多也可以简化为纯数学形式的论证,只要求一定基本词汇量,说不定词汇过多就是耍文字游戏了。
同意玛雅苏三管仲的观点,走向大同就是门槛的降低,不值得大惊小怪,尤其不要把电视当回事。(可叹的是电视已经成为事实上最高文明的代名词,其语言也不幸成为国民文化的风向标, 我尤其不能忍受各类综艺节目,中美的都包括。)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
st dude wrote:
另外,“忽悠”的意象很丰富,很生动啊,生动? 第一, 请告诉我“忽悠”倒底是什么意思, 就把我当老外, 给我解释. 如果你解释不清, 何谈生动? 是不是跟着起哄, 说得好玩热闹吧?
看过红高粱吧,那几个抬骄子就把新娘给“忽悠”得晕头转向了,多生动形象啊!
你要是再不懂,你就是让我给忽悠啦!:-) - posted on 07/08/2007
顽皮活泼因为它出自喜剧演员之口, 而不是语言本身. 不要被表演迷惑了.
生动形象又一个跳出来说"生动"的. 一个"忽"字的本意和一个"悠"字的本意根本和这个"忽悠"意思既没有形的联系, 也没有象的联系. 一句话, 文化不高的人的胡说, 其他人跟在他的屁股后面叫好.
guanzhong wrote:
看来我得不到你的一躬了。我特喜欢'忽悠"这个词,顽皮活泼,生动形象,正因为没有明确定义(那个词又有明确定义呢?好多在字典里有定义的词也是被循环定义的),就特别好用。
我也反感有些词,“打造”,“脑海”之类,用的滥而又滥,谁不喜欢这些词我给谁鞠一躬。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
"原始口头文化覆盖下的人们头脑简单,缺乏思辨能力."
无论是原作者还是81子的意思,这话俺不苟同。何以见得只有语言没有文字的人就头脑简单缺乏思辨?是咱们不懂人家的语言自然无从领悟人家的思辨能力。人类学家的工作包括大量的民族志事实证明的正好相反,很多无文字的民族的社会结构政治制度之复杂性远远超出我们自己生活的社会。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
st dude wrote:
...一句话, 文化不高的人的胡说, 其他人跟在他的屁股后面叫好.
圣先生是个正经的尖头鳗,吃饭要餐巾刀叉,说话要咬文嚼字,整个一个上等文化人,PF, PF!
可上等人是不当众说屁股的,那是文化不高的人的胡说啊!:-)
好在这是网络时代,以后就说 PG 吧,很是顽皮生动形象呢!:-) - posted on 07/08/2007
今天特别ADD了,该作的事情不作,一切都拖着,该死的procrastination, 跟我一起进地狱吧,让周报编辑们等死吧,我quit了!饭都不吃了,专门想跟老八过不去,这又是ADD们的明显病征:)想说好多的话,尤其想词不达意,陈词滥调,并且乱造词汇,非让老八们难受一回不可:)
fxxk,这样的词汇意义多么深厚,i am sick of you! sick,多么复杂的含义,多么让人误解的词!
对这类半傻(low-wit)的书,老八太认真了,简直比老方还会浪费生命,让那些该死的早点死吧,别让我们染上老人病!
对书中的那些论据,只要提出反论据,其结论就不攻自破。比如我问,语言是僵死的还是不断再生的,古代的通假字是否都是些错别字?还有,孔夫子或者就是近代的学究梁启超们懂得我们咖啡店里的语言吗?是他们的词汇太多还是我们的词汇太少?老子的《道德经》里究竟用了多少词汇,荷马史诗呢?圣经里的词汇今天还在用吗?经典的著作里用的都是深奥的词汇吗?你敢肯定苏格拉底辩论的时候用的都是高雅深邃的词汇吗? 我想象着苏格拉底气起来,一定也fuck u不断!
如果用老八的话来复述我上面的问题,是否是一篇小文不足以讨论这样的大话题呢? - posted on 07/08/2007
是的,是的,不但破和丑,而且还弱智呢!:):):)
Ruozhi wrote:
我出去跑了一圈步,路上也想到了可能是你尚哥哥。啧啧,还教授呢,马甲一件比一件破,尚嫂也是,怎么也不给补一补. :)
July wrote:
我来试试,是不是尚哥哥?
要是我猜对了哪?
Ruozhi wrote:
Darn it! Who are you anyway? YOu probably don't know I'm worst at solving riddles, and I don't have patience either. Let me 阿 you one more time: 阿拉兄弟? If you're a man, why do you want to be 木子丑? to be the match of 木子美? :-) I know she's hunting for a husband. :-)
木子丑 wrote:
若教的话,总是让人觉得“胜读十年书”,但猜马甲差了一点,不如八爷,你光往阿猫阿狗身上去想,忘了爱忽悠的爷们儿。:):):) - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
我正在万圣书店的咖啡馆里,本来想干点正事的,也特ADD,到虚拟咖啡馆瞎忽悠来了! - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
老圣啊,俺老爹是编现代汉语词典的,专门收集这类词汇,使之登堂入室,成为我们中华民族的宝贵财富。
st dude wrote:
你是跟着她起哄, 还是真的? 如果是真的, 我需要向中文系教授汇报. 有人教育你, 不需要我.
July wrote:
忽悠实在是生动形象的一个妙词。
今天这麽了?和浮生心心相印 :-)
- posted on 07/08/2007
st dude wrote:
普通话/国语曾经就是满人说的北京话,所谓的官话呀,玷污从>何说起呢。你说的是腔调, 口音. 普通话根本不是北京方言. 我说普通话, 我从不说北京话. 你别搞错呀.
从维基找来的定义:
这些标准语[普通话、国语、华语]均以北京话为基准音,以汉语北方方言为基础方言,以典范的现代白话文著作为语法规范。
现代汉语标准语继承于始于北宋、定命于元明的“官话”体系。
1909年,清政府設立了“國語編審委員會”,将当时通用的官话正式命名为国语。这是汉语标准语首次得到官方命名。
中国大陆于1955年开始,用普通话来称呼汉语标准语。按中华人民共和国相关机构的解释,“普通”二字的涵義是“普遍”和“共通”,不称为“國語”是對少數民族語言的尊重。普通话仍以北京音为基础,与(老派)国语相比,在单字的发音上几乎相同,但在听感(涉及到语调等)、词汇上又有不同。自1950年代起,各时期普通话的特点亦有所变化,兩者已有一定的区别。到了现在,普通话和台式国语的差别已经相当明显了。
生动? 第一, 请告诉我“忽悠”倒底是什么意思, 就把我当老外, 给我解释. 如果你解释不清, 何谈生动? 是不是跟着起哄, 说得好玩热闹吧?
哇,给老外我可解释不来,你要求太高拉,这是对语言学家翻译家的要求。不过起哄好玩凑热闹,guilty as charged,你说要不然我干吗一天到晚泡在咖啡:)那,这里是忽和悠各自的意思,我能明白的意思在里边,你合一块儿自己琢磨吧,再多问就是不努力学习,恕不答疑:
忽
hū
粗心,不注意:忽视。疏忽。忽略。玩忽职守。
迅速,突然:忽而。忽然。忽地。忽高忽低。
长度和重量单位(十忽为一丝,十丝为一毫):忽微(极言细微)。微忽其微。
悠
yōu
久,远,长:悠久。悠远。悠扬。
在空中摆动:悠荡。晃悠。转悠。
稳住,控制:悠着点劲。
闲适,闲散:悠闲。悠然。悠忽(形容悠闲懒散)。悠缓。悠悠(a.闲适,自由自在,如“白云悠悠”;b.忧郁,如“悠悠我思”;c.长久,遥远,如“悠悠长夜”;d.众多;e.荒谬,如“悠悠之谈”)。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
为什麽生气?
苏格拉底很生气 wrote:
< - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
我看你是根本从字典里找不出解释, 企图走题. 屁股, 字典里有这个词. 你的"忽悠"在字典里有吗? 好家伙, 拿红高粱,抬骄子来解释. 你就是这么教你孩子的中文的?
guanzhong wrote:
圣先生是个正经的尖头曼,吃饭要餐巾刀叉,说话要咬文嚼字,整个一个上等文化人,PF, PF!
可上等人是不当众说屁股的,那是文化不高的人的胡说啊!:-)
好在这是网络时代,以后就说 PG 吧,很是顽皮生动形象呢!:-) - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
那就更好了. 等你老爹那一天告诉你, 经过专家讨论, 为什么“忽悠”一词不能登堂入室,进入字典时, 请你转告cafe的人一声. 先谢了.
July wrote:
老圣啊,俺老爹是编现代汉语词典的,专门收集这类词汇,使之登堂入室,成为我们中华民族的宝贵财富。
- posted on 07/08/2007
第一,
你根本不能从维基上找. 中文维基根本就没有peer reviewed. 不具备权威性, 只有参考性.
第二,
即使从你给出的维基上的解释, 你也根本不可能从一个"忽"字的解释中和一个"悠"的解释中找出任何和"忽悠"的任何联系(其实道理很简单). 这就是为什么你扔下这些定义, 一走了之. 你无法从"忽"和"悠"二字的意义上对"忽悠"作解释.
浮生 wrote:
忽
hū
粗心,不注意:忽视。疏忽。忽略。玩忽职守。
迅速,突然:忽而。忽然。忽地。忽高忽低。
长度和重量单位(十忽为一丝,十丝为一毫):忽微(极言细微)。微忽其微。
悠
yōu
久,远,长:悠久。悠远。悠扬。
在空中摆动:悠荡。晃悠。转悠。
稳住,控制:悠着点劲。
闲适,闲散:悠闲。悠然。悠忽(形容悠闲懒散)。悠缓。悠悠(a.闲适,自由自在,如“白云悠悠”;b.忧郁,如“悠悠我思”;c.长久,遥远,如“悠悠长夜”;d.众多;e.荒谬,如“悠悠之谈”)。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
st dude wrote:
屁股, 字典里有这个词.
我也故意走题讲个笑话吧,很不雅的,可实在忍不住,st dude不许你回这一贴啊:
说有一个农民老大爷在北京乘某路公交车,人还没上来售票员阿姨就关了门。老大爷大嚷“夹了俺腚了”。售票员说“什么ding啊ding的,那叫屁股”。老大爷上来了,递钱买票,“上哪儿?”售票员问,老大爷想了想说,“恩,永PG门”。 - posted on 07/08/2007
我忘了说,忽和悠是在在线新华字典里找的。
我知道维基不权威,不过常识性的东西还可以,我家没有大英百科全书,当然看什么听什么都要存疑,便是权威也不例外,这一点我和st dude在一条船上。我只是想说,现今的普通话和当初基于北京话的官话肯定是有不同,但普通话源于那时的官话,不好反过来说“玷污”。语言和生命一样,不断变化,普通话从语调词汇都会不停的变,加入新词,方言,外来语都是自然的,可以有书面语和口语之分,实在不好什么都分个高下。语言停滞,萎缩,才是渐渐趋于死亡。“忽悠”本是方言,晃悠的意思,现在语意扩展了,再多我不会说,抱歉。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
玛雅 wrote:
fxxk,这样的词汇意义多么深厚,i am sick of you! sick,多么复杂的含义,多么让人误解的词!
...我想象着苏格拉底气起来,一定也fuck u不断!
sh*t, f*ck 这些词绝对有泻邪火维护心理健康的作用,特别是不小心在脑袋上撞个大青包那种场合。:-) - posted on 07/08/2007
这确实是个有趣的话题。觉得作者的担心也许有些过了。用词的减少说明媒体越来越被市场左右,但,这是不是就代表独立思考能力的整体下降,也即是文中的——“作者认为公民的语言能力是民主社会要素之一。普通公民词汇量的大小不仅仅反映了他们的表达能力的高下,更重要的是体现了他们作为个体的理解能力的强弱。现代社会严格的社会分工并不要求每个成员都有能力做苏格拉底或孔子老庄式的哲学思辨,但一个理想的民主社会却要求多数公民具备独立思考能力和相当程度的表达能力,以便在公共领域里参加有关公众利益的讨论和对公共事务的管理。具有独立思维能力的人不太容易被别有用心的人误导和利用”。我觉得没有那么严重的后果,所以,我持保留看法。:—)。 - posted on 07/08/2007
呵,热闹哈!七嘴八舌听得老朽忽忽悠悠,就不一一回了。
玛雅说说小文难载大题,很对。说缄默是一种表达,也很是。听众缄默不等于缺乏理解力,可是播音员没法缄默,公众人物也不能缄默。他们的责任便是向公众清晰、合乎事实地陈述和解释。当克里与布什辩论时,他们回避了很多重要问题,很大一个原因就是因为那些问题不能用五秒钟的sound bite来讨论。
听广播我喜欢听BBC和NPR. 英国的BBC的经费由国家拨款. 美国的NPR的经费小部分来自政府,大部由听众捐款。
WOA和玛雅说的词汇的变化趋势和具体情形该书没有讨论。若之说得有理。应该有别的学者研究吧?还望指点一二。
鹿希说“人类学家的工作包括大量的民族志事实证明的正好相反,很多无文字的民族的社会结构政治制度之复杂性远远超出我们自己生活的社会”,这个要请给出例子。我的理解,没有文字的人群基本都是部落制度,没有发展出国家(State).
苏珊说得是。美国大众是很有些巴特辛朴申化。 - posted on 07/08/2007
八十一子 wrote:
呵,热闹哈!七嘴八舌听得老朽忽忽悠悠,就不一一回了。
鹿希说“人类学家的工作包括大量的民族志事实证明的正好相反,很多无文字的民族的社会结构政治制度之复杂性远远超出我们自己生活的社会”,这个要请给出例子。我的理解,没有文字的人群基本都是部落制度,没有发展出国家(State).
后一句我同意,没有文字的社会大多为部落制度。但是否部落制是否就简单,是否一定要发展为国家(State), 这是个问题。社会进化论者认为理该如此,所以有阶段论,认定人类社会从部落到奴隶,到资本主义,社会主义等等... 但世界上千万社会形态提供的经验说明并非如此简单直线,而是多种多元,民族志告诉我们很多社会不一定适合现代意义上的民族国家(Nation-State) 而是有自己的轨迹。民族国家可以是一种方式但不是唯一的,眼下许多的冲突和民族国家与部落制度的关系无不说明这一点,比如阿富汗,比如战火中的非洲。总之,三言两语说不清。我只是想说,社会文化群体和个人一样,用简单的“原始, 低级,落后”解释不合适。
说到例子,远的有Evans-Pritchard 研究的今日苏丹南部的Dinga, Nuer 等民族,Malinowski, Sahlins 笔下的太平洋岛屿波利尼西亚人, Boas 描写的美国西海岸印第安人 Condominas 的东南亚诸民族,当然还有不朽的 Lévi-Strausse..... 单子太长,先拉到这儿吧。所有的研究结果加上每个民族或族群自己的口传历史证明其复杂性一点不亚于当今任何一个民族国家。
大周末的,逛街去了!:) - posted on 07/08/2007
是,就看怎样定义“复杂”了。每个个人也都是很复杂的。
“原始等同与落后”是殖民主义者的观念。我并不同意。区区几千年,在现代人类几十万年历史上是很短暂的。只是,历史上没有发展出高级政治制度的民族面临的往往是灭亡。远的有玛雅、印加,近的有非洲各国。无论原因如何,结果终归一样。
西方现代国家概念和实践不能适用于历史发展轨迹不同的民族,这个可以从非洲和阿拉伯地区的状况得出结论。
根据中国领导人,中国的情形好像也不能适应西方现代国家概念。这个还要再想想。
现代民族国家概念不适合
鹿希 wrote:
八十一子 wrote:后一句我同意,没有文字的社会大多为部落制度。但是否部落制是否就简单,是否一定要发展为国家(State), 这是个问题。社会进化论者认为理该如此,所以有阶段论,认定人类社会从部落到奴隶,到资本主义,社会主义等等... 但世界上千万社会形态提供的经验说明并非如此简单直线,而是多种多元,民族志告诉我们很多社会不一定适合现代意义上的民族国家(Nation-State) 而是有自己的轨迹。民族国家可以是一种方式但不是唯一的,眼下许多的冲突和民族国家与部落制度的关系无不说明这一点,比如阿富汗,比如战火中的非洲。总之,三言两语说不清。我只是想说,社会文化群体和个人一样,用简单的“原始”解释不合适。
呵,热闹哈!七嘴八舌听得老朽忽忽悠悠,就不一一回了。
鹿希说“人类学家的工作包括大量的民族志事实证明的正好相反,很多无文字的民族的社会结构政治制度之复杂性远远超出我们自己生活的社会”,这个要请给出例子。我的理解,没有文字的人群基本都是部落制度,没有发展出国家(State).
说到例子,远的有Evans-Pritchard 研究的今日苏丹南部的Dinga, Nuer 等民族,Malinowski, Sahlins 笔下的太平洋岛屿波利尼西亚人, Boas 描写的美国西海岸印第安人 Condominas 的东南亚诸民族,当然还有不朽的 Lévi-Strausse..... 单子太长,先拉到这儿吧。所有的研究结果加上每个民族或族群自己的口传历史,其复杂性一点不亚于当今任何一个民族国家。
大周末的,逛街去了!:) - posted on 07/08/2007
我也喜欢忽悠这个词。语言是活的,当然是先有语言,才有字典。莎士比亚的两万多个词汇大部分也都是从劳动人民中来。
大部分人都没有读过这本书,所以都assume这本书是反对大众语言,提倡精英的。我也没细读过,其实玛雅说的那些F*** S***words正是在作者所提倡的语言的丰富性之列。当然假如玛雅这段痛快淋漓的话只用F*** S***这样的词写出来,看有没有现在的效果. 美国的许多年轻人词汇的退化就在降低到这个水平.玛雅们是有大量的名著阅读和写作训练作底线的, 在这个底线上再去吸收没有受过教育的人创造的词汇. 没有这个底线, try to read what they write and see if you can enjoy it. :-)
鹿希switched the topic from language to history. 语言是思维的载体, 没有书面语言的民族在一个以书面语言占主导地位的社会里是注定要吃亏的.
WOA是看电视上的法庭辩论吧? It doesn't count. :-)
就是, 大周末的, 该上街去玩了. :-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/08/2007
浮生、沈都德都有道理。中国民间的语言很丰富,但书面语必须要规范化,否则不能用于复杂问题的讨论。
七月是语言专家的女儿,难怪。语言发展都是百姓约定俗成,专家做规范,十分要紧。当年俄国文学异峰突起,罗蒙罗索夫编出的第一部俄文语法功不可没。
中国目前民间用形容词做动词,名词做形容词的情形很普遍。只要不影响逻辑思维,倒也不是坏事。A big If, though.
若之跃马横枪,好生了得。说得是,书里还有很多别的内容。我只是介绍了一两个我觉得有新意的观点。
- posted on 07/08/2007
我特喜欢玛雅仿佛信口开河的文字,常常是妙语连连。:-)
顺便说,10000个左右的词汇并不是“精英”才有。事实上,美国大学入学考试SAT的词汇量就已经在这个水平以上。只是,美国公立大学的门槛太低,SAT满分的一半就差不多了。
玛雅 wrote:
今天特别ADD了,该作的事情不作,一切都拖着,该死的procrastination, 跟我一起进地狱吧,让周报编辑们等死吧,我quit了!饭都不吃了,专门想跟老八过不去,这又是ADD们的明显病征:)想说好多的话,尤其想词不达意,陈词滥调,并且乱造词汇,非让老八们难受一回不可:)
fxxk,这样的词汇意义多么深厚,i am sick of you! sick,多么复杂的含义,多么让人误解的词! - posted on 07/08/2007
诸位文人多虑了。一百年前中国社会由文言文向白话文过度时也有人发出过类似的担忧。西方社会语言的简单化也是一个趋势。但是世界这一百年来教育空前普及的事实,是谁也不可否定的。就连对语言要求最苛刻的《圣经》不也简化了文字吗(这里有谁读得懂古本《圣经》?)。语言的简化是对大多数人来说的。对于语言研究和文化教育的一群人来说,他们的识字程度和语言能力是远高于普通老百姓的。“夏里巴人”并没有夺去“阳春白雪”的地位。今天能够认识一万多个字的人,总的来说应该比一百年前还要多才对。
过去三十年来,大众媒体由单一的文字过渡到了今日的多媒体。人们对于文字的要求确实没有以前那么高了。但是社会还是在进步。很多的信息并非由口头和书写文字可以传递的。今天有很多人在编计算机程序,这就是一种比人类话语要特殊多的语言。计算机语言使人可以和机器谈话。这难道不是伟大的进步?今日人类之间使用的文字确实比以前简单地多了,但是图象、语音、甚至文字的传播比以前便捷了不知多少倍。人们互相传递信息难道不是更精确和方便了吗?
很多年前老百姓的远途通讯主要是靠电报。父母大人病了,要走到邮电局去,给孩子发个电报:
母病危速归
每个字要六分钱。
然后对方邮电局差人骑上摩托车送过去。接到电报后一头雾水,赶忙买火车票回家。
今天父母大人病了,一个电话打过去:
“喂!”
“小三啊,我是你爸。你妈妈最近身体不太好,住院了,你回来看看吧。”
“妈得的是不是风湿那个老毛病?”
“不是,这一次很严重,大夫说很难确症。”
”那我就回去一躺吧。爸,你也要注意身子骨啊。“
“好!我等你了。”
“哎。”
假如古人也能够像今天这样普及使用“千里眼”和“顺风耳”的话,他们的语言文字能力也不会比今日的百姓高到哪里去。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
象很多其他事物一样,语言文字的功能也是一个谱系.在一个极端是实用的功能.语言不过是日常交流的工具,越方便快捷越好.能用两个字表达就不用三个,比如新兴的网络语言(9494,PF,PG).而另一个极端则是语言的文学艺术功能,需要大量词汇表达细微的思想感情,这对平民大众来说无疑是一种奢侈.
出于各自不同的目的,当然有各种不同的议论.没有共同的出发点,就只能各说各话.
如果只会用谱系两个极端中的一个说话,要么酸,要么俗,两种都会才是大家. - posted on 07/09/2007
八君此文写得好,及时.苏格拉底问题,媒体特别是国家的纸媒体错别字问题应该注意.如果七月父亲他们没有规范的字不应该乱使用.不然,小学生学汉语以什么为准.语言不能只考虑大人用得顺手.
每一个成人对语言都有保护的义务.就像对自己民族的文化有保存的义务.更何况汉语是现在最古老的活文字.应该作为世界遗产来保护.就像保护中国的长城.不然韩国人就去申请专利.
学习的快慢时间可能和文字难易有关.但教育的普及并一定和文字的难易有关.台湾用繁体汉字,文盲率低于大陆.中国古人四岁读诗经,现在有几个四岁的孩子能读诗经.孔子有教无类.关键还是社会政府是否提倡.关注这个问题.还有政府政策人员自己的文化水平修养.对这些问题视而不见.更不会觉得难过.写文章呼吁.
也同意若之的话.讲得深一点,语言就是思维本身.玛雅妹妹的中英文在精英水平.在粗俗的语言中可以见到生动.所以思维才这样活跃.如果真的只有小学,中学水平,玛雅妹妹会不会去思考这些问题.我想是读不到玛雅妹妹的文字的.看看咖啡店有谁只有小学,中学文化水平?咖啡店也不可能存在.把文字水平降低才是变相的愚民政策.比如现在,我就读不懂古文.实际上成为胡适鲁讯毛泽东们用白话文反对古文反对传统的受害者.白话文可以提倡,但不应该反对古文.以前是通过政治的手段.现在是通过商业的手段愚民,受害者是普通老百姓,特别是希望学习的人.
Ruozhi wrote:玛雅们是有大量的名著阅读和写作训练作底线的, 在这个底线上再去吸收没有受过教育的人创造的词汇. > - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
思想平庸, 见解粗糙, 逻辑混乱, 情绪消沉, 自我封闭, 这样的作者写的文字会有什么好的? 只不过是浮夸罢了. 再加上, 得到一些人的吹捧, 从而不思进取, 我行我素. 这样的文字再怎么写多长时间又有什么进步?
良药苦口才是没有错的.
动不动就是中国怎么样了, 人类怎么样了, 男人女人的. 知道中国是什么意思吗? 人类是什么意思吗? 男人女人是什么语义吗? 把握住这些词怎么用吗? 表达能力欠缺就在于此.
相互安慰不错, 相互吹捧有什么意思呢?
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
st dude wrote:
说具体的. 我觉得很多北京土话和东北土话对我们国语玷污很严重. 其他地区也有不好的方言. 但是,北京土话和东北土话有媒体的传播, 危害更大.
东北土话多有表现力啊,我简直喜欢透了。
“你妈了个B的,你个狐狸精,不得好死。”
“你妈才是狐狸精呢。你妈是个老破鞋。”
这种语言的直接后果便是头破血流,多好啊。
认同81。也支持精英文化。没有精英文化,就仿佛夜空失去了星星。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
qinggang wrote:
这种语言的直接后果便是头破血流,多好啊。
这东北话啊,我怎么听着也挺亲切呢?上大学时,东北来的同学说看北京公共车上人吵架,你来我往地没完没了,说可真有性子,要在东北,早打上了:) - posted on 07/09/2007
华 wrote:...
学习的快慢时间可能和文字难易有关.但教育的普及并一定和文字的难易有关.台湾用繁体汉字,文盲率低于大陆.中国古人四岁读诗经,现在有几个四岁的孩子能读诗经.孔子有教无类.关键还是社会政府是否提倡.关注这个问题.还有政府政策人员自己的文化水平修养.对这些问题视而不见.更不会觉得难过.写文章呼吁.
几个中国古人四岁读诗经? 多少中国古人终生文盲?
现在的孩子学数理化,几个古人懂?
曾在一个台湾人占绝大多数的中文学校懂事会混过两年,参与过有关简体或繁体字,汉语拼音或注音符号的讨论决策.有个懂事曾慷慨激昂地说过如上的话,坚决反对简体字.但表决的时候压倒多数的人同意教简体字和汉语拼音,当时甚感意外.
文字首先是大众交流表达的工具,其次才是自封或互封的精英们的"思维本身".只强调后者既片面,也无效.
并没有人要把文字水平降低,但要普及文化,就需要某种简化(白话文,简化字之类).当年既然提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文.精英们要读经典,尽可以去学古文,但不能让非精英们陪着付出代价.
有些时候写文章呼吁是没有什么用的,语言文字的发展自有其规律,社会的需要使然,该死的早晚都要死,呼吁只不过给文人一点良好的自我感觉罢了!:-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
qinggang wrote:
“你妈了个B的,你个狐狸精,不得好死。”“你妈才是狐狸精呢。你妈是个老破鞋。”
这种语言的直接后果便是头破血流,多好啊。
东北人更多骂嫂子,很少骂妈,骂了确实就要头破血流.
认同81。也支持精英文化。没有精英文化,就仿佛夜空失去了星星。
没有大众文化,就仿佛日空失去了太阳。:-) - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
我以为要看出整个社会表达能力变化是很困难的。任何时代,总有巧舌如簧和张口结舌的两极及所有中间状态。也总有热衷于表达艺术的人和凑乎沟通的人。人以言分嘛。
也总有人认为别人越来越拎不清了,这从上古有语言起就开始了。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
各位说得都很好。看来还真有点辞不达意,把人家作者的原意说拧了。:-) 修改了一下,把苏珊提醒的巴特辛普森也借调了。谢谢。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/09/2007
词汇不在多,听东北人吵架:
“干哈?”
“你干哈?”
“我干哈没干哈。”
“你没干哈干哈管我干哈?”
“你爱干哈干哈我干哈管你干哈?”
数了数,总共六个词,也能达意。 - posted on 07/09/2007
借老八这条线,继续胡扯。
语言这东西很神妙,同样的字同样的词同样的句子被不同的人用,表达的都不是一个意思。所以语言跟人是连在一起的。
现在有一个值得注意的现象,就是学术语言跟市井语言的分道扬镳。学术的,会弄得让你晕头转向不知所云,术语一堆一堆的,新词新药新科技眼花缭乱;市井的,越来越下里巴人,大有回归原始部落的味道。这之中有越来越大的缺口,是坏事更是好事。
大家提到净化语言,保护传统语言。我觉得语言这东西不是你想保护就保护得了的,因为它是活的,流动的,你想净化,也许暂时可以,但约定俗成,大家都这样的了,你偏要文诌诌讲一大堆修辞,实在是自撞南墙,自己跟自己过不去。 浩浩乾坤,杞人忧天大可不必。
语言不是死硬穷书生,它势利市侩,只认钱财权势。比如,英语为什么是世界语言?为什么那么难听的港台土话那么快就进入内地?你老书生再生气,也没法儿让大伙儿都不那么说话,你生哪门子气啊,嘴长在别人脸上,你规定?你罚款?你让他们都考不上学校?
咖啡店里有很多语言老师,大家都来谈谈。
借这个机会,我想重申我的愿望,咖啡店很小,没有天降大任于咖啡,传承重要,启下才是当务之急。我们自己先要adapt to 这个急速变化的世界。咖啡店喜欢一根筋的阿甘,也喜欢没有筋的变色龙。
蒙田300多年前就已经怀疑一切了,在这样加速度的时代,我们对过去对未来更要多一层怀疑。
- posted on 07/09/2007
玛雅 wrote:
借老八这条线,继续胡扯。
语言这东西很神妙,同样的字同样的词同样的句子被不同的人用,表达的都不是一个意思。所以语言跟人是连在一起的。
也跟着胡扯两句。
人工智能有一个分支做人的自然语言识别,前前后后好几代学者,努力了好几十年,现在就卡在两个问题上。
一个是 context,就是你说的这个,每句话的意思要由上下文来决定。不同的人说同一句话,意思不一样。同一个人,在不同的场合说同样的话,意思也是不一样的。
还一个是 noise filtering。我们每天说的大部分话都是废话,人脑会分辨哪些是口水话,哪些是场面话,哪些是无话找话,然后自动过滤掉。计算机还没这个水平。
等这两个问题解决了,计算机就有点吓人了。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/09/2007
语言有两种,但不是分为学术语言和市井语言,而是分为书面语和口头语。口头语是活的,约定俗成的,不规范也没法规范。书面语必须规范,否则作者和读者没法交流。口头语是书面语的源头,保持了书面语的活力。道理就是这么简单。
玛雅 wrote:
借老八这条线,继续胡扯。
语言这东西很神妙,同样的字同样的词同样的句子被不同的人用,表达的都不是一个意思。所以语言跟人是连在一起的。 - posted on 07/09/2007
说得好, 再顶! 把语言分为学术语言和市井语言的想法, 我估计还是受那种老毛的思想影响, “人民群众如何如何…, 学术知识分子如何如何…” 忘掉了其实即使是民间流传的口头语多数也是出于在民间藏龙卧虎的秀才和语言大师之口. 对语言的理解,运用和驾驭是一种天赋. 有这种天赋的人, 他就是只识3000字, 也比没有这种天赋但是识1万字的人更富于表达和创造性.
除了"忽悠"一词, 我想到了另一流行词,"扇子". 经常听到我你他是什么什么的扇子, 我也很反感. 球迷, 京剧迷和影迷用扇子来比喻,根本不着边际, 其来源fan是英语的fanatic(狂热, 偏执狂)的缩写, 和扇子毫无关系. 也不知从哪一个家伙开始无知无畏地说, 成千上万的人跟着用.
八十一子 wrote:
语言有两种,但不是分为学术语言和市井语言,而是分为书面语和口头语。口头语是活的,约定俗成的,不规范也没法规范。书面语必须规范,否则作者和读者没法交流。口头语是书面语的源头,保持了书面语的活力。道理就是这么简单。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/09/2007
老圣,再给你两个我喜欢的咖啡网络词汇,供批判用 :-)
粪清:这是染灯爱用的词,俺特喜欢。就是文学愤青---愤怒的文学青年,染灯又往前走了一步:-)
驴人:也是染灯的首用,(我不知道是不是首创), 俺也喜欢。就是旅人的意思。驴人又幽默又形象,每次我都忍俊不禁 :-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/09/2007
粪清:专门贬低我的词, 你尽管用. 何况你还我青春,让我年轻了.
驴人:第一次听说. 你自己现编造的? 能给出出处,例子吗?
顺便问一下, "染灯" 是什么意思?
July wrote:
老圣,再给你两个我喜欢的咖啡网络词汇,供批判用 :-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/09/2007
染灯是阿拉丁染灯,也是咖啡客。在德国,他喜欢旅游,把自己称为驴人。
st dude wrote:
粪清:专门贬低我的词, 你尽管用. 何况你还我青春,让我年轻了.
驴人:第一次听说. 你自己现编造的? 能给出出处,例子吗?
顺便问一下, "染灯" 是什么意思?
July wrote:
老圣,再给你两个我喜欢的咖啡网络词汇,供批判用 :-)
- posted on 07/09/2007
网络语言基本上是同音乱用、或音译译意乱用、或人友不分、卷舌不卷舌不分、前舌音后舌音不分、第二声第三声不分、能简写便简写能用数字不用简写、等等。比如fans-扇子;粪清-愤青;染灯-燃灯;驴友-驴人;海龟;5555;pf;lg;等等。一开始看到真有语言被强奸的感觉,还立马被指出“老了!”。
st dude 在燃灯消迹后出现,但st dude每每使我想到燃灯。
July wrote:
染灯是阿拉丁染灯,也是咖啡客。在德国,他喜欢旅游,把自己称为驴人。
st dude wrote:
粪清:专门贬低我的词, 你尽管用. 何况你还我青春,让我年轻了.
驴人:第一次听说. 你自己现编造的? 能给出出处,例子吗?
顺便问一下, "染灯" 是什么意思?
July wrote:
老圣,再给你两个我喜欢的咖啡网络词汇,供批判用 :-)
- posted on 07/09/2007
这个话题很好,不过等我去读了 amazon 上的三篇 reviews,仔细想想民主与表达能力的关系(前几天我正好还在想这个问题,因为读到 Petrarch 和文艺复兴时期的 humanists 对 eloquence 的推崇),这里的讨论已经变质了。我又定不下心来把我想说的写出来(可见我的表达能力大大下降了),又想跟大家讨论方言、网络用语等比较简单的话题,最后只好算了不说了。
Eloquence 指的是雄辩的口才,不单是词汇量。玛雅有很好的口才,所以玛雅不必担心。
====
Petrarch in his study program of the classics and antiquity focused attention on language and communication. After mastering language, the goal was to reach a “level of eloquence”, to be able to present gracefully, combine thought and reason in a powerful way, so as to persuade others to a point of view. The Renaissance humanists focused on the correlation of speech and political principles as a powerful tool to present and persuade others to particular concepts. At the core of presentations was the use of graceful style, clear concise grammar and usage, and over time the insertion of rational and emotional arguments. - Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/10/2007
八十一子 wrote:
语言有两种,但不是分为学术语言和市井语言,而是分为书面语和口头语。口头语是活的,约定俗成的,不规范也没法规范。书面语必须规范,否则作者和读者没法交流。口头语是书面语的源头,保持了书面语的活力。道理就是这么简单。
老八,有点咬文嚼字了吧?:-)
粗略而言,"学术"语言近似于书面,"市井"就基本是口语.更妙的是,网络把书面和口语紧密地联系起来.这里的讨论是书面还是口头?书面语曾经被社会上层文化精英所砖有,在人人上网的时代,已经被平民百姓的口语同化了. - Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/10/2007
rzp wrote:
网络语言基本上是同音乱用、或音译译意乱用、或人友不分、卷舌不卷舌不分、前舌音后舌音不分、第二声第三声不分、能简写便简写能用数字不用简写、等等。比如fans-扇子;粪清-愤青;染灯-燃灯;驴友-驴人;海龟;5555;pf;lg;等等。一开始看到真有语言被强奸的感觉,还立马被指出“老了!”。
我眼前有一幅漫画,一个混不讲理的网络语言小流氓强奸一个传统规范文字的半老徐娘(其实她心里也挺美的),嘿嘿! :-D - posted on 07/10/2007
哈!什么时候玛雅开始和我在一个战壕里啦? :-)
我前面说的也基本就是这个意思.
唯有这句话,"你让他们都考不上学校?"高考中的语文命题考试,不按他们的那一套写,你还真就TNND考不上。F*ck that!
玛雅 wrote:
借老八这条线,继续胡扯。
语言这东西很神妙,同样的字同样的词同样的句子被不同的人用,表达的都不是一个意思。所以语言跟人是连在一起的。
现在有一个值得注意的现象,就是学术语言跟市井语言的分道扬镳。学术的,会弄得让你晕头转向不知所云,术语一堆一堆的,新词新药新科技眼花缭乱;市井的,越来越下里巴人,大有回归原始部落的味道。这之中有越来越大的缺口,是坏事更是好事。
大家提到净化语言,保护传统语言。我觉得语言这东西不是你想保护就保护得了的,因为它是活的,流动的,你想净化,也许暂时可以,但约定俗成,大家都这样的了,你偏要文诌诌讲一大堆修辞,实在是自撞南墙,自己跟自己过不去。 浩浩乾坤,杞人忧天大可不必。
语言不是死硬穷书生,它非常势利市侩,它只认钱财权势。比如,英语为什么是世界语言?为什么那么难听的港台土话那么快就进入内地?你老书生再生气,也没法儿让大伙儿都不那么说话,你生哪门子气啊,嘴长在别人脸上,你规定?你罚款?你让他们都考不上学校?
咖啡店里有很多语言老师,大家都来谈谈。
借这个机会,我想重申我的愿望,咖啡店很小,没有天降大任于咖啡,传承重要,启下才是当务之急。我们自己先要adapt to 这个急速变化的世界。咖啡店喜欢一根筋的阿甘,也喜欢没有筋的变色龙。
蒙田300多年前就已经怀疑一切了,在这样加速度的时代,我们对过去对未来更要多一层怀疑。
- posted on 07/10/2007
Guanzhong 好。 上次响应你的号召,表现尚可。遗憾这次兵分敌我了。不过对我还是一致的,文字是古老的母亲呀。和我爱妈妈是一样的。这样讲,能不能把Guanzhong争取到老八阵营?
老八这个议题太重大了。要戴着钢盔上来。:-)
guanzhong:几个中国古人四岁读诗经? 多少中国古人终生文盲?
现在的孩子学数理化,几个古人懂?
华:古人四岁读诗经虽然人数少,但说明学习汉字和难易关系不大。古人终生文盲虽然多,不是不能学,而是没有钱学?政府也没有普及教育?现在的孩子学数理化, 但有几个人懂易经,懂五谷农耕,花花草草。中药草药。打井造房,冶炼陶瓷等等。而且绝大部分的学习都是模仿,并不是自己创造的。看现在高考,花了那么多精力,好多是浪费时间。如果用来读两句古诗也好呀。
声明,我是反对高考的.特别是死记硬背.孔子多好啊.没有听说要考试.有教无类.圣人伟大.
guanzhong:曾在一个台湾人占绝大多数的中文学校懂事会混过两年,参与过有关简体或繁体字,汉语拼音或注音符号的讨论决策.有个懂事曾慷慨激昂地说过如上的话,坚决反对简体字.但表决的时候压倒多数的人同意教简体字和汉语拼音,当时甚感意外.
华:原因是实用,台湾人知道学简化字与大陆容易交流。
很多华人想把自己的孩子培养成超天才,其实汉字才是最开发人的大脑。如果他们知道了就要投票学繁体字。中国人为什么智商高,一是汉字,二是用筷子。三和父母在一起。或者姥姥,外婆背上长大的。我不反对简化字。简化和繁体字属一个系统。具有同样的审美。
但我反对把字母夹在汉语中。破坏了汉语的美.
国内人不喜欢海派说话夹洋字。结果现在国内的媒体用得更多。PK,VS,WHO,WTO,IT,GDP,SARS等等。好像全国人民都和国际接轨了。我回国探亲,问好多人都不知道意思。只晓得政府在用,所以照本宣科。和以前读政治报告一样的心理。但这些词可以翻译更清楚的意思。中文也简单,比如,世卫,世博,世贸。不过PK什么意思,我不知道。
有一个语文特级教师希望学生用纯正的汉语。但她讲课上来就写ABCD几条。我后来说,ABCD不是中文,为什么不用甲乙丙丁呢?或者一二三四。甲乙丙丁才是中国最早的古文字。老师尴尬地笑一下,忘记了ABCD不是中文。
还有写网络语言比如晕ing. 9494可以说因为简单。晕和ing一样三个字母。而且还要从中文转化成英文字母。更费时。就有点假公主的感觉。
当然普通人要这样用是自然。但是国家的媒体就应该按照现代汉语辞典来写字。
guanzhong:文字首先是大众交流表达的工具,其次才是自封或互封的精英们的"思维本身".只强调后者既片面,也无效.
华:交流表达的就是人们的思想。世界上有几种人是自言自语的,儿童,老人,心理原因,教育比较低,所谓想什么说什么,他们的语言就是思维。如果不准他们说就会生病。大学生开始写论文都涉及到语言的准确,精确。现当代哲学大部份都涉及到语言哲学。
guanzhong:并没有人要把文字水平降低,但要普及文化,就需要某种简化(白话文,简化字之类).当年既然提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文.精英们要读经典,尽可以去学古文,但不能让非精英们陪着付出代价.
华:以文化运动的方式反对文言文,废除文言文。就是把文字水平降低。文言文本身并没有错。把线装书全部扔到茅厕里,其实也是秦始皇焚书的作法。是反文明的。是政治超越了文化。只不过这火是冷火。不是明火。大家看不见。
如果提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文,那么,提倡初中义务教育,就应该反对高中到博士的教育。
朱自清先生有文章,《经典常谈》开宗明义:“中等以上的教育,经典训练应该是必须的。经典不在实用,而在文化,在见识。对一个有相当教育的国民也是一种义务。”文章介绍了中国人应该阅读的经典著作。写得很好。建议对中国文化感兴趣的人都阅读一下。如果经典只被少数精英诠释,全民文化素质必然
降低。当然这对统治者是最好的。对精英是最好的。老百姓听他们说教就是了。谁也不要再去独立思考。
朱先生当时就指出鲁迅们之所以写出好文章也是基于古文的功力。事实上,现代人的文章为什么不如那一代人,因为他们把后学者的路断掉了。就像原本一片土地,也许长了过多的毒草,但毕竟还有花。现在他们把水断了,这片土地就成了荒漠。后学者根本没有那样的文化底蕴。怎么写文章.文革这个时候就开始了。
我的观点是,白话和文言文应该共存。当然没有必要强迫非精英去阅读,但文字不应该只为了实用。不然,大家都作速记员好了。
guanzhong:有些时候写文章呼吁是没有什么用的,语言文字的发展自有其规律,社会的需要使然,该死的早晚都要死,呼吁只不过给文人一点良好的自我感觉罢了!:-)
华:有用的。八君写了,我坚决响应。我想写,写不好.有人写,我就响应.
胡适,鲁迅他们也是写文章呼吁。才有了白话。我希望白话与文言共存。语言发展有它的规律,但大家有一个共识是因为钱的原因。如果中国的公务员考试考一门文言文,文言文就会复活。很多人一辈子也不会出国,考英语劳民伤财。
我相信在文言文和英语中选一门来考,考文言文的人不会少。
写得比较激烈.guanzhong原谅啊.:)
- posted on 07/10/2007
华姐啊:关中这厮就是咱们咖啡里的混不讲理的打赤膊网络语言小流氓, 他叫男人们尖头鳗, 女士们为绿营地,动不动就要开爬蹄, 开完了还哈哥。。。干了坏事还心花怒放,抬头望望红彤彤的大太阳,自有一番现代仓颉的忽悠感。
八爷就是那个真正的尖头鳗, 咖啡天空里最亮的那颗星,上次我中文里加了一个蝌蚪文,还被他数落了一番。
你要把关中争取到八爷的阵营里,就不怕他把你最心爱的东西给打碎了?
华 wrote:
Guanzhong 好。 上次响应你的号召,表现尚可。遗憾这次兵分敌我了。不过对我还是一致的,文字是古老的母亲呀。和我爱妈妈是一样的。这样讲,能不能把Guanzhong争取到老八阵营?
老八这个议题太重大了。要戴着钢盔上来。:-)
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
我们讨论的其实不是精英和平民的问题,而是大众表达力是否被媒介影响而降低到不可接受的水平。
这里有个统计:
英语词汇总量(Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1963):54000 词汇家族
英语为第一语言的人的词汇量大致如下:
五岁孩童:4000-5000
小学毕业:10000
高中毕业:17000
大学毕业:20000
由此可见,电视播音员用词量下降到5000左右时已经不足以认真讨论任何问题,尽管电视的5000和孩童的5000涵盖面可能不完全一样。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
七月您是夸我还是贬我?怎么听着怪怪地。:-)
July wrote:
八爷就是那个真正的尖头鳗, 咖啡天空里最亮的那颗星,上次我中文里加了一个蝌蚪文,还被他数落了一番。
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
俺是用5000字以下的语言在夸您啊,当然怪 :-)
八十一子 wrote:
七月您是夸我还是贬我?怎么听着怪怪地。:-)
July wrote:
八爷就是那个真正的尖头鳗, 咖啡天空里最亮的那颗星,上次我中文里加了一个蝌蚪文,还被他数落了一番。
- posted on 07/10/2007
I have serious doubt about these figures. Where did you find them?
I have a 6-yr old in my house, whose first language is English. And I have frequent contact with other kids of his age. I believe none of them has a vocabulary of 4000-5000.
BTW, Webster's Third International Dictionary (3rd edition) has more than 500,000 entries, most of them have outlived their relevance.
八十一子 wrote:
我们讨论的其实不是精英和平民的问题,而是大众表达力是否被媒介影响而降低到不可接受的水平。
这里有个统计:
英语词汇总量(Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1963):54000
英语为第一语言的人的词汇量大致如下:
五岁孩童:4000-5000
小学毕业:10000
高中毕业:17000
大学毕业:20000
由此可见,电视播音员用词量下降到5000左右时已经不足以认真讨论任何问题,尽管电视的5000和孩童的5000涵盖面可能不完全一样。 - posted on 07/10/2007
我应该说明Webster的54000是指“词汇族word families, 不是单词。我把楼上的有关帖子修正了。谢谢。
Here is the article:
VOCABULARY SIZE, TEXT COVERAGE AND WORD LISTS
Paul Nation and Robert Waring
How much vocabulary does a second language learner need?
There are three ways of answering this question. One way is to ask "How many words are there in the target language?" Another way is to ask "How many words do native speakers know?" A third way is to ask "How many words are needed to do the things that a language user needs to do?" We will look at answers to each of these questions.
This discussion looks only at vocabulary and it should not be assumed that if a learner has sufficient vocabulary then all else is easy. Vocabulary knowledge is only one component of language skills such as reading and speaking. It should also not be assumed that vocabulary knowledge is always a prerequisite to the performance of language skills. Vocabulary knowledge enables language use, language use enables the increase of vocabulary knowledge, knowledge of the world enables the increase of vocabulary knowledge and language use and so on (Nation, 1993b). With these cautions in mind let us now look at estimates of vocabulary size and their significance for second language learners.
How many words are there in English?
The most straightforward way to answer this question is to look at the number of words in the largest dictionary. This usually upsets dictionary makers. They see the vocabulary of the language as a continually changing entity with new words and new uses of old words being added and old words falling into disuse. They also see the problems in deciding if walk as a noun is the same word as walk as verb, if compound items like goose grass are counted as separate words, and if names like Vegemite, Agnes, and Nottingham are to be counted as words. These are all real problems, but they are able to be dealt with systematically in a reliable way.
Two separate studies (Dupuy, 1974; Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990) have looked at the vocabulary of Webster's Third International Dictionary (1963), the largest non-historical dictionary of English when it was published. When compound words, archaic words, abbreviations, proper names, alternative spellings and dialect forms are excluded, and when words are classified into word families consisting of a base word, inflected forms, and transparent derivations, Webster's 3rd has a vocabulary of around 54,000 word families. This is a learning goal far beyond the reaches of second language learners and, as we shall see, most native speakers.
How many words do native speakers know?
For over 100 years there have been published reports of systematic attempts to measure the vocabulary size of native speakers of English. There have been various motivations for such studies but behind most of them lies the idea that vocabulary size is a reflection of how educated, intelligent, or well read a person is. A large vocabulary size is seen as being something valuable. Unfortunately the measurement of vocabulary size has been bedeviled by serious methodological problems largely centring around the questions of "What should be counted as a word?", "How can we draw a sample of words from a dictionary to make a vocabulary test?", and "How do we test to see if a word is known or not?". Failure to deal adequately with these questions has resulted in several studies of vocabulary size which give very misleading results. For a discussion of these issues see Nation (1993a), Lorge and Chall (1963), and Thorndike (1924).
Teachers of English as a second language may be interested in measures of native speakers' vocabulary size because these can provide some indication of the size of the learning task facing second language learners, particularly those who need to study and work alongside native speakers in English medium schools and universities or workplaces.
At present the best conservative rule of thumb that we have is that up to a vocabulary size of around 20,000 word families, we should expect that native speakers will add roughly 1000 word families a year to their vocabulary size. That means that a five year old beginning school will have a vocabulary of around 4000 to 5000 word families. A university graduate will have a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990). These figures are very rough and there is likely to be very large variation between individuals. These figures exclude proper names, compound words, abbreviations, and foreign words. A word family is taken to include a base word, its inflected forms, and a small number of reasonably regular derived forms (Bauer and Nation, 1993). Some researchers suggest vocabulary sizes larger than these (see Nagy, this volume), but in the well conducted studies (for example, D'Anna, Zechmeister nad Hall, 1991) the differences are mainly the result of differences in what items are included in the count and how a word family is defined.
A small study of the vocabulary growth of non-native speakers in an English medium primary school (Jamieson, 1976) suggests that in such a situation non-native speakers' vocabulary grows at the same rate as native speakers' but that the initial gap that existed between them is not closed. For adult learners of English as a foreign language, the gap between their vocabulary size and that of native speakers is usually very large, with many adult foreign learners of English having a vocabulary size of much less than 5000 word families in spite of having studied English for several years. Large numbers of second language learners do achieve vocabulary sizes that are like those of educated native speakers, but they are not the norm.
There is some encouraging news however. A study by Milton and Meara (1995) using the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test (Meara and Jones, 1988, 1990) shows that significant vocabulary growth can occur if this learning is done in the second language environment. In their study of a study abroad program of 53 European students of advanced proficiency, the average growth in vocabulary per person approached a rate of 2500 words per year over the six months of the programme. This rate of growth is similar to the larger estimates of first language growth in adolescence. Although the goal of native speaker vocabulary size is a possible goal, it is a very ambitious one for most learners of English as a foreign language.
How many words are needed to do the things a language user needs to do?
Although the language makes use of a large number of words, not all of these words are equally useful. One measure of usefulness is word frequency, that is, how often the word occurs in normal use of the language. From the point of view of frequency, the word the is a very useful word in English. It occurs so frequently that about 7% of the words on a page of written English and the same proportion of the words in a conversation are repetitions of the word the. Look back over this paragraph and you will find an occurrence of the in almost every line.
The good news for second language learners and second language teachers is that a small number of the words of English occur very frequently and if a learner knows these words, that learner will know a very large proportion of the running words in a written or spoken text. Most of these words are content words and knowing enough of them allows a good degree of comprehension of a text. Here are some figures showing what proportion of a text is covered by certain numbers of high frequency words.
Table 1: Vocabulary size and text coverage in the Brown corpus
Vocabulary size Text coverage
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
15,851
72.0%
79.7%
84.0%
86.8%
88.7%
89.9%
97.8%
The figures in Table 1 refer to written texts and are from Francis and Kucera (1982) which is a very diverse corpus of over 1,000,000 running words made up of 500 texts of around 2000 running words long. As we shall see the more diverse the texts in a corpus, the greater the number of different words and the high frequency words cover slightly less of the text, so these figures are a conservative estimate. The figures in the last line of the table are from Kucera (1982). The COBUILD Dictionary claims that 15,000 words cover 95% of the running words of their corpus. The figures in Table 1 are for lemmas and not word families. Word families would give fractionally higher coverage. Table 1 assumes that high frequency words are known before lower frequency words and shows that knowing about 2,000 word families gives near to 80% coverage of written text. The same number of words gives greater coverage of informal spoken text - around 96% (Schonell, Meddleton and Shaw, 1956).
With a vocabulary size of 2,000 words, a learner knows 80% of the words in a text which means that 1 word in every 5 (approximately 2 words in every line) are unknown. Research by Liu Na and Nation (1985) has shown that this ratio of unknown to known words is not sufficient to allow reasonably successful guessing of the meaning of the unknown words. At least 95% coverage is needed for that. Research by Laufer (1989) suggests that 95% coverage is sufficient to allow reasonable comprehension of a text. A larger vocabulary size is clearly better. Table 2 is based on research by Hirsh and Nation (1992) on novels written for teenage or younger readers.
The Hirsh and Nation (1992) study looked at such novels because they might provide the most favourable conditions for second language learners to read unsimplified texts. These conditions could come about because they are aimed at a non-adult audience and thus there may be a tendency for the writer to use simpler vocabulary, and because a continuous novel on one topic by one writer provides opportunity for the repetition of vocabulary. Table 2 shows that under favourable conditions, a vocabulary size of 2000 to 3000 words provides a very good basis for language use.
Table 2: Vocabulary size and coverage in novels for teenagers
Vocabulary size % coverage Density of unknown words
2000 words
2000 + proper nouns
2600 words
5000 words 90%
93.7%
96%
98.5%
1 in every 10
1 in every 16
1 in every 25
1 in every 67
The significance of this information is that although there are well over 54,000 word families in English, and although educated adult native speakers know around 20,000 of these word families, a much smaller number of words, say between 3,000 to 5,000 word families is needed to provide a basis for comprehension. It is possible to make use of a smaller number, around 2,000 to 3,000 for productive use in speaking and writing. Hazenburg and Hulstijn (1996) however suggest a figure nearer to 10,000 for Dutch as a second language.
Sutarsyah, Nation and Kennedy (1994) found that a single long Economics text was made up of 5,438 word families and a corpus of similar length made up of diverse short academic texts contained 12,744 word families. Within narrowly focused areas of interest, such as in an Economics text, a much smaller vocabulary is needed than if the reader wishes to read a wide range of texts on a variety of different topics.
How much vocabulary and how should it be learned?
We are now ready to answer the question "How much vocabulary does a second language learner need?" Clearly the learner needs to know the 3,000 or so high frequency words of the language. These are an immediate high priority and there is little sense in focusing on other vocabulary until these are well learned. Nation (1990) argues that after these high frequency words are learned, the next focus for the teacher is on helping the learners develop strategies to comprehend and learn the low frequency words of the language. Because of the very poor coverage that low frequency words give, it is not worth spending class time on actually teaching these words. It is more efficient to spend class time on the strategies of (1) guessing from context, (2) using word parts and mnemonic techniques to remember words, and (3) using vocabulary cards to remember foreign language - first language word pairs. Detailed description of these strategies can be found in Nation (1990). Notice that although the teacher's focus is on helping learners gain control of important strategies, a major function of these strategies is to help the learners to continue to learn new words and increase their vocabulary size.
A way to manage the learning of huge amounts of vocabulary is through indirect or incidental learning. An example of this is learning new words (or deepening the knowledge of already known words) in context through extensive listening and reading. Learning from context is so important that some studies suggest that first language learners learn most of their vocabulary in this way (Sternberg, 1987). Extensive reading is a good way to enhance word knowledge and get a lot of exposure to the most frequent and useful words. At the earlier and intermediate levels of language learning, simplified reading books can be of great benefit. Other sources of incidental learning include problem solving group work activities (Joe, Nation and Newton, 1996) and formal classroom activities where vocabulary is not the main focus.
The problem for beginning learners and readers is getting to the threshold where they can start to learn from context. Simply put, if one does not know enough of the words on a page and have comprehension of what is being read, one cannot easily learn from context. Liu Na and Nation (1985) have shown that we need a vocabulary of about 3000 words which provides coverage of at least 95% of a text before we can efficiently learn from context with unsimplified text. This is a large amount of startup vocabulary a learner needs, and this just to comprehend general texts. So how can we get learners to learn large amounts of vocabulary in a short space of time?
The suggestion that learners should directly learn vocabulary from cards, to a large degree out of context, may be seen by some teachers as a step back to outdated methods of learning and not in agreement with a communicative approach to language learning. This may be so, but the research evidence supporting the use of such an approach as one part of a vocabulary learning program is strong.
1There is a very large number of studies showing the effectiveness of such learning in terms of amount and speed of learning. See Nation (1982), Paivio and Desrochers (1981) and Pressley et al. (1982) for a review of these studies.
2Research on learning from context shows that such learning does occur but that it requires learners to engage in large amounts of reading and listening because the learning is small and cumulative (Nagy, Herman and Anderson, 1985). This should not be seen as an argument that learning from context is not worthwhile. It is by far the most important vocabulary learning strategy and an essential part of any vocabulary learning program. For fast vocabulary expansion, however, it is not sufficient by itself. There is no research that shows that learning from context provides better results than learning from word cards (Nation, 1982).
3Research on the learning of grammar shows that form focused instruction is a valuable component of a language learning course (Ellis, 1990; Long, 1988). Courses with a form focused component achieve better results than courses without such a component. The important issue is to achieve a balance between meaning focused activities, form focused activities, and fluency development activities (Nation, forthcoming). Direct learning of vocabulary from cards is a kind of form focused instruction which can have the same benefits, perhaps even more markedly so, as form focused grammar instruction.
To these research based arguments might be added the argument that most serious learners make use of such an approach. They can be helped to do it more effectively. There are other advantages for using word cards. They can give a sense of progress, and a sense of achievement, particularly if numerical targets are set and met. They are readily portable and can be used in idle moments in or out of class either for learning new words or revising old ones. They are specifically made to suit particular learners and their needs and are thus self motivating.
It should not be assumed that learning from word lists or word cards means that the words are learned forever, nor does it mean that all knowledge of a word has been learned. Learning from lists or word cards is only an initial stage of learning a particular word (see Schmitt and Schmitt, 1995 for further information). It is however a learning tool for use at any level of vocabulary proficiency. There will always be a need to have extra exposure to the words through reading, listening and speaking as well as extra formal study of the words, their collocates, associations, different meanings, grammar and so on. This shows a complementary relationship between contextualized learning of new words and the decontextualized learning from word cards.
What vocabulary does a language learner need?
The previous sections of this paper have suggested that second language learners need first to concentrate on the high frequency words of the language. In this section we look at some useful vocabulary lists based on frequency and review the research on the adequacy of the General Service List (West, 1953). Most counts also consider range, that is the occurrence of a word across several subsections of a corpus (McIntosh, Halliday and Strevens, 1961).
The practice of counting words has a long history dating as far back as Hellenic times (DeRocher, 1973). Several early word counts are mentioned in Fries and Traver (1960). There are many lists of the most frequently occurring words in English and a few of the most well known are described here.
The General Service List (West, 1953) The GSL contains 2000 headwords and was developed in the 1940s. The frequency figures for most items are based on a 5,000,000 word written corpus. Percentage figures are given for different meanings and parts of speech of the headword. In spite of its age, some errors, and its solely written base, it still remains the best of the available lists because of its information about the frequency of meanings, and West's careful application of criteria other than frequency and range.
The Teachers Word Book of 30,000 words (Thorndike and Lorge, 1944) This list of 30,000 lemmas (or about 13,000 word families (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990)) is based on a count of an 18,000,000 word written corpus. Its value lies in its size. It is based on a large corpus and contains a large number of words. However, it is old, based on counts done over sixty years ago.
The American Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies and Richman, 1971) This comprehensive list is based on a corpus of 5,000,000 running words drawn from written texts used in United States schools over a range of grades and over a range of subject areas. The main values of the list are its focus on school texts and its listing of range figures, namely the frequency of each word in each of the school grade levels and in each of the subject areas.
The Brown (Francis and Kucera, 1982), LOB and related corpora There are now several 1,000,000 word written corpora each representing a different dialect of English. Some of these have published lemmatized word lists ranked according to frequency.
The classic list of high frequency words is Michael West's General Service List (1953). The 2000 word GSL is of practical use to teachers and curriculum planners as it contains words within the word family each with its own frequency. For example, excited, excites, exciting and excitement come under the headword excite. The GSL was written so that it could be used as a resource for compiling simplified reading texts into stages or steps. West and his colleagues produced vast numbers of simplified readers using this vocabulary. This is actually a very old list being based on frequency studies done in the early decades of this century. Doubts have been cast on its adequacy because of its age (Richards, 1974) and the relatively poor coverage provided by the words not in the first 1000 words of the list (Engels, 1968).
Engels makes two major points. Even if a limited vocabulary covers 95% of a text, a much larger vocabulary is still needed to cover the remaining 5% (p. 215). However Engels overestimates the size of this vocabulary. He suggests 497,000 words. His second point is that the limited vocabulary chosen by West (1953) is not the best selection. Engels examined 10 texts of 1000 words each. He found that West's GSL plus numbers covered 81.8% of the running words (This did not include proper nouns which covered 4.13%). Engels' definition of what should be included in a word family did not agree with West's and so Engels considered that West's GSL contained 3,372 words. This is because Engels considered flat and flatten, and police and policeman to be different word families. West gives separate figures for such items but indicates through the format of the GSL that they are in the same family. This difference however does not influence results. Engels considered the first 1000 of the GSL to be a good choice because the words were of high frequency and wide range (p. 221).
Engels correctly points out that the GSL does not provide 95% coverage of texts. He also says that the words outside the first 1000 of the GSL are "fallacious ... [because] they cannot be called general service words". Engels considers that the range and frequency of these words are too low to be included in the list. He suggests that for the lower frequency words in the GSL "the work should be done all over again" (p. 226), giving more attention to topic and genre divisions. Hwang and Nation (1995) report on such a study. The results only partly support Engels' ideas. It is possible to replace 452 of the words in the GSL with 250 words of higher frequency across a range of genres, but the change in total text coverage is small - from 82.3% to 83.4%. Even adjusting for the difference in size of the GSL, 2,147 words, and the new list, 1,945 words, still leaves the percentage difference in coverage at 1.68%. Thus although the GSL is in need of replacement because of its age, errors it contains, and its written focus, it is still the best available list, given the range of information it contains about the relative frequency of the meanings of the words. In a variety of studies (Hwang, 1989; Hirsh and Nation, 1992; Sutarsyah, Nation and Kennedy, 1994) the GSL has provided coverage of 78% to 92% of various kinds of written text, averaging around 82% coverage.
Engels (1968) criticized the low coverage of the words not in the first 1000 words of the list. He found that whereas the first 1000 words covered 73.1% of the running words in the ten one thousand word texts he looked at, the words in the GSL outside the first 1000 covered only 7.7% of the running words. Other researchers have found a similar contrast.
Table 3: Coverage of first and second 1000 words of the GSL
Researchers 1st 1000 2nd 1000 Total
Sutarsyah (1993)
academic texts
a long economics text
Hwang (1989)
a range of texts
Hirsh (1992)
short novels
74.1%
77.7%
77.2%
84.8%
4.3%
4.8%
4.9%
5.8%
78.4%
82.5%
82.1%
90.6%
What is also interesting is the number of different words (word types) from the second 1000 that actually occurred in a mixture of different kinds of texts compared with more homogeneous texts. In any one text, such as a novel or a textbook, around 400 to 550 of the second 1000 words from the GSL actually occurred. When a mixture of texts was looked at however around 700 to 800 of the second 1000 words occurred (Hirsh and Nation, 1992; Sutarsyah, Nation and Kennedy, 1994).
The second 1000 words behave in this way because they are lower frequency words than the first 1000 words and have a narrower range of occurrence. That is their occurrence is more closely related to the topic or subject area of a text than the wide ranging more general purpose words in the first 1000. But given a range of topics and genres, and enough texts, the second 1000 words are more generally useful than other lists of words.
After the 2000 high frequency words of the GSL, what vocabulary does a second language learner need? The answer to this question depends on what the language learner intends to use English for. If the learner has no special academic purpose then the learner should work on the strategies for dealing with low frequency words. If however the learner intends to go on to academic study in upper high school or at university, then there is a clear need for general academic vocabulary. This can be found in the 836 word list called the University Word List (UWL) (Xue and Nation, 1984; Nation, 1990).
The UWL consists of words that are not in the first 2000 words of the GSL but which are frequent and of wide range in academic texts. Wide range means that the words occur not just in one or two disciplines like economics or mathematics, but occur across a wide range of disciplines. The word frustrate for example which is in the UWL can be found in many different disciplines. The UWL is really a compilation from four separate studies, Lynn (1973), Ghadessy (1979), Campion and Elley (1971), and Praninskas (1972). Here are some items from it.
accompany formulate index major objective
biology genuine indicate maintain occur
comply hemisphere individual maximum passive
deficient homogeneous job modify persist
edit identify labour negative quote
feasible ignore locate notion random
(Nation, 1990)
The value of the UWL can be seen when we look at the coverage of academic text that it provides.
Table 4: Coverage by first 2000 of the GSL and the University Word List
Researchers 1st 2000 UWL Total
Hwang (1989)
academic texts
Sutarsyah (1993)
an economics text
78.1%
82.5%
8.5%
8.7%
86.6%
91.2%
Table 4 shows that for academic text, knowing the UWL makes the difference between approximately 80% coverage of a text (1 unknown word in every 5 words) and 90% coverage (1 unknown word in every 10 words).
Table 5 derived from Hwang (1989) shows the somewhat specialized nature of the UWL.
Table 5: Coverage by UWL of a range of texts
Source 1st 2000 (GSL) UWL Total
Academic
Newspapers
Popular magazines etc.
Fiction
78.1%
80.3%
82.9%
87.4% 8.5%
3.9%
4.0%
1.7% 86.6%
84.2%
86.9%
89.1%
Note the low coverage the UWL has of fiction. Newspapers and magazines which are more formal make use of more of the UWL. Very formal academic text makes the greatest use of the UWL. The UWL is thus a word list for learners with specific purposes namely academic reading. The purpose behind the setting up of the UWL is to create a list of high frequency words for learners with academic purposes, so that these words can be taught and directly studied in the same way as the words from the GSL can.
Word frequency lists
The major theme of this paper has been that we need to have clear sensible goals for vocabulary learning. Frequency information provides a rational basis for making sure that learners get the best return for their vocabulary learning effort. Vocabulary frequency lists which take account of range have an important role to play in curriculum design and in setting learning goals.
This does not necessarily mean that learners must be provided with large vocabulary lists as the major source of their vocabulary learning. It does mean however that course designers should have lists to refer to when they consider the vocabulary component of a language course, and teachers need to have reference lists to judge whether a particular word deserves attention or not, and whether a text is suitable for a class.
The availability of powerful computers and very large corpora now make the development of such lists a much easier job than it was when Thorndike and Lorge (1944) and their colleagues manually counted 18,000,000 running words. The making of a frequency list however is not simply a mechanical task, and judgements based on well established criteria need to be made. The following list suggests several of the factors that would need to be considered in the development of a resource list of high frequency words.
1Representativeness The corpora that the list is based on should adequately represent the wide range of uses of language. In the past, most word lists have been based on written corpora. There needs to be a substantial spoken corpus involved in the development of a general service list. The spoken and written corpora used should also cover a range of representative text types. Biber's (1990) corpus studies have shown how particular language features cluster in particular text types. The corpora used should contain a wide range of useful types so that the biases of a particular text type do not unduly influence the resulting list.
2Frequency and range Most frequency studies have given recognition to the importance of range of occurrence. A word should not become part of a general service list because it occurs frequently. It should occur frequently across a wide range of texts. This does not mean that its frequency has to be roughly the same across the different texts, but means that it should occur in some form or other in most of the different texts or groupings of texts.
3Word families The development of a general service list needs to make use of a sensible set of criteria regarding what forms and uses are counted as being members of the same family. Should governor be counted as part of the word family represented by govern? When making this decision, the purposes of the list and the learners for which it is intended need to be considered. As well as basing the decision on features such as regularity, productivity, and frequency (Bauer and Nation, 1993), the likelihood of learners seeing these relationships needs to be considered (Nagy and Anderson, 1984).
4Idioms and set expressions Some items larger than a word behave like high frequency words. That is, they occur frequently as a unit (Good morning, Never mind), and their meaning is not clear from the meaning of the parts (at once, set out). If the frequency of such items is high enough to get them into a general service list in direct competition with single words, then perhaps they should be there. Certainly the arguments for idioms are strong, whereas set expressions could be included under one of their constituent words (but see Nagy, this volume).
5Range of information To be of full use in course design, a list of high frequency words would need to include the following information for each word - the forms and parts of speech included in a word family, frequency, the underlying meaning of the word, variations of meaning and collocations and the relative frequency of these meanings and uses, and restrictions on the use of the word with regard to politeness, geographical distribution etc. Some dictionaries, notably the revised edition of the COBUILD dictionary, include much of this information, but still do not go far enough. This variety of information needs to be set out in a way that is readily accessible to teachers and learners.
6Other criteria West (1953: ix) found that frequency and range alone were not sufficient criteria for deciding what goes into a word list designed for teaching purposes. West made use of ease or difficulty of learning (it is easier to learn another related meaning for a known word than to learn another word), necessity (words that express ideas that cannot be expressed through other words), cover (it is not efficient to be able to express the same idea in different ways. It is more efficient to learn a word that covers a quite different idea), stylistic level and emotional words (West saw second language learners as initially needing neutral vocabulary). One of the many interesting findings of the COBUILD project was that different forms of a word often behave in different ways, taking their own set of collocates and expressing different shades of meaning (Sinclair, 1991). Careful consideration would need to be given to these and other criteria in the final stages of making a general service list.
With a continuing emphasis on communication in language teaching there is a tendency to give less attention to the selection and checking of language forms in course design. Now that the benefits of form focused instruction are being positively reassessed, we may see a change in attitude towards vocabulary lists and frequency studies. The benefits of giving attention to principles of selection and gradation in teaching however remain important no matter what approach to teaching is being used. A goal of this review of the findings of research on vocabulary size and frequency is to show that this information can result in considerable benefits for both teachers and learners.
References
Bauer, L. and I.S.P. Nation. 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography 6, 4: 253-279.
Biber, D. 1990. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3-43.
Campion, M.E. and W.B. Elley. 1971. An Academic Vocabulary List. Wellington: NZCER.
Carroll, J.B., P. Davies and B. Richman. 1971. The American Heritage Word Frequency Book. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (eds.) 1988. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
D'Anna, C.A., E.B. Zechmeister and J.W. Hall. 1991. Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Reading Behavior 23: 109-122.
DeRocher, J.E. 1973. The Counting of Words: A Review of the History, Techniques and Theory of Word Counts with Annotated Bibliography. New York: Syracuse University Research Corp.
Dupuy, H.J. 1974. The Rationale, Development and Standardization of a Basic Word Vocabulary Test. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. London: Blackwell.
Engels, L.K. 1968. The fallacy of word counts. IRAL 6: 213-231.
Fox, J. and J. Mahood. l982. Lexicons and the ELT materials writer. English Language Teaching Journal 36, 2: l25-l29.
Francis, W.N. and H. Kucera. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Fries, C.C. and A.A. Traver. 1960. English Word Lists. Ann Arbor: George Wahr.
Ghadessy, M. 1979. Frequency counts, word lists, and materials preparation: a new approach. English Teaching Forum 17, 1:24-27.
Goulden, R., P. Nation and J. Read. 1990. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11: 341-363.
Hazenburg, S. and J. Hulstijn. 1996. Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics 17, 1: in press.
Hirsh, D. 1992. The vocabulary demands and vocabulary learning opportunities in short novels. Unpublished MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Hirsh, D. and P. Nation. 1992. What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 2: 689-696.
Hwang, K. 1989. Reading newspapers for the improvement of vocabulary and reading skills. Unpublished MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Hwang, K. and P. Nation. 1989. Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language 6, 1: 323-35.
Hwang, K. and I.S.P. Nation. 1995. Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System 23, 1: 35-41.
Jamieson, P. 1976. The acquisition of English as a second language by young Tokelau children living in New Zealand. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
Joe, A., P. Nation, and J. Newton. 1996. Speaking activities and vocabulary learning. English Teaching Forum 34, 1: in press.
Judd, E. L. l978. Vocabulary teaching and TESOL: a need for re-evaluation of existing assumptions. TESOL Quarterly l2, 1: 7l-76.
Kucera, H. 1982. The mathematics of language. In The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2nd ed.
Laufer, B. 1989. What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren and M. Nordman (eds.), Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Liu Na and I.S.P. Nation. 1985. Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal 16, 1: 33-42.
Long, M. 1988. Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (ed.) Issues in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House.
Lorge, I. and J. Chall. l963. Estimating the size of vocabularies of children and adults: an analysis of methodological issues. Journal of Experimental Education 32, 2: l47-l57.
Lynn, R.E. 1973. Preparing word lists: a suggested method. RELC Journal 4, 1: 25-32.
McKeown, M.G. and M.E. Curtis (eds.) 1987. The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Meara, P. and G. Jones. 1990. The Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Tests. 10KA. Zurich: Eurocentres.
McIntosh, X., M. Halliday and P. Strevens. 1961.
Milton, J. and P. M. Meara. 1995. How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language. ITL 107-108: 17-34.
Nagy, W.E. and R.C. Anderson l984. How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly l9: 304-330
Nagy, W.E., P. Herman, and R.C. Anderson. l985. Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly 20: 233-253.
Nation, I.S.P. l982. Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a review of the research. RELC Journal l3: 14-36.
Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I.S.P. 1993a. Using dictionaries to estimate vocabulary size: essential, but rarely followed, procedures. Language Testing 10, 1: 27-40.
Nation, I.S.P. 1993b. Vocabulary size, growth and use. In The Bilingual Lexicon. ed. R. Schreuder and B. Weltens, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 115-134.
Nation, I. S. P. forthcoming. Teaching Listening and Speaking.
Paivio, A. and A. Desrochers. 1981. Mnemonic techniques in second language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 6: 780-795.
Praninskas, J. 1972. American University Word List. London: Longman.
Pressley, M., J.R. Levin and H. Delaney. l982. The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research 52: 6l-9l.
Richards, J.C. l974. Word lists: problems and prospects. RELC Journal 5: 69-84.
Rosenweig, M.R. and D. McNeill. l962. Inaccuracies in the semantic count of Lorge and Thorndike. American Journal of Psychology 75: 3l6-3l9.
Schmitt, N. and D. Schmitt. 1995. Vocabulary notebooks: theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal 49, 2: 133-143.
Schonell, F.J., I.G. Meddleton and B.A. Shaw. l956. A Study of the Oral Vocabulary of Adults. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.
Seashore, R.H. and L.D. Eckerson. l940. The measurement of individual differences in general English vocabularies. Journal of Educational Psychology 3l: l4-38.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. 1987. Most vocabulary is learned from context. In McKeown and Curtis, 89 105.
Sutarsyah, C. 1993. The Vocabulary of Economics and Academic English. Unpublished MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Sutarsyah, C., I.S.P. Nation and G. Kennedy. 1994. How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A corpus based case study. RELC Journal 25, 2: 34-50.
Thorndike, E.L. and I. Lorge. l944. The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Thorndike, E.L. l924. The vocabularies of school pupils. In J. Carelton Bell (ed.) Contributions to Education. New York: World Book Co.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary. 1963. Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Co.
West, Michael l953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green & Co.
Xue Guoyi and I.S.P. Nation. 1984. A university word list. Language Learning and Communication 3: 215-229.
Contact Info:
Rob Waring
Notre Dame Seishin University, 2-16-9 Ifuku-cho, Okayama, Japan 700
Tel 086 252 1155 Fax 255 7663 Home 086 223 0341
Email:Rob Waring
Return to Main menu of papers - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
美国标准语言手册(The Brown Corpus)词汇频率:
词汇量 印刷品文字覆盖率
1000 72.0%
2000 79.7%
3000 84.0%
4000 86.8%
5000 88.7%
6000 89.9%
15,851 97.8%
(小资料:如果你认识冠词 the 和介词 of, 你就认识英文印刷媒体10%的字了) - posted on 07/10/2007
华君说得太好了。这一段尤其好:
华:以文化运动的方式反对文言文,废除文言文。就是把文字水平降低。文言文本身并没有错。把线装书全部扔到茅厕里,其实也是秦始皇焚书的作法。是反文明的。是政治超越了文化。只不过这火是冷火。不是明火。大家看不见。如果提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文,那么,提倡初中义务教育,就应该反对高中到博士的教育。
朱自清先生有文章,《经典常谈》开宗明义:“中等以上的教育,经典训练应该是必须的。经典不在实用,而在文化,在见识。对一个有相当教育的国民也是一种义务。”文章介绍了中国人应该阅读的经典著作。写得很好。建议对中国文化感兴趣的人都阅读一下。如果经典只被少数精英诠释,全民文化素质必然降低。当然这对统治者是最好的。对精英是最好的。老百姓听他们说教就是了。谁也不要再去独立思考。
朱先生当时就指出鲁迅们之所以写出好文章也是基于古文的功力。事实上,现代人的文章为什么不如那一代人,因为他们把后学者的路断掉了。就像原本一片土地,也许长了过多的毒草,但毕竟还有花。现在他们把水断了,这片土地就成了荒漠。后学者根本没有那样的文化底蕴。怎么写文章.文革这个时候就开始了。
我的观点是,白话和文言文应该共存。当然没有必要强迫非精英去阅读,但文字不应该只为了实用。不然,大家都作速记员好了。 - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
八爷关于词汇量和表达能力关系的论述过于绝对了。词汇量太小当然会影响表达,但是过了一定的阈值,词汇量大小和表达能力没有必然的关联。
另外,美国人在口语中爱用词组。词组的威力是无穷的。5000的核心词汇量,再加上排列组合得出的词组,日常表达应毫无问题。关键是怎么用。
至于正规的书面表达,则是另一问题。但也不是词汇量越多,表达能力就越强。
韦氏大词典50多万词,OED更多,大部分都是legacy, 跟今天的生活没有关系。语言是活的,每天都在变。如今google、ebay、pluto都可以作动词用了。 - posted on 07/10/2007
阿姗讲修辞学问题。我的看法,汉语修辞学不好,英语也不会好。语言都是相通的。
阿姗 wrote:
这个话题很好,不过等我去读了 amazon 上的三篇 reviews,仔细想想民主与表达能力的关系(前几天我正好还在想这个问题,因为读到 Petrarch 和文艺复兴时期的 humanists 对 eloquence 的推崇),这里的讨论已经变质了。我又定不下心来把我想说的写出来(可见我的表达能力大大下降了),又想跟大家讨论方言、网络用语等比较简单的话题,最后只好算了不说了。
Eloquence 指的是雄辩的口才,不单是词汇量。玛雅有很好的口才,所以玛雅不必担心。
====
Petrarch in his study program of the classics and antiquity focused attention on language and communication. After mastering language, the goal was to reach a “level of eloquence”, to be able to present gracefully, combine thought and reason in a powerful way, so as to persuade others to a point of view. The Renaissance humanists focused on the correlation of speech and political principles as a powerful tool to present and persuade others to particular concepts. At the core of presentations was the use of graceful style, clear concise grammar and usage, and over time the insertion of rational and emotional arguments. - Re: 缺乏表达力的美国社会posted on 07/10/2007
这叫做“正名“。名不正则言不顺。这是讨论时的首要问题。亏你老兄还是物理教授。没有定义、量纲,你怎么讨论物理学?
guanzhong wrote:
老八,有点咬文嚼字了吧?:-)
粗略而言,"学术"语言近似于书面,"市井"就基本是口语.更妙的是,网络把书面和口语紧密地联系起来.这里的讨论是书面还是口头?书面语曾经被社会上层文化精英所砖有,在人人上网的时代,已经被平民百姓的口语同化了. - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
By the way, you can express very well with few words and express badly with plenty.
I used 14 words here. - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
Well-said.
(two words)
touche wrote:
By the way, you can express very well with few words and express badly with plenty.
I used 14 words here. - Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
Word !
(1 word)
touche wrote:
By the way, you can express very well with few words and express badly with plenty.
I used 14 words here. - posted on 07/10/2007
老八,你让我给忽悠啦!:)))
“Bart Simpson Culture” (不是State, 我记错了)是很有点女权主义的说法,说
的是美国男青年们不上进,不争气,害得女人找不到合适的丈夫。当然,你也可以
说这都是妇女解放运动的错,自食其果。:)))))
原文在这里:
BusinessWeek
May 26, 2003
COVER STORY/Online Extra
"It's a Bart Simpson Culture" Academic Andrew Sum says one reason men are falling way behind in the education stakes is America's anti-intellectual climate
From his cluttered office at Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies, Andrew Sum has been watching chart after chart deliver the same disturbing news for several years. The data show a lack of positive educational momentum among boys and young men. Sum says the new gender gap could create a new kind of "social dynamite" that will drive deep rifts in society. If he had his way, high schools across the country would be plastered with posters reading "Wanted: Five Million Men." That's how many more men it will take, Sum points out, to achieve gender parity in higher education by 2010.
BusinessWeek's Michelle Conlin talked with Sum at length about his views concerning everything from Bart Simpson to the impending marriage squeeze. Following are edited excerpts of their conversation:
Q: You're very careful to point out that it's not as if boys are completely worse off than they were a generation ago. A: That's right. The real issue is that men just haven't made any real progress. The dangerous thing about this is that we're in an economy that is rewarding the educated more and more. And men are just not responding to this new reality.
Yes, some guys are doing very, very well. But more guys are doing very, very badly. And it's those guys that will dominate prisons, homelessness, and who will be far less likely to get married and raise kids. Men have fallen behind, and they're continuing to fall behind. And it's going to be a tragedy for the country.
Q: Are college degrees the new high-school degrees? In other words, is it even more imperative now that people go to college? A: Absolutely. Just think back to the heyday of manufacturing in the 1970s. Back then, you could go into trucking or construction and do alright. But you just can't get into the middle class today with a low-class education. Today, your college counterpart will make 90% more than you. And so what we have is a situation where men are really underinvesting in themselves. They're shortchanging their future.
Q: What's the ultimate cost of this underinvestment? A: Our country needs a well-educated workforce. Our productivity, our innovation, our growth -- they all depend upon the population getting continuous improvement in literacy and other skills. This lack of progress among men will hold down productivity growth. It will also have a big impact on male earnings, and, as a result, for taxes and government spending.
Already, we've become so much more dependent on the immigrant workforce. It's also true, when we do happiness studies, that better-educated people tend to be much happier. So there are immense social implications across the board here.
Q: But isn't it true that men with high school degrees still make more than their female counterparts? A: There used to be a big pay gap between the genders among high-school graduates. But today, boys out of high school only make about 5% more, on average, than girls in the same boat.
Q: What role is the culture playing? A: There are so many strains to that question. But one of the biggest things that jumps out at me is rap culture. It's totally antagonistic to academic achievement. It demeans students who try to do well in school. And I think it disengages boys from academic learning.
Q: When Michael Moore asked Marilyn Manson about the role of music in his film Bowling for Columbine, Manson replied that music wasn't to blame. The real problem was a media machine that promotes fear and consumerism. A: Well, boys aren't just victims. They play a big role in this, too. They need to get off their butts, basically. It's not cool to take AP classes. It's a Bart Simpson culture. Underachiever and proud of it. Cool to be stupid.
And these are the guys who are going to keep living with mom. I mean male culture has just become totally anti-intellectual. The male cultural heroes and icons -- very few of them have a brain in their head. We glorify male idiocy. And young guys pick up on that.
Q: And then what happens to the women who may want to date those guys? A: When you listen to women's groups, and they say there's not enough good men out there, they're right. There are fewer well-educated men than there were 20 years ago. And people tend to like to marry someone within the same educational class. Historically, women have tended to marry up.
Q: Now what do you think will happen? A: More women will marry down, or marry younger, or not marry at all.
Q: What's your prescription then? A: Men have to realize what women did. We have to go back and earn it. We have to start paying our dues.
- posted on 07/10/2007
Susan wrote:
老八,你让我给忽悠啦!:)))
Really? You!!! :-)
“Bart Simpson Culture” (不是State, 我记错了)是很有点女权主义的说法,说
的是美国男青年们不上进,不争气,害得女人找不到合适的丈夫。当然,你也可以
说这都是妇女解放运动的错,自食其果。:)))))
这个我知道。好像还在这里讨论过。大学女生比例已经超过男生。长青藤女毕业生也已经开始选择毕业后留在家里做家庭主妇(纽约时报有过报道)。她们认为孩子的健康成长比自己的事业更重要。Hats off to the ladies!
巴特辛扑森文化的另一个说法是男性边缘化 marginalization of the males.
- Re: 缺乏表达力的社会posted on 07/10/2007
true:)
touche wrote:
By the way, you can express very well with few words and express badly with plenty.
I used 14 words here. - posted on 07/11/2007
佩服华的认真,文言文不是错,你看两千年前的诗经多美! 如果当年高考让选英文或文言文,我估计还是选英文(现在也同样),但今后要我儿子选文言文:)私下觉得,文言文的出现就是与大众文化决裂的开端,是历朝官绅们忽悠平民的见证。首先对文言文的理解,需要一个再翻译,或者一个再意会的过程,其间的歧义自然丛生,也就必须依赖官方的权威解释。所以古文比较适合文学创作,让读者尽量往美好的方面联想,但在讲求精确传递信息的今天,文言文不能书写法律条款,不能描述科学论文,也不能用于iPhone的说明书,局限是显而易见的。对你的其他观点都非常赞同。
也同意悟空的论点,词汇累积到了一定程度就变成词藻,与辩论水平没有直接关系。
- posted on 07/11/2007
华 wrote:
Guanzhong 好。 上次响应你的号召,表现尚可。遗憾这次兵分敌我了。不过对我还是一致的,文字是古老的母亲呀。和我爱妈妈是一样的。这样讲,能不能把Guanzhong争取到老八阵营?
老八这个议题太重大了。要戴着钢盔上来。:-)
"响应号召,表现尚可"? 这说的是哪档子事啊? :-)
下删一万多字
............
写得比较激烈.guanzhong原谅啊.:)
你也太温文尔雅啦!这就叫激烈啦? 我打口水仗的时候得穿雨衣
:-)
现在没工夫理你们,等我上西藏回来再说!(红楼梦里那谁说的来着,"等我把本捞回来再说.")
你等着! :-) - posted on 07/11/2007
这两天忙着上西藏的事没上网,就总脚着眼皮跳,还直打噴啼,原来这儿有人念道我了,嘿黑!
管我叫混不讲理打赤膊的小流氓倒没啥,这话可得说明白,咱可没那什么谁谁的! 徐娘不徐娘倒无所谓.
八爷的阵营咱就先不去了,好不容易和老板娘在一个战壕里,还不得跟她在一块儿多呆一会子?
"动不动就要开爬蹄, 开完了还哈哥。。。",哎,你咋知道的?谁告诉你的?
要是七月只能用5000字以下的语言,那我这就是1000字以下的了,你们凑和着瞧吧!
July wrote:
华姐啊:关中这厮就是咱们咖啡里的混不讲理的打赤膊网络语言小流氓, 他叫男人们尖头鳗, 女士们为绿营地,动不动就要开爬蹄, 开完了还哈哥。。。干了坏事还心花怒放,抬头望望红彤彤的大太阳,自有一番现代仓颉的忽悠感。
八爷就是那个真正的尖头鳗, 咖啡天空里最亮的那颗星,上次我中文里加了一个蝌蚪文,还被他数落了一番。
你要把关中争取到八爷的阵营里,就不怕他把你最心爱的东西给打碎了? - posted on 07/11/2007
华 wrote:
guanzhong:几个中国古人四岁读诗经? 多少中国古人终生文盲?
现在的孩子学数理化,几个古人懂?
华:古人四岁读诗经虽然人数少,但说明学习汉字和难易关系不大。古人终生文盲虽然多,不是不能学,而是没有钱学?政府也没有普及教育?现在的孩子学数理化, 但有几个人懂易经,懂五谷农耕,花花草草。中药草药。打井造房,冶炼陶瓷等等。而且绝大部分的学习都是模仿,并不是自己创造的。看现在高考,花了那么多精力,好多是浪费时间。如果用来读两句古诗也好呀。
声明,我是反对高考的.特别是死记硬背.孔子多好啊.没有听说要考试.有教无类.圣人伟大.
这条线讨论的主要焦点是平民 vs. 精英的语言文字.如果你想强调学习汉字的难易,我没有什么要说的.不过你要是惋惜"易经,五谷农耕,花花草草。中药草药。打井造房,冶炼陶瓷",那我得说现如今的理工农医比几百几千年前的先进太多了.
guanzhong:曾在一个台湾人占绝大多数的中文学校懂事会混过两年,参与过有关简体或繁体字,汉语拼音或注音符号的讨论决策.有个懂事曾慷慨激昂地说过如上的话,坚决反对简体字.但表决的时候压倒多数的人同意教简体字和汉语拼音,当时甚感意外.
华:原因是实用,台湾人知道学简化字与大陆容易交流。
很多华人想把自己的孩子培养成超天才,其实汉字才是最开发人的大脑。如果他们知道了就要投票学繁体字。中国人为什么智商高,一是汉字,二是用筷子。三和父母在一起。或者姥姥,外婆背上长大的。我不反对简化字。简化和繁体字属一个系统。具有同样的审美。
"原因是实用", Now you are talking! That is precisely my point, 实用! 台湾人学简化字与大陆容易交流,大陆人用简化字是为了更容易普及文字.广而言之,语言文字的演变都是受人的实用,社会的需要的驱使. 甲古文篆字被淘汰是必然的,政府命令文人呼吁都帮不了忙.
"中国人智商高,一是汉字,二是用筷子。三和父母在一起。或者姥姥,外婆背上长大的".我最多能认同第三条.犹太民族的智商也挺高,对文明的贡献很大吧,他们既不用汉字也不用筷子.
但我反对把字母夹在汉语中。破坏了汉语的美.
国内人不喜欢海派说话夹洋字。结果现在国内的媒体用得更多。PK,VS,WHO,WTO,IT,GDP,SARS等等。好像全国人民都和国际接轨了。我回国探亲,问好多人都不知道意思。只晓得政府在用,所以照本宣科。和以前读政治报告一样的心理。但这些词可以翻译更清楚的意思。中文也简单,比如,世卫,世博,世贸。不过PK什么意思,我不知道。
有一个语文特级教师希望学生用纯正的汉语。但她讲课上来就写ABCD几条。我后来说,ABCD不是中文,为什么不用甲乙丙丁呢?或者一二三四。甲乙丙丁才是中国最早的古文字。老师尴尬地笑一下,忘记了ABCD不是中文。
还有写网络语言比如晕ing. 9494可以说因为简单。晕和ing一样三个字母。而且还要从中文转化成英文字母。更费时。就有点假公主的感觉。
当然普通人要这样用是自然。但是国家的媒体就应该按照现代汉语辞典来写字。
其实我基本同意你说的.文字的使用也是个谱系.正式的文件当然不该9494啦!
guanzhong:文字首先是大众交流表达的工具,其次才是自封或互封的精英们的"思维本身".只强调后者既片面,也无效.
华:交流表达的就是人们的思想。世界上有几种人是自言自语的,儿童,老人,心理原因,教育比较低,所谓想什么说什么,他们的语言就是思维。如果不准他们说就会生病。大学生开始写论文都涉及到语言的准确,精确。现当代哲学大部份都涉及到语言哲学。
还是个平民和精英的关系问题(老毛所谓的普及和提高).两三千字足以应付日常生活,足以表达平民们的思维和感情.平民们的表达能力从来都不如和文化精英们的,但我不觉得现代平民的表达力更低于过去的平民,除非有数据证明.
文化精英们谈哲学谈艺术自然要更多的词汇和更强的表达力.但他们的表达力不如他们的先辈吗?
guanzhong:并没有人要把文字水平降低,但要普及文化,就需要某种简化(白话文,简化字之类).当年既然提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文.精英们要读经典,尽可以去学古文,但不能让非精英们陪着付出代价.
华:以文化运动的方式反对文言文,废除文言文。就是把文字水平降低。文言文本身并没有错。把线装书全部扔到茅厕里,其实也是秦始皇焚书的作法。是反文明的。是政治超越了文化。只不过这火是冷火。不是明火。大家看不见。
如果提倡白话文,就自然要相对地反对文言文,那么,提倡初中义务教育,就应该反对高中到博士的教育。
提倡初中义务教育并不影响高中到博士的教育,因为这是一种量的增加.但提倡在日常生活中,在政府公文中,在报纸上使用白话文,就自然是反对在这些场合使用文言文,因为这是一种质的替换.不大一样,不是吗?
朱自清先生有文章,《经典常谈》开宗明义:“中等以上的教育,经典训练应该是必须的。经典不在实用,而在文化,在见识。对一个有相当教育的国民也是一种义务。”文章介绍了中国人应该阅读的经典著作。写得很好。建议对中国文化感兴趣的人都阅读一下。如果经典只被少数精英诠释,全民文化素质必然
降低。当然这对统治者是最好的。对精英是最好的。老百姓听他们说教就是了。谁也不要再去独立思考。
朱先生当时就指出鲁迅们之所以写出好文章也是基于古文的功力。事实上,现代人的文章为什么不如那一代人,因为他们把后学者的路断掉了。就像原本一片土地,也许长了过多的毒草,但毕竟还有花。现在他们把水断了,这片土地就成了荒漠。后学者根本没有那样的文化底蕴。怎么写文章.文革这个时候就开始了。
我的观点是,白话和文言文应该共存。当然没有必要强迫非精英去阅读,但文字不应该只为了实用。不然,大家都作速记员好了。
"实用"的内涵远不止速记.美国政府在提倡学中文,是出于实用的考虑,中国政府提倡学英文,也同样如此.即使有一天胡温忽然心血来潮,提倡全民学文言文,也是肯定是行不通的.
guanzhong:有些时候写文章呼吁是没有什么用的,语言文字的发展自有其规律,社会的需要使然,该死的早晚都要死,呼吁只不过给文人一点良好的自我感觉罢了!:-)
华:有用的。八君写了,我坚决响应。我想写,写不好.有人写,我就响应.
胡适,鲁迅他们也是写文章呼吁。才有了白话。我希望白话与文言共存。语言发展有它的规律,但大家有一个共识是因为钱的原因。如果中国的公务员考试考一门文言文,文言文就会复活。很多人一辈子也不会出国,考英语劳民伤财。
我相信在文言文和英语中选一门来考,考文言文的人不会少。
如果没有"实用"的目的,公务员们学了文言文干啥去啊?莫非你让他们都去研究孔孟老庄?他们学了英文倒是能更好地和老外们交流.这两天几次和出租车的司机聊天,他们都在学英语,为了奥运时能赚老外的钱.就算政府让他们学文言文,你以为他们会学吗? :-) - posted on 07/11/2007
越来越多的英文忽悠开始进入字典了。
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_us/dictionary_s_new_words_5;_ylt=Ar_IwUkPd6LqNGi.TwruoPQE1vAI
New dictionary includes 'ginormous'
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - It was a ginormous year for the wordsmiths at Merriam-Webster. Along with embracing the adjective that combines "gigantic" and "enormous," the dictionary publishersalso got into Bollywood, sudoku and speed dating.
But their interest in India's motion-picture industry, number puzzles and trendy ways to meet people was all meant for a higher cause: updating the company's collegiate dictionary, which goes on sale this fall with about 100 newly added words.
As always, the yearly list gives meaning to the latest lingo in pop culture, technology and current events.
There's "crunk," a style of Southern rap music; the abbreviated "DVR," for digital video recorder; and "IED," shorthand for the improvised explosive devices that have become common in the war in Iraq.
If it sounds as though Merriam-Webster is dropping its buttoned-down image with too much talk of "smackdowns" (contests in entertainment wrestling) and "telenovelas" (Latin-American soap operas), consider it also is adding "gray literature" (hard-to-get written material) and "microgreen" (a shoot of a standard salad plant.)
No matter how odd some of the words might seem, the dictionary editors say each has the promise of sticking around in the American vocabulary.
"There will be linguistic conservatives who will turn their nose up at a word like `ginormous,'" said John Morse, Merriam-Webster's president. "But it's become a part of our language. It's used by professional writers in mainstream publications. It clearly has staying power."
One of those naysayers is Allan Metcalf, a professor of English at MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Ill., and the executive secretary of the American Dialect Society.
"A new word that stands out and is ostentatious is going to sink like a lead balloon," he said. "It might enjoy a fringe existence."
But Merriam-Webster traces ginormous back to 1948, when it appeared in a British dictionary of military slang. And in the past several years, its use has become, well, ginormous.
Visitors to the Springfield-based dictionary publisher's Web site picked "ginormous" as their favorite word that's not in the dictionary in 2005, and Merriam-Webster editors have spotted it in countless newspaper and magazine articles since 2000.
That's essentially the criteria for making it into the collegiate dictionary — if a word shows up often enough in mainstream writing, the editors consider defining it.
But as editor Jim Lowe puts it: "Nobody has to use `ginormous' if they don't want to."
For the record, he doesn't.
- posted on 07/11/2007
More ginormous words get official nod of Merriam-Webster
(I was surprised expressions like "sudoku", "perfect storm", "speed dating" did not have the official status until today):
1. agnolotti
2. Bollywood
3. chaebol
4. crunk
5. DVR
6. flex-cuff
7. ginormous
8. gray literature
9. hardscape
10. IED
11. microgreen
12. nocebo
13. perfect storm
14. RPG
15. smackdown
16. snowboardcross
17. speed dating
18. sudoku
19. telenovela
20. viewshed
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 八十一子
- #1 木子丑
- #2 xw
- #3 浮生
- #4 st dude
- #5 玛雅
- #6 浮生
- #7 July
- #8 Ruozhi
- #9 木子丑
- #10 Ruozhi
- #11 Susan
- #12 小曼
- #13 xw
- #14 July
- #15 Ruozhi
- #16 guanzhong
- #17 guanzhong
- #18 鹿希
- #19 st dude
- #20 st dude
- #21 guanzhong
- #22 WOA
- #23 guanzhong
- #24 st dude
- #25 鹿希
- #26 guanzhong
- #27 玛雅
- #28 木子丑
- #29 guanzhong
- #30 July
- #31 浮生
- #32 苏格拉底很生气
- #33 July
- #34 st dude
- #35 st dude
- #36 st dude
- #37 浮生
- #38 浮生
- #39 guanzhong
- #40 守望古典
- #41 八十一子
- #42 鹿希
- #43 八十一子
- #44 Ruozhi
- #45 八十一子
- #46 八十一子
- #47 ME
- #48 guanzhong
- #49 华
- #50 文不达意
- #51 qinggang
- #52 浮生
- #53 guanzhong
- #54 guanzhong
- #55 touche
- #56 八十一子
- #57 行人
- #58 玛雅
- #59 行人
- #60 八十一子
- #61 st dude
- #62 July
- #63 st dude
- #64 July
- #65 rzp
- #66 阿姗
- #67 guanzhong
- #68 guanzhong
- #69 guanzhong
- #70 华
- #71 July
- #72 八十一子
- #73 八十一子
- #74 July
- #75 wukong
- #76 八十一子
- #77 八十一子
- #78 八十一子
- #79 wukong
- #80 八十一子
- #81 八十一子
- #82 touche
- #83 八十一子
- #84 wukong
- #85 Susan
- #86 八十一子
- #87 ben ben
- #88 WOA
- #89 guanzhong723
- #90 guanzhong
- #91 guanzhong
- #92 WOA
- #93 wukong
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation