Long Live Punctuation

Let me just get one thing straight: I love punctuation. I don't care that it may relegate me to one of the lower stratas of geekdom. I actually have a T-shirt custom-made with the slogan "Long Live the Apostrophe" across the front. I actually wear it--with pride. Imagine my horror when I saw this article in the papers a few days ago:

Is the Hyphen Facing Extinction?

Giles Foden

Yes, if the lexicographers are right. The latest revision of the Oxford English Dictionary eschews them, dumping more than 16,000 examples
(including the crucial ‘fig-leaf’) for their compound equivalents (‘figleaf’).

The reason? ‘Our world of fast keying and quick edits onscreen has largely given up searching for the hyphen.’ The poets won’t like it, or
so one first thinks. How could Hopkins have praised ‘skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow’ without a hyphen? In fact, the jury is still out on hyphens in poetry. Many early poets’ work varies hyphenation in different versions of the same text.

Nor do style guides agree on the hyphen. Fowler’s Modern English
Usage makes a detailed study, then admits ‘usage is so variable as to be better named caprice’. Another style book says: ‘If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad.’ Sir Ernest Gowers, author of The Complete Plain Words, replies: ‘I have no intention of taking hyphens seriously.’ So it doesn’t matter if they are being used less frequently? It does matter, but more because of politics than poetry or punctuation. Arab-Americans, for example, might set much store by them at the moment, just as other hyphenated Americans did when President Woodrow Wilson disparaged them back in 1919: ‘I think the most
un-American thing in the world is a hyphen — any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this republic.’

Actually, the great thing about American society is that it compounds and separates at the same time, making both the universal and exceptional case. That’s also the virtue of the term-cleaving hyphen. Maybe its death onscreen is really saying something about the American empire and its provinces in cyberspace. Perhaps this is a moment anthropologists of the future, looking down like hungry falcons on the blue-bleak embers of our world, will identify as a tipping point. Or tipping-point.

Devastation (Giles Foden, why would you SAY such a thing!). Then, hot on its heels, Fear: My beloved apostrophe might be next. Oh dear lord, let that not be so! It is already suffering in the hands of the ignorant! Being used when it shouldn't be used; being ignored, disposed of when it should be placed on its rightful throne, so it can shine its loving light over the letters that guard it... oh, my heart squeezes painfully, and my spirit roils with unease when such crimes are c0mmitted! And they are committed with increasing regularity, a sign of the public's growing disregard for punctuation. Punctuation is at times arbitrary (come on, few social / linguistic conventions aren't), but I maintain that it is still meaningful. At the very (very) least, punctuation is comfortable, a much-loved tradition that hints of education and culture. At the very least, a sound knowledge of punctuation is a pretty skill which adds a touch of refinement to any writing. (Ah, puristically-inclined me...) Why do away with it? I mean, look at the article--do you notice that there's a heap of hyphens used in it? And in my own writing?

Oh what is happening to the world?


I need to lie down.


Hopefully the extinction of my beloved apostrophe will only occur after my departure from this cruel, cruel world.

Lexical Approach (in teaching Second Languages)

I was doing some reading regarding teaching methodologies/approaches in second language teaching last night and found the pieces on the Lexical Approach very interesting. (I think it was conceived with the teaching of English as a second/foreign language in particular, but I may be totally mistaken.) Anyway. The info below should give you the gist of the Lexical Approach:

(1) Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach.

The lexical approach concentrates on developing learners' proficiency with lexis, or words and word combinations. it is based on the idea that an important part of language acquisition is the ability to comprehend and produce lexical phrases as unanalysed wholes, or "chunks", and that these chunks become the raw data by which learners perceive patterns of language traditionally thought of as grammar.

-->Lexis is the basis of all language. [Lexis being differentiated from vocabulary: Vocabulary = a stock of individual words with fixed meanings; Lexis = includes those single words, and also the word combinations that are stored in every individual's mental lexicons]

--> Lexis is misunderstood in language teaching because of the assumption that grammar is the basis of language and that mastery of the grammatical system is a prerequitsite for effective coomunication.

--> Key principle: language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar.

--> Hence: one of the central principles with which to organise a meaning-centred syllabus should be lexis.

(2) Lewis, M. 1997. "Pedagogical Implications of the Lexical Approach" in J. Coadins & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 255-270.

Lexical items can be grouped like so:

• words (table, chair)
• polywords (by the by, upside down, what's more)
• collocations, or word partnerships (community service, unbelievably cold)
• institutionalised utterances (We'll see; That'll do; If I were you...; Can I offer you some tea?; I don't know about you, but...)
• sentence frames and heads (That is not as...as you think; The fact/suggestion/problem was...)
• text frames (In this paper we explore...; Firstly...; Secondly; Finally...)

(3) Nattinger, J. 1980. "A Lexical Phrase Grammar for ESL", TESOL Quarterly, 14, pp 337-344.

Teaching should be based on the idea that language production is the piecing together of ready-made units appropriate for a particular situation.

So essentially, we should teach collocations alot. [Collocation is defined by Lewis (1997, Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice, p8) as the phenomenon whereby certain words co-occur in natural text with greater than random frequency.]

As it is with all methodologies/approaches, it has flaws and weaknesses. One of the implications that I do not appreciate (perhaps because I am a little bit on the language purist side) is that concentration on the lexis will necessarily reduce the role of grammar. That makes things hard because up till now, most language teaching has treated grammar as the basis of language, especially of language understanding and language production. So while it offers a glimpse into a whole new world that looks to be refreshing and exciting, it's also quite disorienting. I mean, it turns everything as we know it, on its head! Think about it: language as GRAMMATICALISED lexis instead of LEXICALISED grammar? Amazing. Utter madness. Totally possible.

However, I woke up this morning still thinking about the key assumptions of this approach. I was dying of curiosity, because I'd never really thought about things that way before. So I nosed around, reading random pages from a couple of books, the newspaper, blogs, and guess what? I find that I agree. I think that a very large part of our language (spoken or written) appears to be fixed--just reused and cleverly fixed to appear original-ish. Look around. Read. Pay attention to the speech around you. It's really quite creepy! I feel like my head is going to explode with this new revelation. Very whoah-inducing.

So then I remembered this thing I got in my mail like years ago, one of those forwarded "interesting" things:

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it

I can read it, no sweat. I didn't even pause. There was no deciphering required, almost as if everything were spelt perfectly. And this makes for very , very interesting implications. Do you think that perhaps the base assumption of the Lexical Approach can be applied to spelling/reading individual words as well? That is, maybe we memorise chunks of language (words, phrases etc), but we may also possibly memorize the the individual written word (perhaps as a whole image instead of discrete letters...) and apply it to our daily reading, instead of actually reading each word as we come across it?

Sure, I suspect that at least one of the reasons we can read the above excerpt is because of our stock of "language chunks" in our mental corpus--as per the claims of the Lexical Approach, we may have been able to guess the words in the excerpt because they are expected to follow from certain words or phrases. I say this because if you were to pluck out random words from the piece above and ask me to read them completely out of context, I'd have trouble doing it. I mean, I'm one of those people who suck at Unscramble The Word games. So contextualisation is obviously very important.

But maybe we also memorise the image of the written word as well, and we only skim over words when we read, not go over every letter that builds the word. Maybe we only do the latter when it's a new, unfamiliar or less-commonly-used word.

The Problem with Shoes

One day, if and when I am wildly successful and rich, you know what I want to do? I want to be able to afford personally-tailored shoes.


Yes, yes, of course I want to do the usual--travel, buy stuff without having to think twice or even look at the price tag, regularly visit spas, have topless jean-clad smiling man-slaves doing my dishes... (that last one is a whole other story in itself.)


But...tailored shoes. Now that is something worth dreaming about. To have shoes--heels, to be exact--that fit my feet perfectly? Wow. It takes me breath away. Makes me feel a touch dizzy with impending joy, really.


See, my feet aren't the usual pretty, slim hooha. Length-wise, they're a size 4. Tiny tiny little freaks of nature, even for someone of my piddling 5 foot 1 height. But (there's always a but) they're wider than is normal--when I buy heels, I need to buy them in size 5 because the fronts are just too narrow. That is just something I have to do. To get a pair of shoes that fit, I have to settle for the shoe to be a little too long for me feet. [As an aside, allow me to point out that my body is also similarly disfigured: I can almost never get jeans that fit me juuuust right. They're always too tight around my thighs/butt when they fit my waist; too loose when they fit my thighs. I'm freaking Goldilocks who never finds her perfect porridge. Story of my life. On a Good Self Esteem day I tell myself it's because I have a fantastic nipped-in waist; on Bad Self Esteem days, it's definitely because I have birthing hips. So anyway, I usually make do by buying the ones that fit my thighs, then whisk the jeans off to my trusty tailor, who takes in the waistline of the garment. ] Admittedly, that doesn't pose too much of a problem finding shoes (just look at my shoe rack). But, like most things in (my) life, they could stand to be a liiiittle closer to perfect. So I intend to one day, be able to afford a SHOE tailor. Only instead of shortening the length of a pair of store-bought shoes, this tailor dude (or dudette) will make the shoes for me from scratch. (Seriously, the thought is such a turn-on). Because we all know that you can't shorten the length of a high heel shoe without throwing the aesthetics completely out of whack. Which would then prompt thoughts like "What's the point?" Like, duh.

My shoe tailor would totally make me shoes that are of the perfect length, perfect width, and have heels which are never higher than 3 inches.


I need to explain my three-inch heel theory, don't I? Well listen, and listen carefully, because some of the people who have been privy to this theory have made faces of complete befuddlement. What can I say, either they're not maths people, or they just couldn't deal with genius when they saw it...I probably should have it copyrighted, it is that good.

Ahem. So ok. I have basically linked the Pithagores Theorem to my heel theory. The longer your foot, the higher the heel you should be able to teeter around in. Think about it:






Okay, let me use my size 4 feet/size 5 shoes as an example. Due to my foot length (sadness and sorrow) my puny feet cannot deal with anything higher than 3 inches. I wouldn't be able to stand in say, 4 inch heels, much less teeter stylishly in them.


Obviously, the very similar numbers (size 4 base, 3 inch height) should not be regarded as gospel or anything, because they are not in the same units--basic maths sense. I really doubt that everyone can calculate their Comfortable Heel Height based on the theorem. This is not like mathematician-proven, people! You'd have to consider every person's pain threshold--we're all different. But you gotta admit it makes a lot of sense. All I'm saying is that if there is less foot to go over the hypothenuse slope-y bit, then naturally, due to physical shortcomings, it would limit heel height possibilities. Like, I would be able to wear gloriously high heels if I had bigger feet. Yes? No?



...I am so not a freak.

Of Breasts

I found out something about my best friend today: we both have a problem hugging other females. And because of this, I know why we never hug each other too tightly for too long, front to front, despite the fact that we've best friends for more than ten years now. I mean, we talk about everything. Nothing is too private. We even lived together at one point and had no problems squishing up beside each other in a single bed in our underwear, chatting into the night. We just aren't one of those friends who feel comfortable hugging each other too much. We do that whole hug-from-the-side thing. Maybe it's just heartening proof that our sexual orientations are extremely straight.

Apparently the very same thing bugs us with those woman to woman hugs--breasts. It's just... ick. It just feels wrong! For her, she hates it more when the woman is ample in the boob department. She tells me that the give you experience when pressed up against big soft boobies gives her the creeps.

This is where we're different. I'd much rather hug a woman with big breasts! Then, I can delude myself into thinking "I'm sinking into cushions! These are cushions! Cushions, I say!" It's the small breasts (you know, those that sit apart from each other?) that make me recoil. Because then? I can't tell myself that these objects pressing into my objects are not another pair of breasts, not another woman's woman-y bits. Blech.

And god forbid if the small breasted woman is braless and cold. Small sit-y apart breasts that are each uhm... trying to say hello. To MY woman-y bits. Eurrghh.

Now, hugging men. Chances are, I can't feel their pectoral headlights randomly jabbing my chest. Chances are, their pecs are not fighting for space with my boobs--no no, they're just comfortably solid, pleasantly masculine, totally happy to hang out without trying to pee all over my (chestal) territory. Yes. I much, much prefer hugging men.

Anger

I recommend that everyone listen to I Hate Everyone by Get Set Go. Seriously. I find it really refreshing how the angry lyrics are hiding inside this really catchy, upbeat melody. Sometimes you wake up hating everything and everyone; maybe it was a bad dream, maybe it is hormones, maybe it's just been your life the past god-knows-how-long, whatever. Sometimes you wake up fine, but then everyone shits on your day and you just want them all to... to... well, not die, but maybe suffer some small (okay, HUGE) public humiliation.

And since I'm not the kind of person who likes Hate Songs satanically screeched to the tune of Yuck, Get Set Go's modern rock, bubblegum version of this genre of song is perfect for me:

Some stupid chick in the check out line
Was paying for beers with nickels and dimes
And some old man who clipped coupons
Had argued whenever they wouldn't one
All I wanted to buy was some cigarettes
But I couldn't take it anymore so I left

I hate everyone
I hate everyone
I hate everyone
I hate everyone

All the people on the street, I hate you all
And the people that I meet, I hate you all
And the people that I know, I hate you all
And the people that I don't, I hate you all
Oh, I hate you all

Some f**king asshole just cut me off
Then gave me the finger when I f**king honked
Then he proceeded to put on the brakes
He slammed on the brakes, but I made a mistake
When I climbed out of my van, he was waiting
But he was six three and 200 pounds of Satan

I hate everyone (4x)

All the people on the street, I hate you all
And the people that I meet, I hate you all
And the people that I know, I hate you all
And the people that I don't, I hate you all

I bet you think I'm kidding
But I promise you it's true
I hate most everybody
But most of all, I hate
Oh, I hate you

All the people on the street, I hate you all
And the people that I meet, I hate you all
And the people that I know, I hate you all
And the people that I don't, I hate you all
And the people in the east, I hate you all
And the people I hate least, I hate you all
And the people in the west, I hate you all
And the people I love best, I hate you all
Oh I hate you all
____________________

Look at those lyrics. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at so much impotent rage. [I have always loved the word rage. Isn't it somehow so evocative of both its verb and noun forms? Rage. Rage. Rage rage rage. There is rage in her. She raged against raw beansprouts. Mmm. Good word.] I usually choose to laugh because, well, it's less detrimental to your blood pressure to laugh in the face of misery..and because you know someone out there is feeling totally shitty too.

I'd worry that I feel the lyrics a little too much, but I won't, because who cares?