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.

[Brandon T. Bisceglia]

Homer Simpson: "It makes me feel... what's the opposite of that "shameful joy" thing?"

Lisa Simpson: "Sour grapes."

You're quite right, Carol. This piece was more than interesting and intriguing. It was perhaps one of the most intelligently constructed rants I've ever had the opportunity to read - certainly one of the best I've seen on this site. You don't get enough credit.

I was particularly fond of the parenthetical line, "making the world �smaller.� What? Why not bigger?" This is something that has frustrated me to no end about modern culture. There are places where, in fact, globalization has expanded horizons and fields - such as the "long tail" effect that certain companies now pay more credence than they once did. That is, because of the expansion of varied product availability over the internet, especially in the realms of media (music, literature, etc.), the vast arrays of lesser-known products are know making companies almost as much money as those that fit mainstream wants. As a result, companies scramble more to make them even more available, knowing that the return will be substantial. Ten years ago, that wouldn't have been possible.

In general, though, the global community has been absorbed into a relatively small cultural niche, one that continues to swallow other ideas and digest them into pulp, extracting only the few necessary nutrients to keep the whole thing healthy for another five seconds. The reasons for this are, of course, multiple, and I think that both you and I agree that they exist, so I won't begin listing the whole of them here. I would have to go on endlessly.

Televised media in particular bothers me, though I have my qualms with other types as well. I haven't been much of a TV watcher for the past few years. I do watch movies here and there, but I try to make those experiences rich in quality. A select number of shows that I find entertaining, I buy on DVD so as to avoid as many commercial breaks as possible.

The other day, I happened to see that the TV was on in my parents' living room. I sat in front of it for a few minutes. When the commercials came on, it all seemed so fast, random, and ridiculous that I had to walk away. I've been out of that loop for so long that the images physically bother me, without my taking into account my own moral and intellectual doubts. Once in a while I worry that this means I'm missing out on major developments that the rest of the civilized world is going through, but then I recall that the opposite has taken place. I keep up more with things by reading, researching, and contemplating than people do who barrage themselves with what, in quantity, may be more information. The only thing I can't really talk about is what I saw on TV. When I listen to others talk about it, I'm glad for that, too.

I do have one point of contention. "Common linguistic misuse often does not register as such, eventually becoming acceptable, despite written grammatical standards chronicled in dictionaries and stylebooks." It might be my own tendency to be anal about these things, but language is not and ought not to be determined by the chronicles of it. In every case, it is usage which SHOULD decide where the meanings truly lay. Therefore, if I say "that" and you still understand it as "who," then no real harm is done. You have made the small cognitive leap that was required, and you understand that I am talking about something more than a "that."

It's a small point, really, because in formal language (especially the formal language of news and history), the distinctions ought still to be maintained. Dictionaries and the like arose not out of a need for people to have a way to talk to one another correctly (as I'm sure you realize), but as a way for literature to be disseminated over vast areas without misinterpretation. The printing press, that revolutionary godsend, made it necessary. But people can still talk in whatever manner they like, as long as they can make themselves understood to the people with whom they're talking, and don't let the laziness of it become a laziness of mind, too.

In fact, I encourage these impositions on language to be dropped away as far as is possible, as I've noticed from some of your work that you do. Deconstructing language ultimately expands what it can do. One only has to retain the conceptual rooting while breaking it apart, and keep in mind that both play essential roles.

On the whole, we're in complete agreement. People should watch their language a lot more closely than they tend to do. For if we slack off out of ignorance, that ignorance eventually penetrates not just the words themselves, but the meanings they convey.

[Rooney]

incredible...8)

[Samson J. Krupnik]

Well I'm going on instinct and bored. I ain't a stalker, believe me. But when you use "that", one could argue (as I am about to, sort of) that "that" is used so that the focus of the thought is on the ACTION of the that rather than the subject WHO who is, in our non-existent hypothetical, subservient to the action. The journalist's photograph is what we care about, not necessarily the journalist (f**k journalists) so that THAT, in this reference to the aforementioned non-existent hypothetical lying a bit northwest, but in dark matter nonetheless, works fine for me, albeit in a sort of cold, calculating way. Journalism should be cold and calculating, though. It depends on the subject. Certainly you wouldn't say "Plato, the author that wrote"...well you might, so f**k me, but more likely you'd say "The doctor that performed the extraction"...although both look and still look fucked. F**k. These are not good examples, Carol! But I'm right anyway.

Fight!

-Jon

[Francis Meyrick]

"....the obscure, unearthed word �scheudenfreude,�...."

it's actually "schadenfreude", which translates directly from the German to "love of damage".
(Enjoying somebody else's hurt)

"Globalization and its media coverage was projected to aid in the �humanizing� of peoples in other countries,..." By who? Or, by what? (to quote yourself)

"....which has led to juxtapositional schizophrenia, induced by data and sensory overload."
I agree with the overload. Juxtapositional schizophrenia? Plurale tantum. How about just plain damn indifference, glossed over by a politically correct veneer of empathy?

"Is this really going to have to get brutally Darwinian?"
Probably. IF.... you subscribe fully to Darwinism. Here's the rub though: the very advocates of Darwinism are forced to make a "leap of faith" in their thinking. Some, with amusement, would point out -respectfully- that there is a dichotomy here. The "leap of faith" is frowned upon for those who postulate a Higher Being. Yet, WHO can stand up and state with authority that Darwinism has filled all the gaps? My point: rewind your entire argument, and now, just for argument's sake, just for...titillation?... assume the existence of this Higher Force. Regardless (point well made) of whether "it" or "he" or "she" has been "made into OUR image....
Where does that leave your "juxtapositional schizophrenia"??

"The only Revolution that I can get in front of is that of The Mind; Freedom ultimately is in one�s Head" Very intellectual of you. No heart, mind, conscience? Compassion, soul even?
Now I understand more of your "juxtapositional schizophrenia"!
Where does the "Mind" reside? Hopefully not in our overstuffed, proud, woefully inadequate heads.

I commend you on your taking pot shots at a variety of targets.... especially, I enjoyed your selection as a worthy target being the assumed, superficial snobbery of the intellectual "elite". I propose a toast to you, m'dear: "Schadenfreude!"

[Pat]

It took me 3 decades to figure out when to use "who" and when to use "whom". I still battle "that" and "which". Now, I have another quandry to deal with. Horton heard a "Who", not a "That". Did Horton hear the Who that spoke or the Who who spoke? Or, was it the Who whom Horton heard? I'm all confused, now.

My conversational peeve is riled when folks preface their actions by saying "I was like". So, "Like, I was like wondering who was the Who that, like, Horton, like heard?"

This was an interesting piece. It wandered far and wide before arriving at the "who/that" conclusion, and I have no doubt that this will cause controversy. Well done. It's a provocative work and is indicative of the freedom of speech we are striving to preserve in these critical times.

[Brett Campaigne]

Ok given the political bent of this essay's inheritly metaphysical distinction... what does it mean to be ('a') who? And more importantly have we really achieved the 'who-ness' (the dialectic forces me to occilate between who and its' own linguistic thatness(which is a reference)) 'which' deserves to cast off its' 'thatness'. How can one escape 'that-ness' ontologically?

[Steven Silvey]

Owww....Big words make Steven's head hurt.

[Dan Giacobbe]

Read and noted. Will be sure to make some changes where applicable. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Mishel Rosario Reyes]

Hi Carol, I see my errors now and wonder how much I have used them in my writing. Hopefully, there is not too much objection in it. :)~ MIshel

[Ryan W Mayner]

it should start off "I, Object".
just an idea. sorry, i will read the rest of it now.