"To Pull a X"

I am fascinated by the construction "to pull a [insert name here]." As an example, Friends introduced the phrase "to pull a Monica" based on the character (named Monica) who was known in her family for regularly messing up in big situations. "Pulling a Monica" is defined by the Urban Dictionary as "any and all screwups by an individual."

Recently, Steven Slater made the news as the JetBlue flight attendant who, in no uncertain terms, went ballistic on a passenger, chewed said passenger out on the plane's intercom, grabbed a beer from the plane, and exited via the emergency slide. Inspired by this incident, MSNBC.com reports:

Most of us will probably never pull a Steven Slater: curse out a customer, grab a drink and leave our place of employment in a blaze of glory. (article by Allison Linn)

I immediately found this interesting for two reasons: (1) less than a day after a singular incident, Steven Slater already has an "event" named after him; and (2) the event is well-known enough to be named a "Steven Slater" yet not well-known enough to be able to use the construction "pull a Steven Slater" without further identifying what that means.

Addressing (1) first, I would most likely not--in everyday usage--coin a phrase such as "to pull a Monica" after a single incident of Monica making a mistake. Oftentimes, this phrase requires a repeated behavior rather than a single incident. If Steven Slater had merely quit his job in a more typical fashion (e.g., a resignation letter), then no one would think of calling quitting a job "pulling a Steven Slater." However, if Steven went on to quit his next five jobs in a row, I might be tempted to call quitting a job "pulling a Steven Slater." I had never stopped to consider how "to pull a X" was applied until I read the MSNBC.com article and realized that it takes an extraordinary situation to apply "to pull a X" after only one incident.

Furthermore, I wouldn't typically think of saying "You just pulled a Monica" to someone who has no idea who Monica is or what "pulling a Monica" might mean. Because of that, it seems a little unnatural to think of adding the addendum in natural speech: "You just pulled a Monica: screwing up." In fact, I would think that most typical uses wouldn't merit a clarification clause. Yet, "pulling a Steven Slater", while national news, is new enough that clarification is necessary.

To take consideration of the construction one step further, I find it interesting how we decide to apply the construction. Saturday Night Live dedicated a sketch to "pulling a Peyton Manning" (when you show lots of promise but don't deliver), but I don't often hear phrases with celebrities' names inserted into the construction. For instance, when Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch, instead of saying, "You just pulled a Tom Cruise," we adopted the phrase "You jumped the couch." As another example, when Fonzie jumped over the shark near the end of the Happy Days run, the phrase "to pull a Fonzie" never made it into the language; instead, "jump the shark" became a useful phrase for when something good goes terribly wrong. (The episode in which Fonzie jumps the shark roughly marked the end of the popularity for Happy Days.) Perhaps "pulling a Steven Slater" is only possible because he is not a celebrity but is rather an everyday guy who is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame for his antics.

So now the big question is whether the phrase will stick or not. Do you think you'll remember what "pulling a Steven Slater" is next year? Do you think you'll ever have reason to use the phrase in your own speech?

If any of you have a "to pull a X" example of your own, I'd love to hear about it.

Mistaken Origins of "Ghoti-y" Proportions

Have you ever seen the movie Akeelah and the Bee? In the movie, a moving quotation is used to inspire Akeelah that includes these sentences:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

The movie attributes this quotation to Nelson Mandela; however, Mandela never (as far as I know) spoke or wrote these words. The quotation above should instead have been attributed to Marianne Williamson.

Misattributing quotations is by no means a problem unique to Akeelah and the Bee; a similar situation occurred in 1999 when Baz Luhrman released the song "Everybody's Free (to Wear Sunscreen)" that began with these words:

Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '99: If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now. Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind: You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they have faded.

The song's lyrics had been attributed to Baz Luhrman and Kurt Vonnegut (among others) before someone set people straight, pointing out that Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune had originally penned the words.

What does all this have to do with linguistics?

In linguistics, we like to tell the story of how English spelling is so discombobulated that the string of letters "ghoti" could be pronounced as 'fish': take the gh from enough, the o from women, and the ti from nation, and you've got the sounds f-i-sh from ghoti. I had first heard that this particular sentiment was taken from George Bernard Shaw, which makes sense in the grand scheme of things. He was so upset with the English spelling system that he actually created his own alphabet--the Shavian alphabet--to make our spelling more phonetic. The alphabet never caught on, but his life's work was dedicated to saving the English language from sure doom. In every class that I gave the ghoti example to, I attributed it to Shaw.

In an article tweeted by @mightyredpen, I found out I--and at least some of the linguistic community--am wrong. I have been misattributing the ghoti statement: Its real source is a letter written by Charles Ollier in 1855.

This just goes to show that no area is immune to misattribution: Hollywood, media, academia... And it also shows the importance of researching for yourself the origins of quotations before you use them from a secondhand source, causing a "ghoti-y" mess.

Oops... I've Been a Bad Google User

As I scrolled through the Twitter updates this evening, I ran across an interesting tweet from @mightyredpen, who posted a link to an article about how to use the word Google: Google Permissions.

Before I begin, let me first say that I love the Google company and all that it has done for search engines and internet fun (including my beloved Gmail and Chrome and Blogger). Now that I've professed my love, though, I must say that if you read the entire page, you might be left scratching your head--just as I am.

Allow me to quote some of my favorite specifications for how to properly use the word Google:

Use the trademark only as an adjective, never as a noun or verb, and never in the plural or possessive form.

Oops. I google things daily and talk about Google as an entity. Apparently I need to say 'I used the Google search engine today', but that just sounds way too wordy for my taste.

One of the conditions for all uses is that you can't mess around with our marks. Only we get to do that. Don’t remove, distort or alter any element of a Google Brand Feature. That includes modifying a Google trademark, for example, through hyphenation, combination or abbreviation, such as: Googliscious, Googlyoogly, GaGooglemania. Do not shorten, abbreviate, or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.

After reading this, I'm begging Google inventors to come up with something Googliscious or a new feature called Googlyoogly. I mean, really, how can they resist?

Don’t use Google trademarks in a way that suggests a common, descriptive, or generic meaning.

That includes not using Google to refer to using a search engine in general, which I am also guilty of (e.g., telling someone to google something, when what I really mean is to perform an online search).

Because I love the Google company (not only because they use cute graphics around holidays on their websites but also because they are such a rockin' company), I formally apologize for misusing the Google name. However, along with that apology, I ask that the big wigs of the company reconsider the ban on using Google as parts of speech other than an adjective. It's just more convenient to tell someone, 'Go Google it!' Do you think they'll mind as long as I capitalize the verb to show it's a proper search engine I'm referring to?

Fall Schedule Finally Fixed!

With the flair of alliteration, I'm happy to announce that the fall schedule is finally fixed! Hooray! If you go to the fall schedule, you will now see that ENG 341: Introduction to Linguistics (MWF 10:00-10:50) and ENG 438: Forensic Linguistics (TR 9:30-10:45) are finally on the schedule. And that means you may now register for those courses.

Please get the word out because the only way the courses can run is if they get students registered. So please spread the good word that all linguistics courses are open for registration.

Also, if you're signed up for 344 (Structures of English) for the fall but do not necessarily need to take that course to fulfill your linguistics requirement (I'm specifically thinking of English majors out there), you might want to take a look at the other linguistics offerings for the fall.

The new courses should not have any prerequisites attached to them; that is, you should be able to register for them even if you haven't had 9 or more hours of English. If you have a problem registering because of prerequisites, please let us know immediately so we can get that fixed.

lolcats: A new type of English?

I'm fascinated by the turns English takes, especially as the internet plays a bigger role in developments of language change. One change I've never quite understood, though, is the use of 'shortcuts' when texting or instant messaging someone. I don't understand how typing 'l8r' saves energy when it takes me longer to find and reach the appropriate number key than it would for me to type the 'ate' in the middle of the word. It also takes more energy for me to find the '^' key than it does for me to simply type 'up.' Since I don't see how shortcuts are actually shortcuts, I tend to think people use them to be "cool". I have obviously never been cool in the texting world, as I happily correctly punctuate and capitalize my sentences with words that are correctly spelled when I text.

My students introduced me to an online site that takes English computer lingo to the next level: lolcats. On the site, you can find examples of English like this:

We r adding favorite buttons 2 sum classic lolz, so u can favorite dem!

Check awt sum other classic lolz dat nao have favorite buttons!

I find it hilarious that in the middle of these sentences, you see words like 'sum' and 'awt' interspersed with correctly spelled 'adding' and 'favorite' and 'classic.' Why do 'sum' and 'awt' and 'dem' but not 'klasik' and 'favrit' (or some other shortened/changed spelling)?

Banner on 'lolcats' homepage, which is icanhascheezburger.com

Even the website's name, 'i can has cheez burger', has such a discrepancy: Why not use 'haz' instead of 'has'?

During the summer session, I have a student who wants to work with the language used with lolcats, so I'm looking forward to seeing what she uncovers in her investigation. In the meantime, I'll be staring at the words on the website, wondering why anyone would take the time to develop such crazy spellings for English words when English spelling is crazy enough as it is.

Modern Family: A Treasure Trove of Linguistic Anomalies

The ABC show Modern Family is not only fun to watch but is also fun to think about ways we can use English words. This past Wednesday (5/5/10), the episode that aired (titled "Airport") had two such instances of word play that left me literally laughing out loud (or should I say "ROFL"?).

Phil, one of the characters in the show, is a real estate agent and is helping his brother-in-law break into his own home after leaving his house keys with his partner at the airport. Phil faces the camera and says:

The average burglar breaks in and leaves all these clues behind. Not me. I'm completely clueless.

Obviously, most of us turn to the interpretation of clue to mean 'idea' so that clueless means 'lost' or 'confused.' However, Phil's play on words turns clueless into a new meaning of 'without physical clues (or without leaving physical clues behind)'.

That one line is enough to make me love that episode. Later on in the episode, Jay (Phil's father-in-law) is telling his grandson to sit down. His grandson falls into a chair and lands on Jay's Kindle, which prompted this reaction from Jay:

Ooh, ooh, my Ludlums!

Prior to this incident, we learned that Jay had loaded 8 books by Ludlum onto his "reading device", and he was looking forward to spending some quality time reading those books on his vacation. So when his grandson broke his Kindle, he voiced his concern over losing the ability to read the books by Ludlum; instead of using a longer phrase to describe that, though, he substitutes the author's name for the books (i.e., he uses metonymy).

What are some of your favorite instances of word play in a movie, TV show, or book?

Lexical Gap: Noun for 'Ridiculous'

When we make up new words, our motivation is typically that we have an idea to express but do not have a word for it; thus, we have a lexical gap--a gap where the precise word we are looking for should be. Sometimes lexical gaps are legitimate ones (i.e., our language truly does not have a word to express what we would like to express). Oftentimes, though, lexical gaps are speaker-dependent. There is a word in our language that would work--we just don't know about it, or it doesn't quite sound right for the situation.

For example, the other day I was driving down the road and got stuck behind someone going a good 15 mph below the speed limit. I couldn't go around the car because I needed to stay in the right lane so that I could make a right turn into a parking lot. The car in front of me was already going slow--in and of itself a frustrating experience--but as we got closer to where I needed to turn, the car in front of me kept going slower and slower and slower... until I shouted, "Enough of this ridiculosity!" Yes, road rage gets the best of us. Not only did I shout in my car at the driver in front of me, but I also experienced a momentary lexical gap in my vocabulary.

After my outburst, I started a conversation with myself (I was alone in the car) that went something like this:

Hmm... Ridiculosity doesn't sound like a real word. But what is the noun form of ridiculous? I'm fairly sure we have one because we'd need a noun to describe a ridiculous situation without using complex phrases full of modifiers when one word could sum it all up. The go-to suffix for making nouns tends to be -ness, so is ridiculousness the word I'm looking for? Well, that just sounds ridiculous. There's far too many s sounds in a row for that to be a good word. Ridiculousness... ridiculosity. I like ridiculosity better, but something is telling me ridiculousness is actually the word.

When I got home, I went to my handy Mac dictionary, and--sure enough--ridiculousness is, in fact, the noun form of the adjective ridiculous. However, I think we should start a campaign that any adjective ending in -ous should form its noun counterpart by using the -ity suffix (thus changing the -ous to simply -os when spelling out the whole word). Words like ridiculousness, incredulousness, and marvelousness just sound wrong. Don't ridiculosity, incredulosity, and marvelosity just sound better?