1483: "Quotative Like"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
bachaddict
Handel Played it Better
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:18 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby bachaddict » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:16 am UTC

I was like "Time for a new page!"
slinches wrote:Also, the OTC isn't a disease. In fact, it's the cure. As we all know, Time heals all wounds.

Thanks for the molpish wig ggh!
he/him/his

anitchang
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:10 am UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby anitchang » Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:14 am UTC

Something similar also exists in German, as described in this article: "An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so 'and I'm like/and he's like'" (Journal of Pragmatics Volume 32, Issue 1, January 2000, Pages 29–54).

DavCrav
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:04 pm UTC
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby DavCrav » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:33 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
Qaanol wrote:Most people are, frankly, quite abysmal at quoting accurately from memory. Hence it is usually more correct to say “She was like” than “She said”, because most of the time she didn’t actually say precisely what is claimed, but only something broadly similar.


So it's basically a shorter version of "...she said something like..."?

In the sixth form (between high school and university in the UK) I had a Physics lecturer who first used to explain each concept freely, and then dictate a brief passage for us to write down verbatim in our notes. He explained in the first lesson that we would know when he started the dictation phase because he would say "I'm going to say something like this: " followed by the text itself. Leaving aside the slightly meta-meta-meta nature of all this (me explaining him explaining how he would explain what he was going to explain), I wonder whether he said this in order to encourage us to write down what he meant to say rather than faithfully recording any hesitations, backtracking and other paralinguistic elements that might have ensued.


That sounds awfully like my sixth-form physics teacher. He wasn't called Mr Wright, was he?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby orthogon » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:39 pm UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:
Apeiron wrote:This is a problem with a simple solution: SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.

"And I asked, 'what the hell?'."

"And I thought, 'what the hell?'."


IMO you're misrepresenting the situation. A lot of the time such precision is simply not needed. Whether "what the hell?" was asked or thought may be completely evident from the context.


Also, in such a case, there's a continuum, from thinking it, mouthing it, muttering it under your breath, through to saying or even yelling it. You're really conveying your mental/emotional state at the time. What you may or may not have said out loud is merely a symptom or manifestation of this inner state. Come to think of it, this makes more sense of the choice of verb "I was". This could extend to the other cases: you're really saying what position you or your interlocutor took on the issue, where they stood, as it were.

DavCrav wrote:That sounds awfully like my sixth-form physics teacher. He wasn't called Mr Wright, was he?


:-) No, it was Mr Nield iirc. Cheshire, '89-91. Maybe they went to the same teacher-training college?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Uninspired
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:20 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Uninspired » Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:21 pm UTC

Khaim wrote: I would have transliterated את as "et". Clearly that's just dialect, and I'm so bad at language I can't even remember which is which[1]. The more interesting question is, what would a contemporary speaker have said?

[1] Except that mine is correct and yours is wrong, obviously.


At least some varieties of modern Hebrew use ke’ilu en kaze as quotative markers (Maschler 2001 - I think).

anitchang wrote:Something similar also exists in German, as described in this article: "An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so 'and I'm like/and he's like'" (Journal of Pragmatics Volume 32, Issue 1, January 2000, Pages 29–54).


And in Dutch:
(1) Ik had zoiets van: ik heb het verpest. ("I was like: I blew it.'" Literally: "I had something of[...]")
(2) Maar toen was het zo van: "Ja je hebt de baan" (But then it was like: "yeah you got the job")
(3) Dus ik helemaal: "Jeeeeeeej" (So I was all "yaaaaay")
(4) En zij weer zo "Ja, gefeliciteerd" (And then she was like: "yes congratulations")
(5) Dus ik "Ja dankjewel" (So me: Yes thanks!")

Most of these examples (but especially the first) are expressions that many Dutch people love to hate, too... which somehow surprises me, considering that this kind of quotative thing isn't new or exclusive to Western European languages.(Buchstaller & Van Alphen 2012).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:16 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:it's always teenage girls at the forefront of these linguistic revolutions
They're associated with teenage girls (which is tied in with how heavily they're criticized), but I don't think teenage girls are actually all that more prone to using quotative "like".

Great Justice wrote:But people also grow out of stuttering with these ticks (eg. after hearing themselves sound like morons in a video; besides being a mark of air-heads, it's an effeminate trait).
They can become sensitized and correct their children.
And here we see a prime example of transparently sexist language peeving.

Edit: This LLog post links to research showing that while quotative "like" is more common among women than men, its use as a discourse marker is actually slightly more common among men:

Image
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10192
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby addams » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:56 am UTC

Klear wrote:
da Doctah wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
jgh wrote:We could do with a bit of quotative easing.


Am I allowed to "like" this? :P


You can, like, like it, but you can't, like, "like it" like it.


I love this comment.

Like; That means, you really 'like', like it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:57 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Image


Just how seriously am I to take a paper that lets a typo like "Abverb" get into a published chart?

Mikeski
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:01 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:what about the quotative all?
(She was all, "I don't think so...")

At first, I was all, "yeah, quotative 'like' is so last decade..."

Then I was just, "maybe I should think about this."

And then I was, "why do we need that extra word in there anyway?"

Then I was kinda, "eh, it doesn't really matter. Everyone knows what we mean."

User avatar
Andries
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:37 pm UTC
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Andries » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:00 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Image


Just how seriously am I to take a paper that lets a typo like "Abverb" get into a published chart?


Grasping at straws, it looks like.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Qaanol » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:55 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:Just how seriously am I to take a paper that lets a typo like "Abverb" get into a published chart?

Sounds like a new grammatical element just waiting to be discovered!
wee free kings

User avatar
Andries
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:37 pm UTC
Location: Hoerikwaggo's sunset side

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Andries » Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:17 am UTC

"Abverb" is when a noun is verbed to describe changes in the shape of the torso

Paul is looking really great since he sixpacked.

John is gutting badly since he stopped going to gym.

Mikeski
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:08 am UTC

Obviously, the difference between an abverb and an adverb is the same as the difference between absorption and adsorption.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:34 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
da Doctah wrote:it's always teenage girls at the forefront of these linguistic revolutions
They're associated with teenage girls (which is tied in with how heavily they're criticized), but I don't think teenage girls are actually all that more prone to using quotative "like".

Common sense suggests that they should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution. Not every particular girl, of course, but statistically, as a group.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Klear » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:10 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
da Doctah wrote:it's always teenage girls at the forefront of these linguistic revolutions
They're associated with teenage girls (which is tied in with how heavily they're criticized), but I don't think teenage girls are actually all that more prone to using quotative "like".


Personally, I always think of The Dude. I really wouldn't know, though. People around me don't usually speak English and they are not usually teenage girls.

DR6
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby DR6 » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:28 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Common sense suggests that they should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution. Not every particular girl, of course, but statistically, as a group.


More prone to displaying them than who? More than male teenagers? It would make sense for young people to display trends in language evolution, but I don't see how you could extend that to teenage girls, specifically, without reaching into unfounded stereotypes.

Morgan Wick
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Morgan Wick » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:34 pm UTC

Znirk wrote:
Andries wrote:There's Summer Glau, of course,

Huh, turns out there's an actual person. How is she relevant to Internet pedantry? (http://xkcd.com/406/)

Summer Glau's role on the show mentioned in the linked comic was as a badass "good" Terminator, therefore the joke is that the person is implying Summer Glau really is a Terminator that just smacked down whoever he just smacked down, thus causing the smackee to presumably shit his/her pants.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby orthogon » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:05 pm UTC

DR6 wrote:
Kit. wrote:Common sense suggests that they should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution. Not every particular girl, of course, but statistically, as a group.


More prone to displaying them than who? More than male teenagers? It would make sense for young people to display trends in language evolution, but I don't see how you could extend that to teenage girls, specifically, without reaching into unfounded stereotypes.

I heard somewhere that women talk about three times as much as men - here's an article in the godawful Daily Mail reporting the study in question, which apparently says nothing of the sort. If it were true that women are better linguists and communicators on account of their higher FoxP2 levels, then it wouldn't be surprising if they were also at the forefront of linguistic innovation. However, it's not clear that there is such a straightforward difference in reality, and it seems to be another case of Bad Science reporting.

(Personally I feel it's a shame that the question of innate gender/sex differences is so loaded and political. It seems to be a valid and interesting possibility, with a lot of plausibility given the different roles of males and females over evolutionary timescales. We should be able to ask these questions and to use science to try to answer them in a grown-up way, but in practice any studies are seized upon by one end or other of the political spectrum and exaggerated beyond all semblance of the actual findings.)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:54 pm UTC

DR6 wrote:
Kit. wrote:Common sense suggests that they should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution. Not every particular girl, of course, but statistically, as a group.

More prone to displaying them than who? More than male teenagers?

In particular, yes.

DR6 wrote:It would make sense for young people to display trends in language evolution, but I don't see how you could extend that to teenage girls, specifically, without reaching into unfounded stereotypes.

Normally, common sense bases it's statistical "knowledge" on stereotypes, and inability of the researchers to find a foundation for the stereotypes doesn't by itself make our stereotypes "unfounded". Maybe the researchers are looking in the wrong places, or maybe those tiny "personal" differences that they are seeing become huge "group" differences when amplified by the network effect of communication patterns.

Or maybe our stereotypes are just outdated. However, the quotative "like" is also not new.

Oh, and one more "stereotype" from today's BBC News.

Klear wrote:Personally, I always think of The Dude. I really wouldn't know, though. People around me don't usually speak English and they are not usually teenage girls.

Haven't you heard "Valley Girl"?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10192
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby addams » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:59 pm UTC

Without reading The Links, I agree with you.

I read an article about Couples, gone to sea.
It might be a Surprising Fact how many people, live at sea.
Of the couples, their stories of Gender Specific Tasks are interesting.

On a boat, it doesn't matter if you Like the Task or Not.
On a boat, "Do it or Die." They Cross Train.

Everyone on the boat can do every job.
Nearly, all couples, broke down into Gender Specific Tasks.

Even the boats where The Men did the Cooking and the Women Trimed The Sails.
They called it Girl Job and Boy Job.

Even Gay Couples did that.
Not many Lesbans. at sea. (shrug)

And; Of course, The good ole' "It's not my Job."
On the good ship, UnHappy.

One person cam sail, alone.
With what used to be a good friend 'Pouting'.

News Flash!
Both genders 'pout'.

Spoiler:
"It's not like I don't give a fuck."
"I don't give a fuck."

It's a man's mantra, usually.
He can sail that boat all by himself.

He can open a can of something and drink it with Cognac.
He'll be asleep before his head hits the pillow.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:38 pm UTC

DR6 wrote:
Kit. wrote:Common sense suggests that they should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution. Not every particular girl, of course, but statistically, as a group.


More prone to displaying them than who? More than male teenagers? It would make sense for young people to display trends in language evolution, but I don't see how you could extend that to teenage girls, specifically, without reaching into unfounded stereotypes.


The stereotypical male teenager communicates primarily in grunts rather than in words...

Morgan Wick wrote:
Znirk wrote:
Andries wrote:There's Summer Glau, of course,

Huh, turns out there's an actual person. How is she relevant to Internet pedantry? (http://xkcd.com/406/)

Summer Glau's role on the show mentioned in the linked comic was as a badass "good" Terminator, therefore the joke is that the person is implying Summer Glau really is a Terminator that just smacked down whoever he just smacked down, thus causing the smackee to presumably shit his/her pants.


Before she was a Terminator, she was (small but troublesome) River Tam in Firefly - see http://xkcd.com/311/

Summer Glau is (typecast as) a genius-level, socially inept girl whose apparent fragility disguises the fact that she's a killing machine - admittedly, in Dollhouse, her guest-star role wasn't an expert fighter, so that part may be optional. In an online argument, Summer Glau is a one-woman Authority Fallacy.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:48 pm UTC

No rigorous study has ever found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do, but studies *have* shown that men perceive even 50/50 splits to be female dominated.

More than one factor can provide subjective anecdotal evidence for stereotypes, and if our "common sense" mostly comes from growing up in a sexist society, it makes a shitty basis for judging things related to purported sex differences.

Edit: Here's another relevant LLog post, on the invented statistic about women talking more than men:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4488
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:No rigorous study has found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do,

Was this study not "rigorous"?

Or has it not found a significant difference between communication patterns of typical teenage males and females?

gmalivuk wrote:More than one factor can provide subjective anecdotal evidence for stereotypes, and if our "common sense" mostly comes from growing up in a sexist society, it makes a shitty basis for judging things related to purported sex differences.

However, there is a huge difference between "males and females, on average, have the same abilities" and "males and females, on average, have the same performance in a purportedly sexist society".

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Eternal Density » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:45 pm UTC

Andries wrote:An observation: it is one of the few times when xkcd has actually featured a real, living, person who is not a media figure or celebrity by name. There's Summer Glau, of course, but I can't off-hand think of other examples.
Cory Doctorow, [T]the Ronpaul, Rick Astley, and there's a few more I've forgotten.
Oh and a bunch more of the Firefly crew in the electric skateboard trilogy.
River Tam was named a few times in the What-If book, not that characters count.

gmalivuk wrote:No rigorous study has ever found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do, but studies *have* shown that men perceive even 50/50 splits to be female dominated.

More than one factor can provide subjective anecdotal evidence for stereotypes, and if our "common sense" mostly comes from growing up in a sexist society, it makes a shitty basis for judging things related to purported sex differences.

Edit: Here's another relevant LLog post, on the invented statistic about women talking more than men:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4488
I'm all like what does the amount of talking people do have to do with the comic? You've been drawn off topic.
That said, it's nice to put that old line about women talking more than men to rest.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:47 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:No rigorous study has found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do,

Was this study not "rigorous"?

Or has it not found a significant difference between communication patterns of typical teenage males and females?
What it hasn't found is a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do, which if you check my statement that you quoted, was my claim all along.

It doesn't really matter if a study about who texts and calls more on cell phones is rigorous, since I don't care who texts and calls more on cell phones.

gmalivuk wrote:More than one factor can provide subjective anecdotal evidence for stereotypes, and if our "common sense" mostly comes from growing up in a sexist society, it makes a shitty basis for judging things related to purported sex differences.

However, there is a huge difference between "males and females, on average, have the same abilities" and "males and females, on average, have the same performance in a purportedly sexist society".

Your point? It's still a purported sex difference, is it not? Therefore I maintain that "common sense" remains a shitty basis for judging it.

@Eternal Density: The next time I want to know what an OTTer thinks about staying on-topic in a comic thread, you should probably shoot me dead because I'll clearly have been taken over by some kind of hostile alien entity.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:No rigorous study has found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do,

Was this study not "rigorous"?

Or has it not found a significant difference between communication patterns of typical teenage males and females?
What it hasn't found is a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do, which if you check my statement that you quoted, was my claim all along.

Then we seem to have different understanding of what "amount of talking" is.

To avoid unnecessary confusion, would you be so kind to define what you meant by "amount of talking"?

There are two reasons for me to ask this:

First, I'd like to know whether your claim is related to your 'I don't think teenage girls are actually all that more prone to using quotative "like"' or is a completely separate topic.

Second, I'd like to know if the second part of your claim speaks about exactly the same value in both "objective" and "subjective" measurements (i.e. both when it says about 50/50 splits and when it tells about perception of dominance).

gmalivuk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:More than one factor can provide subjective anecdotal evidence for stereotypes, and if our "common sense" mostly comes from growing up in a sexist society, it makes a shitty basis for judging things related to purported sex differences.

However, there is a huge difference between "males and females, on average, have the same abilities" and "males and females, on average, have the same performance in a purportedly sexist society".

Your point? It's still a purported sex difference, is it not? Therefore I maintain that "common sense" remains a shitty basis for judging it.

If the difference in performance is real and "common sense" reflects it correctly, I don't see how it's "a shitty basis for judging it".

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:47 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:To avoid unnecessary confusion, would you be so kind to define what you meant by "amount of talking"?
Seriously?

By "amount of talking" I mean the (total) amount of, you guessed it, talking.

Considering that most of the talking we do is still not on cell phones, your research doesn't tell us anything about the total amount of talking people do. It's a survey about phone usage, not about verbal communication in general.

Kit. wrote:If the difference in performance is real and "common sense" reflects it correctly, I don't see how it's "a shitty basis for judging it".
Yes, if common sense happens to reflect reality, then common sense is a good reflection of reality.

But you're begging the question when you make claims about reality based on common sense, without first establishing that in this case the common sense is a good basis for judging it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10192
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby addams » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:56 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
mathmannix wrote:what about the quotative all?
(She was all, "I don't think so...")

At first, I was all, "yeah, quotative 'like' is so last decade..."

Then I was just, "maybe I should think about this."

And then I was, "why do we need that extra word in there anyway?"

Then I was kinda, "eh, it doesn't really matter. Everyone knows what we mean."

Could you have been like, "It's like Everyone already knows.
You could have 'Totally' been like that.

"But," (looks down awkwardly) "Like, you're not like that."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:To avoid unnecessary confusion, would you be so kind to define what you meant by "amount of talking"?
Seriously?

By "amount of talking" I mean the (total) amount of, you guessed it, talking.

Yes, seriously. In which units do you measure these amounts? Is it time, words, verbs, sentences, bits of information conveyed, bits of information relevant, or what?

For me, people talk "too much" when they convey too much irrelevant information. Is it the same value that your studies measure?

gmalivuk wrote:Considering that most of the talking we do is still not on cell phones, your research doesn't tell us anything about the total amount of talking people do. It's a survey about phone usage, not about verbal communication in general.

There is a saying in my native language about a hospital's average body temperature being "normal".
Spoiler:
Yes, the morgue included.

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:If the difference in performance is real and "common sense" reflects it correctly, I don't see how it's "a shitty basis for judging it".
Yes, if common sense happens to reflect reality, then common sense is a good reflection of reality.
But you're begging the question when you make claims about reality based on common sense, without first establishing that in this case the common sense is a good basis for judging it.

But when I make claims about a default expectation of reality, common sense is a proven good basis. And if we have some data that we think that tells us that our common sense is wrong, we'd better have an idea why we see this difference, and the idea would better be not just like "oh, that's a sexist bias of unspecified origin". Otherwise it might be eventually discovered that what was wrong was actually the data, or our interpretation of it, or both.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

I've already linked to an article that goes in quite a lot of depth about the made-up "women talk more than men" statistic. You've responded with one study of cell phone usage and "common sense" which is notoriously bad as a scientific basis, especially where sex differences are concerned.

The burden of proof is on you, dude.

Edit: to illustrate just how irrelevant your study is to the actual question at hand, consider the fact that young people spend a lot more time communicating on social media than old people. Does that mean young people spend more time than old people communicating overall? No, of course it doesn't. It just means young people use social media differently from old people, and that's all it means.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby orthogon » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Here's another relevant LLog post, on the invented statistic about women talking more than men:http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4488

I found that page when I was trying to chase the source of the 20K/7K "statistic". It was less than wholly satisfying as a debunking, since it didn't seem to track down exactly where the numbers came from. Ben Goldacre does this kind of thing really well: he normally manages to find the figures somewhere and explains how they're actually the ratio of protein concentrations in rat brains or something and were misinterpreted; often, to their dishonour, in the researchers' own press release (which is why all the papers run with the same story). The LLog post doesn't go that far, which is fair enough since it usually involves actually phoning up the researchers, the reporters or the university and asking where the numbers came from, and eventually finding them or getting someone to admit to making them up out of whole cloth. Is this done somewhere in the blog? Did I miss it?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:02 pm UTC

It's in the oldest previous article linked in the one I posted: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 03420.html

The earliest example of the factoid anyone could seem to find was a 1987 book by James Dobson, who I wouldn't trust with real science any farther than I could throw him.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:23 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I've already linked to an article that goes in quite a lot of depth about the made-up "women talk more than men" statistic. You've responded with one study of cell phone usage and "common sense" which is notoriously bad as a scientific basis, especially where sex differences are concerned.

The burden of proof is on you, dude.

Errm... which my claim should I prove?

Or even which non-my claim did you want me to prove here? But if it related to something measurable, please don't forget to specify how it is measured.

gmalivuk wrote:Edit: to illustrate just how irrelevant your study is to the actual question at hand, consider the fact that young people spend a lot more time communicating on social media than old people. Does that mean young people spend more time than old people communicating overall? No, of course it doesn't. It just means young people use social media differently from old people, and that's all it means.

I don't see "the actual question on hand" here.

If it's the question about "common sense" being wrong when it assumes that gender (or age, whatever) differences in communicating patterns exist, then this study shows that is actually not a wrong assumption.

If it's the question about some made-up statistics that orthogon mentioned and then disproved in the same post, I don't see how it's still actual.

If the actual question is about finding a creative measure that will "prove" that there is "no differences in communicating overall" (whatever that would mean), then well...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:47 pm UTC

I've been talking about how much men and women talk. The invented "statistic" as well as the research that refutes it counted in terms of words used per day, so let's call it that one.

If now you're simply claiming that there are differences in how men and women communicate, then fine, I accept that, but I don't see what it has to do with your "common sense" that teen girls "should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution".

Also, if that's all you're claiming, then you've moved the goalposts. I first started arguing this with you because you seemed to think you'd found something that refuted my claim about the amount of talking, not some imaginary claim I've never made about how men and women communicate in exactly the same ways.
Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:No rigorous study has found a significant difference in the amount of talking women and men do,

Was this study not "rigorous"?

You can't refute my claim that was specifically about amount of talking with some evidence about a completely different communication difference.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Quercus » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:59 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Ben Goldacre does this kind of thing really well: he normally manages to find the figures somewhere and explains how they're actually the ratio of protein concentrations in rat brains or something and were misinterpreted; often, to their dishonour, in the researchers' own press release (which is why all the papers run with the same story).


Just thought I'd correct a misconception - researchers don't write press releases. University/company press officers write press releases. The researchers normally get to okay the release, but they are sometimes under considerable pressure by the press office to keep the story as "simple" and "interesting" as possible, which often leads to things being overblown. I have the good fortune to work with an organization that listens to their researchers if they say a press release is misleading, but I know from others that that doesn't always happen.

I'm not saying that researchers aren't ever negligent in how they communicate with the press, but there are more people involved than just them. There's also the fact that most researchers receive absolutely no training on how to engage with the public or the press (although thankfully that's changing a bit now).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby orthogon » Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:06 pm UTC

Fair point - I guess I expressed it badly. I probably knew that the press release was handled by someone other than the researchers, but I assumed they would have some say in what it said. I get that there is pressure to "sex up" the announcement, but I do feel that there is culpability when researchers allow a gross misrepresentation of their work, or, worse, allow the press release to claim results that simply aren't in their paper at all. And this in turn relies on the journalists not actually reading the paper. Nobody comes out of it entirely innocent.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Quercus » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:47 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Nobody comes out of it entirely innocent.


Agreed. I just wanted to point out that it's usually more a case of the system being bollixed as a whole rather than any particular part of the system acting especially dishonourably compared to any other part (at least in academic science, I can't say how it works in industry as I have no experience there).

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:20 pm UTC

It's not just the actual press releases - the abstracts of papers (often the only part accessible without breaching a paywall) are also prone to being sensationalised from time to time. They're probably in a minority, but they're the ones that tend to get picked up for headlines.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Quercus » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:00 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:often the only part accessible without breaching a paywall


That's part of how the system is bollixed. But, yeh, sexed up abstracts are not good.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1483: "Quotative Like"

Postby Kit. » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I've been talking about how much men and women talk. The invented "statistic" as well as the research that refutes it counted in terms of words used per day, so let's call it that one.

OK, let's call it that one. Is there any study that shows us the distribution of this value on male and female populations? I would expect quite a big dispersion, as different professions would come with quite different amounts of words used per day.

Or do these studies just come up with "as the dispersions are so big, the differences that we see in the mean values are inconclusive"?

gmalivuk wrote:If now you're simply claiming that there are differences in how men and women communicate, then fine, I accept that, but I don't see what it has to do with your "common sense" that teen girls "should be more prone to displaying the trends in the language evolution".

Nothing in particular. My common sense suggests that teen girls should be more prone to displaying any fashion trends, unless something specifically precludes them from doing it with a particular trend. How this relates to their communication patterns is a secondary topic.

gmalivuk wrote:Also, if that's all you're claiming, then you've moved the goalposts.

Have I ever claimed that I would like to measure "amount of talking" in "words used per day"?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chridd and 30 guests