225. Relexicalization: Extraneous Renaming

Подписаться 34 тыс.

Просмотров 1,8 тыс.

50% 1

Every generation invents its own lingo - language naturally evolves & develops over time. But quietly re-inventing terminology for stuff that’s already named (“relexicalization”) can be a move with far-reaching political & epistemic consequences.
Links for the Curious
Language and Control (Fowler et al, 1979) - library.lol/main/8E9C562F91549...
www.google.com/books/edition/...
Learn to Write Badly : How to Succeed in the Social Sciences (Billig, 2013) - www.betterworldbooks.com/prod...
Reinventing Wheels (Voas, 2020) - www.computer.org/csdl/magazin...
Defining, Understanding, and Addressing Big Data (Bihl et al, 2016) - www.researchgate.net/profile/...
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) - www.librarianshipstudies.com/...
The Burden of Knowledge and the oDeath of the Renaissance Manp: Is Innovation Getting Harder?! (Jones, 2008) - www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/f...
A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves (Tai, 1993) - math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/m...
Tai's Formula Is the Trapezoidal Rule (Monaco & Anderson, 1994) - diabetesjournals.org/care/art...
Reply From Mary Tai (Tai, 1994) - diabetesjournals.org/care/art...
Ancient Babylonian astronomers calculated Jupiter's position from the area under a time-velocity graph (Ossendrijver, 2016) - www.science.org/doi/full/10.1...
Avoid Neologisms (Wiki Wiki Web) - wiki.c2.com/?AvoidNeologisms
Neologisms to describe neologisms: Philosophers of science and terminological innovation (Ahmad, 1999) - www.scss.tcd.ie/khurshid.ahma...
Re-inventing the wheel: Why not? Many do. - www.betaboston.com/news/2014/0...
US6080436A - Bread refreshing method - Google Patents - patents.google.com/patent/US6...
Kids Invent New Words All The Time… - izismile.com/2020/07/30/kids_...
Silicon Valley's Dumbest 'Inventions' of 2017 (Jones, 2017) - gizmodo.com/silicon-valleys-d...
Unburdening the Shoulders of Giants: A Quest for Disconnected Academic Psychology (Krpan, 2020) - journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...
Reinventing Invention, Again (Simonson, 2014) - www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong (Lepore, 2014) - facultygovernance.mit.edu/sit...
The Trouble with Terms (Voas, unpublished) - tsapps.nist.gov/publication/g...
Yo, where's my Juicero? A survey of talent in Silicon Valley (Squires, 2021) - www.jessesquires.com/blog/202...
The modern/colonial hell of innovation economy: future as a return to colonial mythologies (Tarvainen, 2022) - www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...
Disruption is an excuse for politically motivated changes (Neem, 2012) - www.insidehighered.com/views/...
Good Idea: Reinventing Invention (Glasner, 2006) - www.wired.com/2006/03/good-id...
International Standardization of Terminology: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects (Felber, 1980) - www.degruyter.com/document/do...
Critical discourse analysis - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critica...
Great Conversation - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_C...
Stovepipe system - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stovepi...
221. Spolsky’s Maxim & Innovation - • 221. Spolsky's Maxim &...

Опубликовано:

8 июн 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 46

@CaraiseLink 2 года назад

Thank you! I swear someone has done this in almost every ideological conversation I've ever been in, but I could never quite hammer out exactly how to explain why it was harmful in a short enough time to hold anyone's interest. I'm feeling a lot more equipped to call people on it and maybe, hopefully educate them why not to do it in the future.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Glad to hear it's a useful concept! :D

@ToriKo_ 2 года назад

You may have heard of the related Motte and Bailey fallacy, where people switch out definitions for words. It’s got a lot of impacts, and you might find it helpful to remember this fallacy when having those types of conversations

@oliverchristie5175 2 года назад

When naming a concept, it really is good practice to do some research and see if you can use an existing term. If you still don't find anyting, please name it someting descriptive, don't name it after yourself and make it seem as if you have created something altogether new.

@TheGemsbok 2 года назад

I assume the word 'relexicalization' as a technical term for 'renaming' was itself introduced with some sense of irony in the text?

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

It's certainly at least a little ironic, but it is useful to have a technical term for "linguistic phenomenon of coining new terms" vs. other sorts of renaming, especially when you're trying to search for it on Google Scholar! 😉

@_Aarius_ 2 года назад

Always a pleasure being early to a new vid

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Always a pleasure having someone watching! :D

@snackspositive 2 года назад

In the german context this is done with replacing existing words with their english counterparts. While most of it may be just playful there are some eery implications here. For once english words don't seem as impactful or real, for the lack of a better term, as the word heared from the perspective of the mother tongue. We may coin this a translation-euphemism. Corporate speak makes a lot of use of this effect to make things sound new and exciting. Also the aspect of a linguistic hegemony of English language is something i've got a tooth to pick with. In Germany english seems to be more 'cool' than the german language. Especially for the younger folks. The hierarchical ordering of language is rather uncanny.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Absolutely! There's a certain je ne sais quoi about importing other languages for emphasis...;) A lot of philosophy makes use of unnecessary Latin jargon like prima fascia or X qua X, which I think falls into the same category...but Latin's a dead language, so IDK what hierarchy we're imagining here.

@sorses 2 года назад

I think this topic is very relevant on how to title youtube videos, if you title with the same sort of implications as the video, you answer the viewer expectation better

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Not wrong!

@stefos6431 2 года назад

Hi Thunk..........your RU-vid channel makes complete sense...........The problem is the hubris of people which think they "already know this".......Man, people simply do NOT know...they have a vagueness about/on things and act as if "they get it"

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

That Socrates guy knew what was up.

@oliverchristie5175 2 года назад

A pet peeve of mine in philosophy. I am all for clearly defining how you are going to use your terms, but we don't need to give every variation of an idea (love, justice, ethics) its own unique word!

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

:P If we're going to invent a term & its definition out of whole cloth, I'm not sure what debate can be had about it.

@anakimluke 2 года назад

My mom wanted to be called lifegiver but I didn't cope.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Uh...cap? Or wait yeet? Yeet. (I am not a zoomer. 🙃)

@InShadowsLinger 2 года назад

TIL that utilitarianism has negative connotations to it. Time to do some research. I’ve ever only heard it in passing and took at face value. Also how would one go about taking a concept, taking only the good bits and presenting it to people without getting a knee jerk reaction?

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

I made a brief summary of some of the standard points people raise against utilitarianism here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QA2JwEhJss8.html I think deliberately taking "the good bits" from some concept & omitting the other bits is...probably intellectually dishonest, in most cases? Trying to disguise it as something else defs seems sketchy.

@Jesse__H 2 года назад

Good vid. No time for a more thoughtful comment haha. Thanks!

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Thx!

@LeeCarlson Год назад

Does Fowler's work predate William Lutz's book "Doublespeak" from 1989?

@daidaitastic 2 года назад

I feel I might not understand the full context of this discussion, but I am inclined to think that there are more than just two reasons why someone might use neologisms. I mean, without access to specific discourses, a person might be inclined to encapsulate a particular experience they have in order to better interact with it. Of course that neologism might not serve a person who is trying to communicate that idea to others, but I can think of all kinds of reasons why I might accommodate a person in that situation if only to help them find more common words or refine their idea more. But I'm also thinking that maybe this discussion is related to academic, technical, or legal pursuits rather than pursuits of self expression or situations where knowledge is inaccessible. This is coming from someone that is for the broadening of people's voices so please excuse me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.

@vampyricon7026 2 года назад

4:23 Like how "fish" means "bees"?

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

I would direct you to this podcast by the researchers for British quiz show QI: www.nosuchthingasafish.com/

@Macieks300 2 года назад

Audio again seems to be really bad.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Wow, I thought it sounded pretty good TBH - can you describe what you're hearing?

@Macieks300 2 года назад

@@THUNKShow Just compare it to the previous video you made. This one sounds like it has its bass boosted.

@bthomson Год назад

Not sure this is on point but: I HATE the term "boots on the ground"! Those are P E O P L E !!!

@bthomson Год назад

How about "infidelity or cheating!" Fidelity has to do with sound quality and cheating is in poker! This is sex with someone other than your married partner! Grrr!

@peterhooper3391 Год назад

I see you steered a wide course around “enemy combatant” fir “prisoner of war” and “enhanced interrogation” for “torture.”

@d.lawrencemiller5755 Год назад

Drives me nuts when people say "one year anniversary" instead of "first anniversary." It's like people forgot what the word 'anniversary' means in the first place. I don't think anyone is really harmed by this linguistic shift, but it makes me sad to realize people know their language so poorly they have to find a ham-fisted workaround for the word they don't know. The anniversary of a new friendship, a new job, a first date, a marriage, these are joyous occasions that deserve fancy words!

@Xob_Driesestig 2 года назад

When people (most often women) get married they often take on the name of their partner. To combat loss of knowledge of their previous achievements an encyclopedia usually adds a small "née" disclaimer e.g; Linda Jacobs (née Smith). However with transgender people we often don't put their dead name on the page since this might be painful. Do you think we should include the dead names to prevent loss of knowledge, or do you think we shouldn't include the dead names to make it less painful for them?

@KohuGaly 2 года назад

There's a difference between someone changing their name to conform to an arbitrary social norm, and someone changing their name because they wish to be called differently. Accidentally calling someone by their maiden name is largely considered a benign mistake, as the change was a product of mostly benign social norm. That's not necessarily the case for other special legal name changes.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Interesting question! I tried to gesture at this in the summary at the end - I think there can be good reasons to retire old terminology, & I'd count transitioning among those reasons. We have legal mechanisms in place to maintain continuity & avoid confusion if someone wants to take a different name (for marriage or transition or w/e) & I'm not sure I can think of any defense of deadnaming on other grounds I mentioned (control, strategic amnesia).

@raule.martinezcampos5152 2 года назад

Lol 😂 .lol

@dtaylor091489 2 года назад

first off loved this video. one small disagreement: if Harris had merely stated that he was a utilitarian then he would be immediately bombarded with all the standard critiques of utilitarianism that don’t necessarily apply to his argument. moreover, if he merely stated that he was a utilitarian then most people would likely ignore the nuances of his position. for example, one of the primary critiques of utilitarianism is that it is impossible to precisely calculate which actions are absolutely best. however, in Harris’s landscape formulation, he somewhat sidesteps this problem by acknowledging there can be co-equal “best actions”. the point he was trying to make in that book was that just because we can’t calculate precisely which actions are absolutely best, that doesn’t mean that all ways of acting are equally permissible.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

Bentham's original formulation of utilitarianism explicitly addresses precise calculation: "It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment, or to every legislative or judicial operation. It may, however, be always kept in view: and as near as the process actually pursued on these occasions approaches to it, so near will such process approach to the character of an exact one." AFAIK Harris's formulation is subject to all the same critiques as basic utilitarianism - utility monsters, organ harvesting, the is/ought distinction, etc. are all fair game for "scientific morality." I think refusing to engage with the broader philosophical discourse about hedonic utilitarianism implies that he doesn't take these critiques seriously, which is a mistake, IMO. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@dtaylor091489 2 года назад

@@THUNKShow I think what Bentham is saying here is that rough estimates are acceptable when trying to weigh the benefits against the costs. I don’t think he was suggesting that there are multiple right answers to a particular problem, which is what I think is unique about Sam’s formulation. For example, in the paragraph preceding the text that you quoted, Bentham writes, “Take the balance which if on the side of pleasure, will give the general good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals concerned…” This suggests that Bentham was simply concerned with rough estimates as opposed to multiple right answers i.e., landscapes. The Distinction Illustrated: Bentham might attempt to find the best type of hat, for example, by roughly adding up the benefits of every type of hat and subtract all of the costs. Whereas, Harris might suggest that we scientifically test which types of hats cause physical discomfort and then conclude that we have discovered a moral fact about with respect to wearing hats, and can therefore say with some scientific backing, that producing particular types hats are immoral or unethical because they cause physical discomfort and all hats that don’t cause physical discomfort are equally permissible. In conclusion, Harris is definitely influenced by Bentham and if he has ever denied that then he’s being dishonest. Also, I should note that I Harris’s work isn’t as distinct from Bentham’s as Mill’s was. Mill’s formulation of higher and lower pleasures is not even close to what Bentham had proposed. That being said, that doesn’t necessarily make Harris’s theory identical to Bentham’s. I see Harris’s work as an addendum to Bentham’s rather than a copy.

@ferulebezel 2 года назад

Xoo just stepped on half the script I've been half-assed working on arguing for linguistic proscriptivism. You didn't mention people using words of a different scope to manipulate the discourse as in when in a conversation about illegal aliens someone starts using the term "immigrants" to imply something nefarious about the person wanting secure borders.

@THUNKShow 2 года назад

lol, linguistic prescriptivism is pretty unpopular in linguistic circles, AFAIK - if anyone's gonna argue for it, they'd better do it in impeccable Old English. 😆 Yeah motte & bailey can also be a problem!

@vampyricon7026 2 года назад

@@THUNKShow I think the key difference is that *as a linguist*, you shouldn't be a prescriptivist because linguistics is a science. It's not normative. My take on this is that linguistic prescriptivism:linguistics::engineering:physics. You can have bad engineers, and you can have bad prescriptivists. That doesn't mean engineering or linguistic prescriptivism by themselves are bad. They just aren't science.