THAT VS. WHO: The Politics of Linguistics

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-maric/that-vs-who-brthe-politic_b_100292.html

This piece might be restored. Please feel free to read all the reviews below. Thank You All !

Reviews

Speaking of politics, you're careful not to offend those for whom "that" has replaced "who". Next time you should write a piece on "who" vs. "whom", or maybe "so-and-so and I" vs. "so-and-so and me" -- both huge pet peeves of mine.

Hmm, I'm afraid the above appears somewhat sarcastic... Well, it's not. I enjoyed your story immensely.

[Brett Campaigne]

"the crys of the carrots! you see reverend Maynard tommorow is harvest day and to them it is THE HOLOCAUST!"

[Francis Rabbit]

As is becoming my habit when reading Carol's work I took notes. At first I was wondering if this was going to be some attempt to mix linguistics with sociology, and at first the work seemed to imply that the reason the confusion exists not out of some decay of the consideration of the object in the sentence (which would be just the formation of new slang, or just a culture-wide "edit" of the language) but as a decay of the consideration of other human beings, the result of the cruel, war-like culture we find in the political elite in our society.

I don't know if it was intentional but I thought it funny to read how "actually" and "basically" (which I find myself using quite a bit) were anchors to reassure the speaker's reality, how "schadenfreude" latched onto the language with a "vengence" (heh) and how the word "ubiquitous" became, well, ubiquitous. It added a little entertainment into a subject which can seem a bit dry and didactic. The text returns to a statement of disgust, I conclude on the entire nature of the distinction between the two objective pronouns, as Carol points out the "O'Reilly Factor's" likely response to the concern:

"You liberals worry about the silliest things! I'll bet you'd like us all to refer to rocks and broccoli as 'who' also!"

It might be considered an incomplete thought. Is there anything we can do about this? The idea of a "revolution of the mind" is suggested but that feels like the "multifoliate rose" of Elliot's hollow men, as likely in these times as our present leadership pulling their collective craniums from their, well, you get the point.

Another thing, an insidious old-but-new meme wormed its way into this piece, which I'd like to wag my finger. To suggest that there is sensory overload as an excuse for the seeming disinterest for the general populace to self-educate itself on other cultures is to suggest that there needs to be a filter mechanism in place. This, in turn, has led to the suggestion in some circles that an "editor" or group of people are needed to control the perceptions of the populace, to prevent the tyranny of information overload. This smells suspiciously like the "tragedy of the commons" which is used frequently to excuse the need for controls on the general populace, in their own "self interest". I question this. Do we need someone to control our ears and tune down all the other instruments in an orchestra so we can hear the violins? Or do we need to be able to selectively listen on our own? Even if what the poeple listen to isn't what we like?

[Lyttleton]

Reading you is a bit like being drunk... it can be unsettling unless you just give into it, and then it can be a damn blast. This was exhilarating to read because it felt like a rant, but without the usual tendency of rants to make completely meaningless tangential points. Don't get me wrong, you went on tangents, but they were thought out and articulate, and just as interesting as your main point.

Firstly, yes, 'who' and 'that' are not interchangeable and I think it's important that it be said. For one, grammar isn't some product of The Man, trying to hold down young writers. The rules of grammar were created as a way of ensuring that language always says exactly what you wish it to say, so it does not get away from you. To preserve our individuality, not imprison it.
Second, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed 'ubiquitous' getting tossed around like the town prostitute. Seriously, I think every review/article/essay I read for a year used the word, and while I think it's a fantastic word, someone had to speak up. Well done.
(My favorite use of 'schadenfreude' is in Sarah Silverman's stand-up when she says "Schadenfreude is German for 'Oh look, the little Jew Girl just fell down'.")

As far as Globalization and the political aspects of this piece, I don't have a lot to say. I'm not a very political person, and when it comes to presidents, I take the view one of my college roommates always espoused: If you're a president, it doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democrat or Independent, you had to step on so many people to get where you are, you're bound to be a pretty bad person.

That said, it is sad that the deaths of millions of people in Africa isn't sensational enough to warrant 24 hour news, but Britney Spears' 15th baby is worth a week of coverage. You know why the liberal elites hate Bono (of U2)? Because he didn't get bored with that whole "Helping the Poor" thing and move on. I mean, seriously, what's with him, doesn't he know it's fine to talk about helping out Africa, but don't actually do it.

Carol, I think you're an excellent writer, because you fascinate. I've told you before, I don't always understand what you're saying in your pieces. I'm fine with that, I can accept that we think on different planes when it comes to this stuff, but that doesn't mean we don't think in the same realm. I hope people see your sense of humor in your writing, because I can tell you've got a keen eye for the inherent comedy in life.

(And in case I didn't say it, it was a pleasure to meet and talk with you in NYC.)

[Jenni Meredith]

Well I am not so fond of ' thought police' or 'word patrols', but I am always concerned about the fact that the words we use echo the way we think. That's why in the world of disability arts and disability politics we are always trying to encourage people not to lump us all together as 'the disabled' or 'the wheelchair bound' but to put people first and say a 'person with a disability' or a 'disabled person'. My gripe with that starts when I read that 'person with a disability' often shortened in print to 'pwd' has been superseded by 'disabled' person or 'dp' because someone published a rant arguing that the other phrase was an outward display of some internal hostility or disrespect and I know that the next week another person will publish another rant to persuade us all to desist from using dp because that has been logically argued against and yet another phrase has found transient popularity. So what I am saying is I agree that our words do reflect our attitudes and I also agree we need encouragement to have the right attitudes and thus the right words, or maybe we need to be encouraged to use the right words and the right attitude will ensue. I agree with that, but I fear a scenario where we are told we must not use certain words or phrases and where these rules will be modified constantly as people devise new arguments for or against the use of said phrases and words. This that vs who argument you have teased out is presumably only a problem in languages retaining the neuter gender. In French, for example there is only feminine and masculine, and as far as I am aware no greater degree of anthropomorphism, yet no possibility of a problem with impersonal pronouns. And it is interesting that you imagine USA becoming like the nazi state since the German language has a very formal grammar with much emphasis on the neutral gender. In English, of course, we also retain, he, she and it. But through assimilation of Latin based languages, particularly with the French invasion of Norman the Conqueror, English has evolved into a wonderful hybrid of romance and teutonic and the rules of its grammar, have simultaneously evolved so that the gender aspect has become more subtle and less formally applied. I use the term English above to mean English as, officially, spoken in the UK. But English is a living language and many varieties are spoken within the UK. It is alos a world language and in USA too many different varieties are spoken, none of which is the same as our UK versions. Various types of English are spoken across the five continents. So I assume that this 'that vs who' problem is solely a North American one... Well solely a USA one in fact? It is something I have noticed creeping in slowly in the UK as we are fed so much USA 'culture' from TV and films. But I don't think it is as prevalent here as in the USABut, as with so many other things, your problems become ours about eighteen months later. Or is it just that we blame the USA for our problems? :-D Anyway I use 'that' or 'which' for inanimate objects and who for animate objects and anthropomorphised objects, such as teddy bears!! 'the book which I left on the table' and 'the book that I left on the table' are synonymous. But 'the book who I left on the table' is obviously incorrect. I don't want 'the broccli who sits on my plate' to become the norm though as that would be sure to see my vegetarianism cease. How could I eat a 'who'? It's a creepy thought that maybe the increasing predominance of 'that' over 'who' might not merely be a reflection of our alienating attitudes, but might be imposed by some authority to subtly steer our thought processes. So do the words we use reflect the way we think or do they reflect the way we are being manipulated to think? A thought provoking piece and many angles teased out here. Also a good vehicle for your political opinions. very readable and thanks for inviting me to read it.

[Tom Rose]

Wow Carol...that was awesome! Or should I say who was awesome? I don't know anymore...gonna stop talking and thinking now...I have a similar gripe with the whole spoonfuls vs attorneys general debate but I am waiting for Safire to respond to my letter of may 1st 1984...anyday now!

Rock On webby!

[Liam Sweeny]

You make many valid points in this work. Being philosophical in nature, it has very intense political overtones. Critiquing would be difficult, but I need to point out one thing.

You draw upon the importance of the proper use of words, and their meanings. However, you use globalization frequently, and there's nothing written about the World Trade Organization. As I'm sure you know, the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank combined are radically altering the sovereignty of third-world, or "developing" nations by destroying tariffs, privatizing their public resources and forcing them to liberalize their currency, putting it 1:1 with the U.S. dollar. This is causing often catastrophic effects, as in Argentina. Interestingly, Iraq is now the only country to fully implement the WTO protocols. 'Nuff said.

Globalization, in the political sense, is dehumanizing, by rapidly accelerating global wealth disparity. If you could incorporate this into the piece, it would be an excellent way to anchor the larger philosophical points you make.

Great piece, though.

[Wendy G.]

ahem . . . freaking awesome. many things i want to say, as there are many angles in this vast thing. first thing i thought of, last week i was reading an article on the subject at hand . . . not who versus that, but linguistics, and phrases that should be banned (i thought of course this was absurd, and i'll explain after) the one thing that stuck out in this article was an old couple who were angry at waitstaff for saying the phrase: "how's everything tasting?" and the man wanted to reply that his food wasn't "tasting" anything, otherwise it would be quite rare. Let's pretend for a moment that he had no idea what the waitress was attempting to mean in her question. let's pretend that she was speaking another language created by aliens on another planet, and he was confused. i suppose he'd have the right to get upset about not knowing at all what she was saying, as she was to provide a service to him, and that it was her job. another issue was the trade off on the phrase "your welcome" for "no problem." the guy was complaining that it had better not be a problem, it's your job. What the hell? I find it pompous as hell to pretend that you do not understand someone, just because you do not like the phrases they use. Of course i am just as apt to mess with a person about what comes out of their mouth, but it is all in good fun. I do not wish to see any phrases banned, necessarily, in fact i get quite annoyed when i am told that using profanity shows a lack of vocabulary. that's absurd. i have an extensive vocabulary, and i choose to use most of it, that being said, F you! I know that sounds kind of silly when we are discussing the ettiquite of language, because that really is the subject. I did notice that the Americanization of our English language makes it difficult to learn a foreign language because we have changed the meanings of pronouns, and if we hadn't it would be easier to learn languages that have remained "classic." If we all spoke the Queens English, then it would be much easier to learn other languages. I will give you that. I will also say that i have learned a lot from this, and may try to learn the laguage in it's classic form, as I wish to be a classicly learned person (what the hell is she saying?)

other points you make in this . . . Globalization . . . you make many points, but what stuck out for me was nationalization. I am (right now, who knows where i'll stand tomorrow) against the idea of nationalization, and i am not quite sure what our country is trying to mold us into, other than a world power, under false pretenses. That being said, i think it is the nationalization of religion that has caused the most warfare, and the most national of them all being christianity. it's more of an indoctrinization of nationalism, and it's all utterly sickening. to think that we can be told that everyone and everything is the same, and therefore it should all be treated the same, is absolutely absurd. it goes back to the who vs. that. if in the future we have robot maids like that of the Jetsons, will we eventually want them to be treated like humans? then what? will they be able to vote and make decisions for us? Will Brocolli be able to vote and make decisions for us? if you think that's crazy, you haven't been paying attention. In a world that wants equal rights for pets . . . it isn't that far off, is it? i would like Fluffy to be able to go to college and be whatever she wants to be, and can she drive a car and have her own iPod? Can I claim Fluffy as a dependant on my taxes? I believe that nature should be allowed to take it's course without the absurd need to give everything a right. what is a right anyway? is it free will? in that case everyone has them. regardless of what you think about other countries, they have the will to overcome anything, as they have before, otherwise there would be no UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . think think think. if it shall be, it will be. but let's not try to further indoctrinate something as trivial as a view of how an individual thinks life should be. there is a bigger picture. if left to our own what would we become, a who or a that? it's actually deeper than it first appears to be, yes?

okay, i'm done ranting . . . i want to save some of this for a later rant ;)

i was right, you are smarter than me . . . forgive the typos, i was going really fast.

this was so good, it shall be favorited.

[Beulah]

This is amazing on so many levels. It had me nodding my head and smiling as I recognise my many linguistic inconsistencies... and in some places just devouring your words in awe.

I live in Dubai and have the luxury of listening, on a daily basis, to 120 different cultures attempting to embrace "English" as the official business language of the UAE. Your story is so relevant and probing - I really enjoyed reading it!

[Michael Bauer]

i think you might be overlooking the way the mind, in mentalling, has no object except a symbol to point to. there is no him or her in mind's pure eye, only "that which is brought to light" -- in a nice-nice situation, everyone is a who-who, and that works. but not every mind action is an accomdating of intrusive noise. english is rather imprecise, but people arre the ones who catagorize, and sometimes we need to speak quantitatively. the concept "people mover" for van for people to ride in" is a little insulting to me, but evidently it's a happy thought to people who live with lots of other people -- like, my neighbors in honolulu: "oh, now we got lots room". they might be insulted though that i'm spelling Honolulu with a little 'h', back there. are you speaking of politeness or correctness or cognition in your "that and whom"?

[Brandon T. Bisceglia]

There are actually other points you made that I'd love to discuss, but I have to go sleep.

Wonderful, though. As in full-of-wonder.