From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:29:38 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.163659.26893@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzDvqF.MJF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.184814.3504@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>
>>Ambiguities have always existed in the English language. These can
>>be resolved by looking at the context of the word. 
>
>Wrong.  They can SOMETIMES be resolved, but not always.  Sometimes one
>has to guess, or to choose a *probable* meaning.
>
And in the case of resolution conflicts, it is the responsibility of
the writer/speaker to state unambiguously, his assumptions.

>>Are you suggesting
>>a removal of all ambiguities? Do you wish every word to carry a *single*
>>meaning? I doubt if you'll succeed. People will continue to use words
>>differently. 
>
>Why don't you -- just for once -- read what I've been writing?
>
>No, I don't want there to be one meaning.  (That would be like the
>"standard" you propose.)  

I never said that that standard would allow words to convey only
ONE meaning. Don't make such ridiculous accusations!

>I want people to be AWARE of possible ambiguities,
>and of the fact that the use of a word with multiple meanings can 
>result in people thinking of, not one, but of *several* of those 
>meanings.  That other meanings will have resonance in a particular 
>use.
>
Exactly, so do I. That is why I advocate efforts to make the context
clearer, rather than to sidestep the entire issue.

>
>Right -- which means that we can only communicate well if we are AWARE
>of how ambiguities work.
>
>This means that we can't put our heads in the sand the way you insist
>on doing, and say : "man in this context means human, and it's just not
>my fault if I get misunderstood."  We must use the words that are most
>likely to convey our meaning and ONLY our meaning.
>
There will ALWAYS be ambiguities, no matter how many "unambiguous"
words you use. It is the responsibility of the speaker/writer to 
resolve ambiguous words, in cases where the context does not make
the distinction clear.

>
>>Well...ok. I agree that *most* people have these prejudices. Isn't it
>>time we removed these prejudices directly, rather than make a futile
>>attempt to remove them by fiddling with words?
>
>False dichotomy, and the same stupid, ignorant insult you've used over 
>and over.
>
>HOW ELSE will we remove the prejudices other than by making people
>aware of them?  
Yes. Making them aware of the fact that mankind  (and similar words)
includes *both* men and women in many contexts.

>HOW ELSE will we make people aware other than by talking to
>them?  
Indeed.

>HOW ELSE will we use language to make them aware other than by
>choosing our words to make them see the difference?
>
By stating the difference explicitly, rather than using "veiled
references".


>"Fiddling" is the exact opposite of what we're doing here.  Conscious,
>directed word choice with rhetorical intent is a better description.
>
I will drop the term "fiddling" if you find it *so* insulting. I
will use "inappropriate" instead. What you are doing is inappropriate
and futile. Directed word choice will never make the people aware
of the abuse of the previous word. It is more appropriate to make
the distinction clearer and to resolve ambiguities when what  is meant 
to be conveyed cannot be inferred from the context.

>
>>How is changing a word or using a different word going to help?
>
>IT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO MISCONSTRUE!  It gets your meaning across
>with less danger of misunderstanding. It awakens them to the difference
>between the word they expected and the word they heard.  
>
You don't imagine fish, do you? Well, people don't *expect* to
hear words unless they are confronted with them. 
   If you do not want them to misconstrue, state your assumptions
unambiguously, before you start.

>>Using the word "black" instead of "nigger" did little to alleviate
>>prejudices. In fact, "black" came to be associated with the same
>>stigma that "nigger" did. 
>
>Where did you get that idea?  This is sheer nonsense.  
>
A recent posting mentioned this. And, it isn't "nonsense".

>>Now we have "African-American". I am
>>sure people are going to conjure up a word like "Afro" (similar
>>to "spics") and associate the same meaning with it. 
>
>And yet they haven't.  As usual, you're using a very poor example.
>"Nigger" was always used as an insult -- "black" very rarely was or is.
>"Black" iddn't replace "nigger" -- it replaced "Negro" and "colored."
>Those were not insults, either; you needto read a little history -- as usual.'
>
People *do* associate "black" with an insult. And people *do* use
"black" as an insult.

>>      The decrease in racist attitudes cannot be attributed to
>>language. 
>
>Stamp, stamp, stamp.  
Back to your job again?  :)


>Wish, wish,. wish.  
I know Christmas is round the corner. Maybe Santa will fulfill your
wish.   :)

>Language made people AWARE
>of what they were doing, AWARE of their attitudes.
>
As I said, prove it.

>>The decrease is due to an increase in the general
>>consciousness of the people.
>
>Was this accomplished without language?  Was this accomplished without
>increased awareness of the insulting quality of "nigger"?  Of course
>not.  You are talking about things you know nothing -- NOTHING -- of.
>
Did people use "nigger" as a non-insult? No. That is why the
word was perceived as an insult and hence, dropped from usage.

>>>Besides, what marker *was* there to signal the "men-and-women"
>>>context?  I didn't see one.  How do you know what context you're 
>>>in here?  Show your work.
>
>>How do you know the context when I say "Bill shot Bob"? Obviously,
>>some a priori knowledge is involved. In the absence of this
>>knowledge, some default is assumed. 
>
>Well, which default WAS assumed in this case? How do you know? As I
>said, show your work.
>
>Roger
>

In the absence of any explanatory note, the more common meaning of
"shot" (with a bullet) is assumed. Perhaps you can put this to
test. Take a sample of 100 students and ask them to write down the
first thing that comes to their mind when they hear this statement.
Then, attempt to correlate the answers. You will find that the
more common meaning is usually assumed by most students, in the
absence of a priori knowledge of the context.

                                                           Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english