random ling

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/linguistics-name-calling.

Sticks and bones may break your bones, but names can also hurt you. And language gives us surprisingly many ways to deride, hurt and demean – from a subtly sneering intonation to hurtful and offensive names. How does such language work? And why is there so much of it around these days? Has our acerbic political culture ushered in a new era of name-calling? Or is name calling a phenomenon as old as language itself? John and Ken welcome back linguist and NPR commentator Geoffrey Nunberg, author of "Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, The First Sixty Years."

The Linguistics of Name Calling

Simon Sinek - Millennials & Being Fulfilled

Soundbites from episodes two and four of the 2017 Discovery Channel drama, followed by a 23-minute interview on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, edited from the original running time 38:31.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/22/545122205/fbi-profiler-says-linguistic-work-was-pivotal-in-capture-of-unabomber

"Manhunt: Unabomber" & Forensic Linguistics of the FBI

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/can-speech-kill.

Free speech is one of the core tenets of our democracy. We’re inclined to think that more speech is always better. Although the Supreme Court has outlined some minor restrictions to our right to free speech, the most courts are willing to admit is that speech can lead to violence—it cannot itself do violence. But is it possible for speech to do both? If hate speech is used against a marginalized group, couldn’t the speech act literally do harm? And how does the answer to this question affect our commitment to free speech in a liberal democracy? The Philosophers do no harm with Lynne Tirrell from the University of Connecticut, author of “Genocidal Language Games.”

Can Speech Kill?

On Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963).

Are we still morally culpable if our entire society is corrupt? Arendt definitely thinks so, but has a number of criticisms of the handling of the 1961 trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Israel used the spectacle to remind people of the horrors of the Holocaust, but missed the opportunity to explore what would make a really rather ordinary man a party to such heinous acts. They were committed to the view that he was a monster, when the reality, says Arendt, is more frightening. He was really more of a clown: a status-obsessed, cliche-spouting, self-pitying bureaucrat who, far from having no moral compass, was extremely dedicated to obeying a warped version of the Categorical Imperative: "Act in such a way that the Führer, if he knew your action, would approve it."

She also had problems with the jurisdictional claim of Israel: Eichmann was tried by Israelis for crimes against the Jewish people. She thought that the Holocaust was not just the worst of a history of pogroms, but that genocide constituted a fundamentally new type of crime that needed clear philosophical analysis: The effort to snuff out a whole civilization is a crime against humanity as a whole beyond the individual murders involved. Arendt advocated for a permanent, international criminal court (which didn't materialize until 2002).

This constitutes a test case for our previous discussion of psychological situationism: In a situation where the whole society is oriented toward evil, then the pull of duty runs counter to one's conscience, which is reined in just like in ordinary circumstances one's disruptive impulses are reined in, because conscience is disruptive in that milieu. Eichmann could have chosen not to participate in the way that he did, but considered this unthinkable; abandoning one's duty in that way "just wasn't done." All dissenting voices had been silenced. “It was not his fanaticism but his very conscience that prompted Eichmann to adopt his uncompromising attitude during the last year of the war" (from Ch. 8).

Arendt still thought that he deserved execution, that we are responsible for engaging in concrete moral thinking—grasping other people as real others and not just as labels or roles—no matter what the environment. But she thought it important that we not gloss over factual details for the sake of making a political point: Eichmann was not in a position to have "masterminded" the Holocaust as was alleged, never pulled a trigger himself or directly ordered an execution, though he did order many deportations, even after his immediate superior had ordered that they cease, knowing full well that most of those deported would be killed. She also wants to be realistic about the guilt of those who helped the Nazis either through active cooperation (e.g., Jewish leaders who worked with the Nazis to provide them with information on the Jews in the area and their property, before the Final Solution was in evidence) or through inaction, and describes countries like Denmark where the "machine" didn't work because local officials would not cooperate in handing over their Jews, and troops on the ground didn't have the heart to press through such resistance.

The full foursome tries to figure out why we assigned ourselves such depressing holiday reading and whether we in the modern day might be subject to any kind of comparable moral blindness to what was going on in Nazi Germany. How slippery is the slope when you start considering your main social ill the "problem" of immigrants? Does loyalty to a leader commit one to denying obvious truths that the leader denies?

The Partially Examined Life

Go to blog

Hannah Arendt on the Banality of Evil (Part One)

Evolving English: Linguistics at the Library Podcast

Episode 1
The first episode of Linguistics at the Library introduces the British Library’s Evolving English Collection, which is a sound archive capturing the diversity of English accents and dialects. Podcast hosts Andrew Booth and Rowan Campbell are working with this archive as part of a PhD placement, and every few weeks will be bringing you a fresh discussion about linguistics and how to identify different accents. 

This week’s ‘What’s the feature?’ used a clip from:

BBC Voices Recording in Newcastle. BBC, UK, rec. 2005 [digital audio file]. British Library, C1190/32/01. Available: http://sounds.bl.uk/Accents-and-dialects/BBC-Voices/021M-C1190X0023XX-0101V0

Interesting links: 
The glottal stop in Glasgow: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/glasgow-accent-scottish-dialect-homogenised-london 
The Bristol ‘l’: http://blogs.bl.uk/sound-and-vision/2014/03/bristolian-my-ideal-of-an-idea-dialect.html 
An in-depth look at the Newcastle accent: http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/case-studies/geordie/

Evolving English: Linguistics at the Library - Episode 1

Evolving English: Linguistics at the Library Podcast

Episode 2

In the second episode of Linguistics at the Library, Andrew and Rowan discuss some of the differences between regional accents and ‘RP’ (Received Pronunciation), and why people might feel that they have to change the way they speak to work in certain jobs. Using clips from the British Library’s Evolving English Collection, we look at the concepts of stigma and prestige, and how social factors can influence the way we perceive accents.

Tweet us your questions! @ VoicesofEnglish

This week’s ‘What’s the feature?’ used a clip from:

BBC Voices Recording in Driffield. BBC, UK, rec. 2004 [digital audio file]. British Library, C1190/16/02. Available: http://sounds.bl.uk/Accents-and-dialects/BBC-Voices/021M-C1190X0016XX-0201V0

Interesting links:
Have you experienced discrimination due to your accent? Submit your story to the Accentism Project: http://accentism.org/ 

Peter Trudgill’s piece on modern RP: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/trudgill.htm 

Social Mobility Commission report: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/less-affluent-kids-are-locked-out-of-investment-banking-jobs

Prejudice against English teachers with Northern accents: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/research-exposes-prejudice-over-teachers-with-northern-accents/

Overt and covert prestige: https://linguistics.knoji.com/language-and-socioeconomic-status-overt-vs-covert-prestige/

Evolving English: Linguistics at the Library - Episode 2

Professor Errington is interested in the linguistic dimensions of social life, ranging from the social implications of patterns of verbal communication, to forms and uses of sociolinguistic hierarchies, to the linguistic effects of large scale dynamics. His research and writing have focused on linguistic dimensions of modernization and identity in Java and Indonesia, reflecting his broader interests in semiotics and the politics of language. We talk with Professor Errington about his book, Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power.

"Manhunt: Unabomber" & Forensic Linguistics of the FBI

NewsSource

Recent comments

NewsSource

Related tracks