The dreaded technological singularity

Hey, everyone! Today’s post is for my C1.2 students, which doesn’t mean that the rest of you (C1 all the same) cannot benefit from it.

So, what's this post going to be about? The title says it all, doesn't it? The technological singularity has become a bit of a buzzword, at least in the field of applied sciences. Now that should be interesting to you.

I have already explained in this blog how the English language has incorporated lots of science-related terms into non-technical conversations: quantum leap, momentum, light-years, to resonate, etc. The Big Bang Theory is a hit TV series. So when someone says something like I first chose Chemistry and Biology but soon gravitated towards the performing arts they might not realize that the verb to gravitate originated in the field of Physics as an exclusively technical term. Now it's one of those lexicalized metaphors that we discussed in the previous unit, remember?

My point is: any competent speaker of a foreign language ought to become at least superficially acquainted with some "science-y" jargon. Yes. Even if you are not the STEM type. Think about it. Some form of A.I. has already crept into your day-to-day life, whether it's Siri, Alexa or any of their distant cousins. And it's not only digital voice assistants that you may be used to. The spell check feature on your cellphone, the suggestions on Netflix or Amazon, the social media apps... They are all dependent on some kind of A.I. If you're still not convinced of the ever-increasing importance of technology in our world just consider the very existence of our beloved humankind. It takes but a cursory glance at any list of people who saved millions of lives to realize that all those individuals are somehow connected with technology.

As for the singularity, it is not an absolute certainty (remember the much talked about Y2K?) but there is no denying that it is within the realm of possibility. Those of you mildly interested in the topic may want to check out the video below, which, in a user-friendly manner, discusses some of the most fascinating questions about the impending technological singularity. It's a little longer than the clips I usually post but it pays off in terms of vocabulary. In it you'll see interesting adjectives (far-fetched, unfathomable, subservient), usable collocations (to work feverishly, to fully understand, killer accuracy, computer glitch) and a relatively new word (borg). Enjoy.

Like a knee-jerk reaction

There comes a point in your learning process where you simply leave behind the phase in which you have to think to connect words together. As far as stock phrases go, that tends to happen early. So, even at a basic level, students learn to blurt out How are you? and Where do you live? without thinking about word order or auxiliaries. That is the very essence of fluency. You just know what to say and don't hesitate. So far so good.

At the advanced level, however, you should keep that up in every conversation. Whether you like it or not, most of the things you are going to say have been said before. You were born into a world that already had that huge set of conventions we call "the English language". For writers and poets, self-expression is a different story, but for you, students of English, conventions are an unavoidable stepping stone on your way to mastering the language. So practice combinations, idioms, collocations until they become inevitable. The should be like a visceral, irrational response. Soon you will realize that many expressions leap to mind and you'll have to stop so you can pick the sequence you like best.

Back to the grind

Happy New Year, everyone!

The Christmas break is drawing to its close. We should all get ready to go back to work. For starters I'd like to thank all of you, C1.1 students, who were kind enough to mail me their essays before New Year's Day. My C1.2 will have to turn in a 280-word essay answering the question on page 54 (second bullet point in exercise 5): Are we less violent than we used to? In order to better address the topic you may want to read the text on page 55. The deadline is Jan 16.

More homework. Every student (C1.1 and C1.2) is expected to make a brief oral presentation about some topic you are interested in or passionate about, be it the Greek orthodox church, single-cell organisms, Green Lantern, sesquipedalian nouns, the history of paintbrushes, Malian music, race cars or cosmology (for the record, I'd rather you discussed cosmology than paintbrushes).

One last thing. We're going to be doing lots of micro-exercises so I can collect enough grades to put together the mandatory progress report in February.

Merry Christmas

Okay. I have a soft spot for Jacob Collier and his musical eccentricities and Tori Kelly is one the best pop singers in the world. Admittedly, it might be not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a winning combo. Merry Christmas.

The word of the year 2019

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, now, it can also be"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. They is 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 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. Here's why. Without batting an eye, we say "somebody left their umbrella in the classroom", right? The funny thing about it is 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.