Language Trainers Blog

Language journal has published a study by three linguists at the University of Lyon, showing that certain languages are more or less equally efficient.

The study compared the efficiency of conveying information in spoken German, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, English, French, Italian, and Spanish.

Researchers took a sample group of 59 people, who each read a sample text in their native language. The recordings were then edited to remove the pauses, and syllables were tallied in order to draw conclusions regarding the density of information communicated in each language.

Japanese was found to be the fastest spoken language, with 7.84 syllables spoken per second. Mandarin Chinese was the slowest, with the average syllabic speech rate at 5.18. However, the researchers note that in ‘faster’ languages, the individual parts of words are shorter, meaning there are more syllables. They concluded that a higher rate of syllables by no means implies that content can be transmitted more quickly.

A more comprehensive study, carried out by University of Klagenfurt linguistics professor Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon in 2010, reached similar conclusions. In this case, 51 different languages were recorded, with Indian language Tegulu found to be the fastest, and Thai the slowest.

The latest study, in more detailed form, can be found here.

Some debate regarding language usage has been stirred up recently, after respected French language body L’Academie Francaise placed some English words on their blacklist of words to “ban”.

In reality, only two words/phrases have been listed so far – “le best of” and “impacter,” a word which means “to impact” and is a mixture of French and English. This move is intended to preserve and enrich the French language. It does not include English words such as “weekend” and “sandwich” which are in everyday use in France. Other words, such as “email,” are encouraged to be abandoned in favour of the correct French, in this case, “courriel”. Here in the UK, a lot of French phrases have been incorporated into everyday language; soiree, raison d’etre, baguette, rendezvous, and deja-vu, to name a few. The difference is that my keyboard doesn’t have the necessary accents to type the words correctly!

Both the French and English languages are historically in no way “pure”, they derive from the Latin and Germanic languages respectively, and have evolved throughout time, incorporating and adapting words from other languages. Whilst it is admirable that steps are being taken to preserve a language, a few crossover words, especially in an ever changing multi-lingual world, surely can’t hurt as long as they are recognised as foreign words?

A voice mapping project by the British Library has collected thousands of voice samples from around the world. Speakers have recorded either six specific words, or Roger Hargreaves’s classic Mr Tickle*. Recordings are tagged with the place that the speaker grew up in, their age, and their gender. The map is based on the location the recording was made in (not the place the speaker comes from).

There are a lot of ways to look at this information, besides general interest and keeping a record of the way English is spoken todya. I read an interesting article about the fact that British accents aren’t being ‘Americanised’ (to be honest, I hadn’t heard that people were worried about the Americanisation of British accents or pronunciation, but apparently some people are). Based on the six words, controversy, garage, neither, scone, schedule, and attitude, investigations have shown that British people are definitely still pronouncing words differently from Americans. It’s interesting to note, though, that there is a tendency for British pronunciations to change, while American pronunciation remains the same.

The project also includes a lot of recordings from non-native speakers of English, which may help linguists to predict the direction of English pronunciation in the future.

The Voice Map project is on for a couple more days if you want to participate (you will need to have or register for an Audioboo account). If you’re interested in my recording, click here. If you want to explore the voice map, click here.

*Click here to learn more about why this book was chosen.

I generally speak pretty good English. (As far as I know,) I make few mistakes, and those that I do make, I am aware of. It doesn’t really excuse me, but I know when I say The Ukraine, it should just be Ukraine (although they used to use the article, so…partial credit?). Then there’s the none is versus none are argument, but I stand firm that none are is OK.

So imagine my delight when I came across a comprehensive list of common errors in English Usage by Paul Brians, Emeritus Professor of English at Washington State University. It has an easily navigable list, with each link leading to a simple explanation of what is correct and what should be steered clear of (no in depth grammar lectures here). Of course, it is not an exhaustive list, but I guess that depends on your definition of common. The list covers some of my pet peeves (e.g. could of, would of, should of; accept/except; affect/effect), as well as some that I didn’t even know were issues, like pre-Madonna instead of prima donna. Did you know that the original phrase is “you’ve got another think coming”, not “you’ve got another thing coming”?

So, if you want to have a bit of a laugh at the people who make some ridiculous mistakes, or just check you’re not about to make one yourself, check out the list. Did anything surprise you?

Edit: After checking, it appears there is no entry for the often misspelled Valentimes Day. Happy St Valentine’s Day! Have some good Valen-Times!

In the ongoing debate between language prescriptionists and descriptionists, I generally sit somewhere in the middle (but a little to the side of the people who believe there is a right and a wrong way to say something). With English as fluid as it is, there’s no real point in telling people that they’re doing something wrong, and besides, the fact that the language grows and changes so fast is one of the best things about it.

However, I recently read a blog post on Wordnik that made me stop and think. In updates of dictionaries, definitions of words are sometimes edited for length, modified, or added to (reflecting the changing use of language, of course). However, what happens when an integral part of the definition is removed altogether?

In the latest update of the OED, the definition for orthoepy was changed slightly, from “correct, accepted, or customary pronunciation” to “accepted or customary pronunciation” (draft edition September 2010). It may not seem a big change, but I feel that the missing word ‘correct’ is crucial. How are we supposed to have a standard if we only know what is commonly used? I know that in many cases the popularly-believed concept becomes somewhat acceptable, but where do we draw the line? How will I prove I’m right when I’m having an argument with someone who pronounces ‘pronunciation’ ‘pronounciation’?

I’ve found that a lot of native English speakers, when speaking to other native English speakers, say foreign words in a blatantly Anglicised way. This seems to happen even when the speaker can speak the foreign language quite well. I don’t know if it is because they feel uncomfortable ‘trying too hard’, or for another reason. I generally try to use the correct pronunciation, or my best approximation, but many other people don’t.

A friend brought up a good point, though. For words that are commonly used in English, we use the English version. Unless you are French, saying Paris as Paree will make you look fairly pretentious to other English speakers.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere, though. Somewhere where you are not a poseur but not being offensive to speakers of the foreign language. Where do you think that line is?

I’ve recently found the website Wordnik, which I would struggle just to call an online dictionary. It not only collects definitions from well-known dictionaries, but it provides example phrases and sentences (including online publications, blogs, and tweets), pronunciations, tags, statistics, and a strong user-generated component. It even gives you the potential Scrabble score (if it is a valid Scrabble word). People can create lists of words based around themes, so if you look up a word, you can immediately see what other words and phrases it is commonly found with. There is also a pretty well-used comments feature.

For example, I clicked random word, and got raptured. Raptured, meaning in a state of rapture, has a Scrabble score of 11, was most popular in the early 1800s (and the present, possibly because of religious connotations), and has one related photo on Flickr.

For prescriptivists, Wordnik’s resident pronunciation specialist (or orthoepist) provides his own pronunciations for nearly 1800 words (to date), and for descriptivists, any member of the site can upload their own audio. Edit: if you’d like orthoepist Charles Harrington Elster to pronounce something for you, add your word to The Request Line.

For the average dictionary user, this may be far too much information, but for those of us who are interested in seeing how language is used today (and how it was used in the past), this is a wonderful resource. I’d be interested to see if the concept will be extended to other languages, as well.

Check out the Zeitgeist to see what’s happening on the site. As of today:

Wordnik is billions of words, 828,852,001 example sentences, 6,458,204 unique words, 209,445 comments, 146,866 tags, 76,745 pronunciations, 46,119 favorites and 864,672 words in 27,830 lists created by 60,337 Wordniks.

Although in theory the English that you use (whether American or British) shouldn’t matter too much these days - there is a lot of crossover, and in general the dialects are mutually intelligible - there are still debates about which is ‘better’ to use. Individuals, organisations, and even countries have their preferences, which may or may not be politically based.

I think, in general, the trend is moving from a preference for the British form, and now people seem to be leaning towards Americanised English in non-English speaking countries. This is unsurprising, as American media is internationally pervasive, via Internet, print, and film.

Living in China, I have seen that the more traditional texts, more common in smaller towns and cities, are based on British English. New books often focus on American English. Perhaps American English is being associated with being more modern (it’s certainly sometimes simpler).

From a post by Harold Raley in the Galveston Daily News:

Decades earlier, while toying with the idea of teaching English in Spain, the Spanish let me know, politely to be sure, that they — and most Europeans — preferred the British variety. Now, however, I was told it didn’t matter. Either version was fine with them. English was English.

It took many years for American English to achieve parity, and in certain regions — Africa, for instance — it still has a long way to go. But in certain ways it appears to be on the way to becoming the favored version.

In my work as an editor, a number of writers — from Canada and India — have asked me to “Americanize” their British expressions and spelling in their book manuscripts. Unlike the English language schools in Spain that rejected my application decades ago, some now actively recruit Americans.

Native speakers almost always choose the way they were brought up as ‘right’, but, if you are a non-native speaker of English: which English do you prefer?

What do you think are the most beautiful words in the English language? Does the definition include what they look like, how they sound, and what they mean? Well, someone more qualified than I am has made a list of the 100 most beautiful words in the English language. Robert Beard, long-time dictionary maker, poet, and word-of-the-day-writer, has created a list of what he thinks are the most beautiful-sounding words in the language. Their meaning may not be as pleasant (e.g. nemesis, woebegone), and some of them I hadn’t even heard of (e.g. propinquity (an inclination), imbrication (overlapping and forming a pattern)), but it’s an interesting read.

Here are some of my favourites:

diaphanous (filmy)
effervescent (bubbly)
inglenook (a cosy nook by the hearth)
mellifluous (sweet sounding)
murmurous (murmuring)
susurrous (whispering, hissing)
tintinnabulation (tinkling)

For the full list, have a look at alphaDictionary. What’s your favourite?

In what surely is a sign of the imminent downfall of modern society, Sarah Palin’s non-word refudiate has been named New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2010. Apparently, the combination of refute and repudiate has a slightly different meaning from either word, as the Oxford University Press blog says:

From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used “refudiate,” we have concluded that neither “refute” nor “repudiate” seems consistently precise, and that “refudiate” more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of “reject.”

Although Palin is likely to be forever branded with the coinage of “refudiate,” she is by no means the first person to speak or write it—just as Warren G. Harding was not the first to use the word normalcy when he ran his 1920 presidential campaign under the slogan “A return to normalcy.” But Harding was a political celebrity, as Palin is now, and his critics spared no ridicule for his supposedly ignorant mangling of the correct word “normality.”

Just because it has been named the word of the year (and, granted, a lot of people did talk about it), and it has a definition (refudiate verb used loosely to mean “reject” [origin — blend of refute and repudiate]), it doesn’t mean it will be added to the dictionary any time soon. Check back in a few years’ time, though!