The word of the year 2019

The holiday season is bearing down on us but, instead of going full-on Christmassy, I've decided to geek out a little. Is that alright? I thought so. Let's talk vocabulary for a while (yes, I intentionally left out the preposition).

Okay. Here's the thing: my beloved Merriam-Webster Dictionary has chosen "they" as the Word of the Year 2019. Why? Because it has acquired a new (additional) meaning. Don't panic. "They" is still a personal pronoun we use to conjugate verbs in the third person plural. I just so happens that it can also the "used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is non-binary". Now, this is the novelty.

Recently a number of high-profile individuals have challenged traditional nomenclatures that class people into two genders (male and female) on the grounds that they don't feel completely comfortable with the corresponding definitions of masculinity and femininity. I suppose that someone's gender identity is a private matter largely based on self-perception. Consequently one might well argue that it has to do with the field of Psychology (how do I feel about myself? how do I present myself to the world?). Nevertheless, it does overlap with Linguistics... Think about it.

How should we refer to a person that doesn't feel represented by those labels? Can we impose our term upon them? Isn't gender identity a strictly private issue? What happens when the very biological definition is unclear (remember South African athlete Caster Semenya)? What if an Armenian citizen claimed that they don't feel Armenian? Is a nationality label comparable to gender descriptions? Haven't we altered racial types many times already? Are pronouns untouchable? Do they actually change over time? Is this gender thing only a fad?

Needless to say, this debate has sparked all kinds of controversy. Just a few months ago an educational BBC film came under fire for implicitly recognizing “over 100 gender identities”. That film went even further than Facebook, which (so the story goes) offers over 50 gender options. Those gender lists may be extreme examples of an otherwise serious and reasonable debate. In the United Kingdom, for instance, an organization as prestigious as the Royal College of General Practitioners recognizes six genders. Many on-line forms offer three options, namely male, female and non-binary (the LGTBQ+ community might prefer the term genderqueer, but that is basically the same as non-binary).


So at this point we should probably leave aside the number of genders that may or may not exist and consider the linguistic side of the issue. Why? Because a specific form of address ceases to be about a person’s self-perception and becomes linguistic when it effectively affects how “the others” are supposed to refer to people. No one knows what sustained usage will ultimately sanction but, for the time being, we simply cannot ignore that certain people in the English-speaking world have already chosen to go by “they”. Singer Sam Smith (of James Bond fame) has publicly declared that they do not identify with either of the traditional genders. He's not alone.


Whatever your stance on the subject might be, the very fact that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary decided to include the de-pluralized form of “they” as its Word of the Year 2019 speaks volumes of the how seriously the issue has been taken.

Okay. How is all this relevant to you, learners of English? Well, for starters you should be aware that sometimes the pronoun "they" in its singular form is just necessary. That's why, without batting an eye, we say "somebody left their umbrella in the classroom". Just remember that only some decades ago that was a bizarre sentence. Now it's the done thing. The innovation comes now. You read in the papers that "Sam Smith is going to perform at the Royal Albert Hall. They are excited about it". Personally, I feel a bit weird about the grammar in phrases such as "they are my co-worker" but it's probably because it's new. Have you already forgotten how unusual the word "jueza" used to feel in Spanish?

I know what some of you might be thinking. This is just another stunt pushed by the Far Left. Funnily enough, the search for a genderless pronoun is not new at all. Attempts to come up with a gender-neutral pronoun hark back to 1858, when the pronoun thon was first proposed by American attorney Charles Crozat Converse. I don't think he had a queer agenda. As for the alleged craziness of introducing a new meaning to an old pronoun, I'm sorry to break the news to you but "you" was originally a plural pronoun. The singular forms in the 17th century were thou (nominative) and thee (accusative). So yes. Pronouns do change their meanings.

Anyhow, all this pronoun kerfuffle makes me think of that scene in the movie Chasing Amy (1997) in which a gay girl (Amy), who has fallen in love with a man, refuses to reveal his gender in a conversation with her lesbian friends. At one point, one of them asks: "why are you playing the pronoun game?" The answer lies in the abovementioned Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to be exact in the c sense of the third definition of "they", which goes like this: "used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed". As you see, this definition has nothing to do with gender identity or the LGTBQ+ lobby. It has to do with the (sometimes) convenient need to hide a person's gender in a conversation. You may want to be discreet about your social life and just say "last night I went out with a friend". In Spanish you would have to state whether your friend was male or female (i.e. anoche salí con una amiga). In English, though, you can keep the mystery... until you need a pronoun.

So, in 2019, is it playful or bizarre to use the genderless they?

Merry Christmas everyone!

N.B. More information on this thought-provoking article.

Articulacy is a matter of training

Yes. Articulacy is a rather British term that I happen to like quite a lot (Americans are partial to articulateness). Articulacy can be defined as "the quality of expressing oneself readily, clearly and effectively". More often than not, it requires that a speaker be quick-witted and accurate, even under pressure. Not an easy thing. So, how does one develop the skills that are necessary to speak in such a manner? By training. Indeed. Practice does make perfect. Only by getting accustomed to using a wide range of words does one ultimately incorporate them into their own idiolect. Remember the word gap? You may say what you will about its conclusion, but the fact is that a child who is customarily exposed to a rich variety of words will obviously acquire most of them.

John Bercow (the protagonist of the video) is an admirable example of that effortless ability that every language learner ought to aspire to. Of course, one of the reasons why a speaker can be so surgically precise has to do with the sheer range of verbal options that any given thought in his/her head may conjure up. It's because of this that John Bercow can afford to be witty, severe, tactful, poetic or, if need be, even condescending. An intermediate student, however, is clearly in a different verbal universe. Let's say that you feel like eating something. What are your options? "I'm hungry" is probably high on your list. Fair enough. What else can you say?

If one can choose among different degrees of intensity, as in the sequence: peckish, hungry, starving then we are in whole different ballgame. You  realize that you may prefer to use famished and ravenous, which mean the same as starving but happen to be less frequently used and, therefore, may sound more formal. Speaking of unusual, how about the adjective esurient? And what about making use of idioms? Would you rather go for expressions like I could eat a horse, I'm hungry as a hunter or I've got the munchies... ? Remember that they all have different connotations.

Anyhow, let's turn to the video above. You will notice that Mr. Bercow says the following: 

"If the honorable gentleman doesn't trust his own exegesis of the law that's his problem, not mine, but it isn't a matter for the chair".

I simply love his use of "exegesis". Isn't it perfect? He could have chosen explanation or interpretation but opted for a term as sophisticated as exegesis, which implies the critical analysis of a cognitively demanding text (such as the constitution of a country or the Torah). Now, that is what I call... style.

___________________

N.B. 1. Whoever edited the subtitles made one glaring mistake. The expression "in a seemly manor" should, of course, be transcribed as "in a seemly manner". Looks like haste or sloppiness  got the best of the video editor. These pesky homophones...

N.B. 2. If you happen to be obsessed with lexical options you might want to check out the famous "nose speech" from Cyrano de Bergerac.

It's important to avoid overusing the word "important"

Hi everyone!

One of the defining characteristics of the C1 level is the ability to show range, which basically means that any advanced speaker should be able to choose from a varied menu of options. Bizarrely enough, I tend to find that many students focus way too hard on the acquisition of new vocabulary. They seem to be convinced that a knowing lots of different terms, big words or unusual turns of phrase will enrich their oral expression and they are absolutely right on the money. Having said that, it is also true that, ultimately, any description gets boring when it's made up of sentences which start like this: "Jenny is...". 

Consider the difference between these two sentences:

"To me family comes first"

"My family is extremely important".

See? You can say the very same thing without resorting to the rather basic structure "My family is...". Anyway, today I just wanted to remind you of the fact that, in our context, the word range refers to a variety of options: semantic, morphological or syntactical. In the video below I discuss a couple of ideas that may help you avoid using the phrase "he is very important". I hope it's useful.

Los Angeles November 2019

As many of you are already aware of, Blade Runner (1982) is a major obsession of mine. Some months ago, I posted some thoughts on the film. Suffice it to say that Blade Runner was the first movie I ever watched in its original version and it had a profound effect on me. But if I bring it up today it’s because the movie is set in Los Angeles and the story takes place precisely in November 2019.

Acid rain does not soak our cities, but climate change has become quite a pressing issue. Massive animal extinction is not a reality (yet) but there are thousands of endangered species. We don’t have androids walking the streets. However, different forms of artificial intelligence (Siri, Cortana, Alexa) are now part of our lives. As a matter of fact, experts predict that sentient A.I.s will come to exist sometime around 2060: the so-called singularity. And we don't see lots of cars flying overhead, but some prototypes have actually been manufactured. In short, Blade Runner was not exactly off target. Nevertheless it is not the film's predictions that I care about but rather its dazzling production design, its gorgeous photography, the poignant performances and its hypnotic soundtrack. Part of the appeal of the film has to do with the issues it addresses. Blade Runner, which in many ways was ahead of its time, dealt with matters which are painfully relevant today: environmental decay, artificial intelligence, the seat of personal identity, the essence of humanity, the role of women in our society... and yet, there is a theme that permeates the whole story and elevates the film: death. Yes. Death. That pesky little problem we all face eventually.

Why am I talking about it now? Well, the fact that I turned fifty last week may have affected my criteria for choosing this particular video. The truth is the clock is also ticking for you. So let's celebrate Blade Runner by watching the clip below these lines. A little bit of context might be in order now.

Roy Batty, the blond character in the scene, is a replicant, i.e. an artificial being designed by multimillionaire genius Eldon Tyrell who deliberately programmed a four-year lifespan into his creatures so as to prevent them from getting out of control. Batty knows that his own death is only days away and decides to turn up at his maker’s house to demand a stop to his impending end. So, when he walks into Tyrell’s chambers and plainly bellows: “I want more time!” we can identify with the dying replicant. “What seems to be the problem?” asks Tyrell, coolly. “I want more life, father”. Who cannot relate to that? Isn’t it a universal desire? Aren’t we all soon going to find ourselves bargaining for some extra time? Food for thought.

Let’s now take a look at the language in the clip. The scene has interesting expressions. “To meet one’s maker” is a standard euphemism for dying and “the facts of life” refers to something that must be accepted and cannot be changed, however unpalatable. The scene also contains a truly memorable line:

A light that burns twice as bright burns half as long

and you have burned so very very brightly, Roy.

Isn't it beautiful? By the way it, is interesting to realize that many writers equate life with light. Yes. An unforgettable example springs to mind. In his memoirs (entitled Speak Memory), Vladimir Nabokov wrote: the cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.

Anyhow, even though it is Roy Batty’s final soliloquy that has become part of cinema history (the moving forty-two words we know as “the tears-in-rain monologue”), today I encourage you to dwell on Tyrell’s very last words, for they are indeed wise: "Revel in your time!".

N.B. Writing assignments. C1.1 students: exam Task on page 15 of the textbook. C1.2 students: 280 words describing a city or a person that has undergone significant changes.

Fun fact: the original line in the scene above was slightly less elegant (I want more life, f***er). Clearly, the tone of the scene called for a loftier word choice. I trust you can guess the deleted term.