Language Log

Earlier this year, we had some fun with a quirk of web-trained statistical MT that sometimes causes odd mistranslations of country names. This happens because information in parallel web pages is often localized rather than translated; some of the posts are "Made in USA == Made in Austria|France|Italy", 3/23/2008; "Austria == Ireland?", 3/24/2008;  "Why Austria is Ireland", 3/24/2008; "The (probable) truth about Austria and Ireland", 3/24/2008.

Most if not all of the examples we discussed then have been fixed, but a new case has turned up in Google Translate's mapping from Norwegian to English. The source is an interesting story in a Norwegian newspaper (Siril Herseth, "Obama «reddet» Mary – betalte reisen til Norge", 10/4/2008), which describes how, twenty years ago, Barack Obama acted as a good Samaritan in helping a stranger who was short of money in the Miami airport.

The article's title, put through Google Translate's Nowegian to English system, comes out as Obama "rescued" Mary – paid trip to Ireland.

For some weeks now I have been assigned to the Financial Good News Desk here at Language Log Plaza. It took me longer than it should have done for me to realize that this was just some sort of practical joke aimed at making sure I did not write anything, apparently because of pressure from the office of the Vice President of the United States (because of posts like this one, I suppose). I eventually applied for a transfer, and have now been assigned to the Research Survey Department. So I have to send out surveys. Please answer the questions below in your own time despite the considerable difficulties with format and the obscurity of the questions, and return by email at our convenience to surveys@research.languagelog.com, where an automatic system will use it to generate data entirely for our benefit rather than yours.

Eager as always to score high-school snark points, Maureen Dowd wrote today about Sarah Palin ("Sarah's Pompom Palaver", 10/5/2008):

Then she uttered yet another sentence that defies diagramming: “It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there.”

"Defies diagramming"? Sorry, that sentence may not embody the most cogent foreign-policy argument ever made, and it's so awkward that it might have come from a non-native speaker —  but it seems syntactically straightforward to me.

This is a follow-up to Mark's post earlier today on affective demonstratives, though I am going to move us even further than he did from Palin and towards the lexical/constructional pragmatics. The overall picture is this: this NOUN reliably signals that the speaker is in a heightened emotional state (or at least intends to convey that impression), whereas those NOUN sends quite a different signal. Our data are from upwards of 50,000 speakers.

This is a bit late for National Punctuation Day (September 24), but the book wasn't published until October 2: On the Dot: The Speck that Changed the World, by Alexander Humez and Nicholas Humez (Oxford University Press). It's a celebration of the dot ("the smallest meaningful symbol that one can make with ink from a pen or a press, a stylus on wax or clay, or a hammer and chisel on stone") — a charming romp through the many uses of this symbol, with a very substantial (49-page) section of notes following the main text.

A warning: the Humez brothers' style is associative, with one topic leading loosely to another, and with digressions and divagations to all sorts of side topics: lots of etymologies, plus discussions of footnotes, euphemisms, censorship, acronyms, emoticons, instant messaging, uses of the word half, and much more. Many people enjoy this sort of writing — they are entertained by coming across odd bits of information — but some just find it annoyingly discursive. If you're familiar with James Burke's Connections (the column in Scientific American, the television show, or the book), you might use your reaction to it as a gauge of how you'll probably feel about On the Dot. I found it delightful, though best read a bit at a time.

We can fairly be accused of spending too much time recently on the subject of how Sarah Palin talks, though in this respect, Language Log is simply reflecting the level of popular interest represented by the millions watching her clips on YouTube. This post also pivots (to use a couple of her special words) off of her way of talking — so if you're tired of the subject, you might want to move on, or even avail yourself of our famous double-your-money-back-in-case-of-less-than-full-satisfaction guarantee.

In a comment on a recent LL post, John Curran wrote "I noticed last night that Governor Palin's verbal style seemed to employ more deictic terms". (Here deictic refers to the demonstrative "pointing words" this, that, these, and those.) John's observation is mostly but not entirely true, as this table of word-counts from the debate transcript suggests:

In an op-ed in Saturday's New York Times, Steve Pinker tries to explain or extenuate some of Sarah Palin's linguistic derelictions, real and alleged. Among other things, he says that Palin shouldn't be taxed for saying "nucular," which is

 …not a sign of ignorance. This reversal of vowel-like consonants (nuk-l’-yer —> nuk-y’-ler) is common in the world’s languages, and is no more illiterate than pronouncing “iron” the way most Americans do, as “eye-yern” instead of “eye-ren.”

I agree with Pinker's overall conclusion that Palin shouldn't be on the hook for this one, but I think both of the claims here are wrong. It's not a phonetic process, and if it isn't exactly a sign of ignorance, it's the legacy of it. 

Dr. Edward S. Klima died on September 25 at the age of 77 from complications of brain surgery. Dr. Klima was founder and professor emeritus of the Department of Linguistics at UC San Diego (my home department), adjunct professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and associate director of the Salk's Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience.

Dr. Klima's wife and longtime collaborator is the equally eminent Dr. Ursula Bellugi. Perhaps their best-known work is their book The Signs of Language (Harvard University Press, 1979), which was named the Most Outstanding Book in the Behavioral Sciences by the Association of American Publishers. This book was instrumental not only in establishing the importance of sign language research in linguistics and cognitive science more broadly, but also in affirming the finding — not widely appreciated at the time — that sign languages are natural human languages in the same way that spoken languages are. Drs. Klima and Bellugi were jointly awarded the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award by the American Psychological Association in 1993.

UCSD has a news release here, and the New York Times obituary is here.

Elizabeth Daingerfield Zwicky notes

Semifreddo's sweet baguette, which has a big circle on it. The center of the circle says "NO TRANS FATS", and the circle itself says "NEVER HAD" at the top and "NEVER WILL" at the bottom.

No trans fats is a NP conveying something like 'There are no trans fats in this [referring to the food the label is attached to, that is, to Semifreddo's sweet baguettes in general]' or 'This has no trans fats in it'. The other two expressions are subjectless, with a referent supplied from context (once again, Semifreddo's sweet baguette). The point of special interest here is at the other end of these two expressions: had and will with nothing following.

Never will is unproblematic in this context: this is just Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VPE), with the missing VP complement of the auxiliary will interpreted as 'have any trans fats' (the no–any alternation is a side point of interest). But never had presents a little puzzle.

In commenting on a recent LL post, Daddy G. asked

Does the term "code-switching" apply ONLY to those instances when the practice is consciously employed for effect? Or is the term more generally applied to the switching itself, regardless of whether or not there is conscious control involved?

With respect to the use of the term, the answer is simple. From the beginning  — the classical reference is John Gumperz, "Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities", American Anthropologist, 66(S3): 137-153, 1964 — the term "code switching" has been used to refer to what speakers do, not whether they do it consciously.

One of the things that marks Sarah Palin as a linguistic outsider is her use of also. In part, this is just a matter of frequency. In her contribution to last night's vice-presidential debate, she used the word also 48 times in about 7600 words, accounting for  about 0.63% of her words.  Her opponent, Joe Biden, used also only 3 times in about 7200 words. Relative to the rates seen in large and representative corpora, Gov. Palin used also about 5 to 10 times more often than expected, while Sen. Biden used also about 2 to 3 times less often than expected

OK, I'm going to give it a shot — I'm going to make a comment about language use by some politicians while giving Language Log readers what they come here for: "discussion of language by real live linguists".

After the vice-presidential debate last night, I was pleased not to have heard Gov. Sarah Palin repeat Sen. John McCain's claim in the first presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama has "the most liberal voting record" in the Senate. Speaking as a "real live linguist", this kind of claim is to my mind a little more insidious than your typical lie or stretching of the truth in a political campaign. Here's why I think so.

Elizabeth Daingerfield Zwicky reports that a if you play the CD entitled (on the cover) "Disco F*cks House" on iTunes, the program inquires, "Do you wish to import 'Disco Fucks House'?" Several things are going on here.

The first thing you need to know is that the CD is German. The second thing you need to know is that the CD is a disco/house mix by the Fabulous Glitterboys (a German group, despite the name). A third thing you might be interested to hear is that the Glitterboys also have a weekly radio show called "Disco F*cks House".

The points of interest are: the use of taboo avoidance characters, and the interpretation of "Disco Fucks House".