You Speak You | Kory Stamper | TEDxAsburyPark
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2024
- Kory wants the audience to realize that “language is not black and white; it’s not right or wrong; it’s not good or bad…language is about communication and communication is about context.”
How we speak is one of the markers of our identity and our individual dialects are what keep the English language dynamic and evolving.
Instead of making moral judgments about how someone speaks, we should simply listen and appreciate the speaker’s unique dialect as part of his or her identity.
Kory Stamper is a lexicographer at Merriam-Webster, America's oldest dictionary company, and an author. In addition to writing definitions, she appears in Merriam-Webster's online video series at merriam-webster.com, and writes and speaks on the role of language and dictionaries in society. Her blog about dictionaries, "Harmless Drudgery," has been mentioned in "The Paris Review" and "The New York Times." Her debut book, "Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries," was released in 2017.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
I had the privilege of spending some time with Kory during this process. Absolutely brilliant person and a great talk!
It's great to see her break free from 'Ask the Editor'. She has always been a great performer. A major TV channel should give her a weekly slot.
da
She's stupendous! I couldn't agree more with you!
Yeah but what kind of name is "kory" for a woman.
This talk is even better than Kory's book... and that book is providing hours and hours of fun!
I found this video very humbling. And I find most of the comments to be very sad.
Thank you for the excellent reminders that this video gives and its life lessons.
I just wish UA-cam had a "Love" button for videos like this one.
This is very informative! I am going to start using "irregardless" incessantly just to annoy people and to provoke them into wanting to correct me. What fun I shall have!
have always been a fan of her!
Anything Kory turns out is top-drawer material.
What a beautiful metaphor, language as a river. I wonder how she developed it. I mean it is really good.
Peace: (My attempt) Define language: A mode of understanding to complete goals & objectives.
Intimidation: You know what you know I know what I know. hahahahahahahah non involved.
who would you like as narrator? nickolas crushes it. also david attembourough?
Agree for the most part, but not sure if I'll ever be comfortable with people writing should of
Great, thank you! I'll adopt river image ... 'Irregardless' vg: never heard it in London, huge mix, inc. borrowings from US TV etc. Q: which grammarians laid down 'correct' usage? I thought earlier, eg Shakespeare uses dialect for less educated characters.
"Irregardless" doesn't sound right to me, but it's common in WI. I also hear "unthaw" for thaw.
She talked about this in her book (really good btw)
But what should grammar teachers do in countries where English is a second language?
Usually, ESL instructors primarily teach the academic/standard/business version of the language in the classroom. However, we might refer to this as “formal” or “academic” English instead of “correct” in many cases. Other versions of English might be used in smaller amounts in a conversation class, however, and might be called “informal” English or “slang.” We still know that most students need to use standard English in most work/school situations, but that they’re free to use nonstandard/informal varieties in other situations, as they see fit.
What's the number of people that have to speak the same dialect for it to be considered a dialect?
I "could care less" about getting people to conform to my preferred use of English, but I will always die a little bit inside when I hear someone pronounce 'nuclear' as 'nucular'.
Unloosen
Kory, _"I am done my homework"_ just made _"be done"_ a deponent verb.
So, in summary, everything is perfectly OK, in American English… unless you want to talk about more than one octopus. But I guess you gotta have SOME rules!
This might be the most useless TedTalk I've ever seen. I like her look. I personally think she can pull off the purple hair. I say this because nothing about seeing her is in any way affecting my opinion about what she says. What she's saying though is ridiculous to me. As a communication major, I cringe at her overly accommodating way of thinking. It seems to me that her teenage kid tried to "get her where it hurts" which for her mom is grammar. My guess is no child raised by a lexicographer can help but have excellent grammar. Ignore her 'cause she's being a teenager, and move on. Don't try to rationalize accepting all varieties of English language usage as a result of not understanding a teenager. Catering to "her linguistic identity" sounds like you're trying to be her friend and not her parent. Language and dialects don't have to be seen as good and bad, but there does need to be a version that is best and suited for formal communication. It makes far more sense for all of us, regardless of dialect, to learn one formal way of communicating than for all of us to be fluent in all of the existing variations.
You can't get rid of judgments about dialects. Humans judge others. Get used to it! That is out of our control. What we CAN control is how we let it affect us. I've had people make fun of my dialect. I just ignore it and choose to think of them as idiots. Even having a regional dialect I still value a set of rules that remains mostly fixed for formal communication settings. Because at the end of the day, I want the meaning of my words to be understood, and I want to understand the words of the other person.
Taking the analogy of the English language as a river to the point of damming it and things upstream dying is going too far. This isn't an actual river. Not all words are meant to make it the long run. Cultures, relationships, and people will die from correcting someone's grammar? OMG. I think people forget that letting go of some things actually unites us and can be a good thing. I have ancestors who spoke different languages and now they all speak one. They united together and chose one language to do so. The best of the foods and cultural aspects have remained over time while some were let go, and I assure you, it's been a good thing and not at all like something was killed off.
I can see why Webster's dictionary is becoming less of a reference manual and more of a free-for-all. This irritates me the same way I get irritated when a company advertises a color of a product with the wrong color name on it. People mix up color names all the time. I'm not referring to those situations. I'm talking about well-known products being given one color name and actually being another color. References are important. We have good references for colors. For example, when we're kids Crayola has always been a good reference for colors and their names. Customers can't get what color they want (pics aren't always reliable online) without agreed upon color names, and likewise we can't communicate what we want without agreed upon meanings of words. Just because some people start using a word one way doesn't mean there are enough people to change the meaning of the word or that the change has occurred long enough for it to warrant entry or change in a reference manual. We rely on reference manuals like dictionaries to help guard against fads and words that only change meaning for a certain few. Unfortunately, Webster's dictionary likes to stay current and in doing so--in my opinion--shoots itself in the foot as far as the purpose of a reference manual goes. I don't see what purpose it has if it's not a reliable reference manual.
so why teach English to native speakers if you want lots of currents in your river?
I disagree. I’m all for dialect and colloquialism but i still believe it’s important to use words accurately. I’m not trying to be an elitist but irregular language causes problems. Think of the old joke about the computer programer going to the store for a loaf of bread and his wife says, “if they have eggs get a dozen.” So he comes home with twelve loafs of bread. Also i’m well aware that commenting about this will open my comment to critique so have at it grammarians!
Loaves.
In your example you demonstrate why strict rules are less not important and sometimes get in the way of effective communication. A computer programmer (who in this example operates commands brainlessly as if he were merely a computer) wants a strict set of rules and will only adhere to those rules. In doing so he is limiting his ability to communicate since he cannot understand the instructions in any context other than his limiting rules.
I still don't get how: "I'm done my homework," is remotely close to an actual sentence.
Then you didn't unterstand any of the video. Or, to say it differently: You aren't done your homework.
Did you understand what she was saying? If so, then it was an actual sentence. If not, you should seek help.
[I=subject] + [‘m=am=verb] + [(my=possessive determiner + homework=noun)=direct object] = a standard SVO sentence. The only difference from Standard American English is that the auxiliary verb “be” (am/‘m) has been used instead of the standard auxiliary verb “have” in the present perfect tense. So it’s most certainly an “actual sentence.”
@@AbellaTeacherI am my homework?
Decent Talk. But damn that dress she was rockin' is so unflattering to her natural shape. Smh.
Her book is even translated into Japanese! I read it and found this TED talk :D
Why don't they just replace "melodrama" with "testimony" in the Oxford dictionary if this is their interpretation of "Civilization"?