I was celebrating Victoria Day last weekend at the beach with a few friends, discussing the anticipated fireworks show that was to come that evening, when I said “our tax dollars paid for the fireworks” in Japanese. My friends understood what I meant, but said that it *has* to be recast in the passive (or active with a null subject). Why?? What’s going on??

So there’s this little thing in semantics called metonymy, where a word is used to represent another word. A popular example is “I read Shakespeare”, where it’s understood that what’s being read is the works of Shakespeare, rather than the decaying corpse of the Bard. Metonymy comes in various forms such as container-for-contained (e.g. “the White House” for the civ. servants that work in the White House; “dishes” for the food on the dishes, etc.); tool-for-work/accomplishment (e.g. “hand” for “throwing ability”; “pen” for “writing style”, etc.); part-for-whole (e.g. “wheels” for “a car”; “head” for “person” (when counting), etc.), etc.

Read the rest of this entry »






Read the rest of this entry »

Sidenote: Welcome to the new year! I’ve successfully completed one semester of my Q-year at UT, and hopefully will continue to match/exceed my previous performance in the new term, as grad schools now consider my applications for their MA program in Linguistics. Unlike my days as an undergrad, I never handed in anything late, nor did I skip any submissions this term. I honestly have my three+ years’ corporate experience to thank for my current time-management skills (which is still far from exemplary, but thankfully distant from the dysfunctional state I was in during my late teens). I also spent two weeks in Tokyo during my winter holidays, which I’ll blog about later (with a relevant linguistic angle — I promise!)

It’s funny to consider what kind of associations people make with words and especially names. Sure, in the study of semantics, we talk about salience of meanings, so that “foul” as in “bad play/move in sports” is more likely to be elicited in the average speaker’s mind than “bad-smelling”. Given names are more nebulous, although certain cultural staples exist. For example, most people imagine Gertrude as being over a certain age, or that Martha is over a certain weight.

My given name, Joseph, isn’t really all that exciting. Etymologically, it comes from Hebrew, and means “he will increase/add”. Frankly, I suspect it’s supposed to say more about my fecundity than my arithmetic ability. In any case, it’s not an especially novel name, nor an especially novel spelling (like “Yoseff”, for example). In the decade I was born, “Joseph” was the tenth most popular given male name; and in 2011, ranked 22nd.

Now, “Joseph” being a standard common Christian English name, doesn’t have any strong associations for me. And I suspect, for most people, meeting someone named “Joseph” doesn’t really elicit any particular associations or surprise. And yet, a few weeks ago, when I met a fellow Asian-(North)-American, her first response to learning my name was “Is your family Christian?”


Read the rest of this entry »

Update: I had this whole post written about my personal observations on the a kind of sub-stratification between ‘native’ speakers like myself and my friend, and monolinguals. I decided to call us “second class native speakers”. Two weeks later, while I was still finalizing this post (’cause believe it or not, I spend more than one sitting pushing out these posts), I attended a two-day conference on this very subject. So at least my observations aren’t entirely crazy. But on the other hand, it makes me wonder how many times I’ll end up reinventing the wheel, simply from mere lack of exposure.

As it turns out, I was accessing two different phenomena: heritage language speakers, and semilinguals (now a somewhat contentious term). But of course, in my head, I somehow combined the two. It all started in my linguistics classes, when my Syntax textbook told me:

(1) *Bill kissed quietly his girlfriend

(2) Bill kissed his girlfriend quietly

I totally agree that (2) is more natural than (1); but at first blush, I wouldn’t have necessarily faulted a speaker if I heard him/her report that Bill had “kissed quietly his girlfriend”. After all, (1) isn’t exactly unclear, and there’s not clear ambiguity either.

Read the rest of this entry »

As a linguist, meeting a native speaker of a language you’re studying is a pretty exciting event. Maybe it’s just me, but I find that I often have to do a delicate balancing act between “I’m a freakish nerd of your language, which probably implies I want to be one of you, since I’m clearly not from your ethno-cultural group” and “I know nothing and have a general interest in your language.” If I don’t start with a “power introduction” (wherein I detail my research interests and years of experience with their language), I get the slow-and-loud reception. “how. are. YOU. doing?” Thanks, mate. I’m gonna go over here now.


On the other hand, if I start off too strong, my interlocutor won’t be able to relate. After all, what’re the odds that a language learner is also a linguist? So I have to carefully reign it in, to something that the general language learner/speaker can relate to, while still covertly inducting them into certain linguistic aspects.


Read the rest of this entry »

This is a bit of a second take on my original insight on double referents. I’m also going to change gears slightly by introducing two related-but-not-immediately-intuitive concepts, so I hope my dear readers will bear with me as you patiently wade through my confusion of jargon and pseudo-logic.

So I’m gonna start by explaining how these constructions work syntactically (at least, so far as my middling understanding can take it), and follow it up by why this type of error is so exciting. As a sort of refresher and motivation to work through this post, I was looking at the construction and deconstruction of the error generated by non-native speakers of English in phrases like (1) and (2).

(1) Your questions are always hard to answer (*it)!

(2) John is easy to please (*him).

Read the rest of this entry »

I normally wouldn’t comment on such things, because other websites already do such an excellent job of it, but I decided to write about this particular debacle because of its reportedly actual translation.

So I found this webpage that allegedly described three major [Chinese] tattoo mistranslations. However, the investigative journalism enshrined in that page was of such eye-wateringly low quality, it really blew my mind. In any case, one of them contained the following Chinese tattoo: 夕丑男, which the owner reportedly thought meant “love, honour, and obey”. Allegedly, however, the “real” meaning is “at the end of the day, this is an ugly boy”.

Read the rest of this entry »

  1. I am a Canadian-born Chinese, who grew up speaking English at school; and Chinese at home.
  2. I am a linguistics student with a reasonable command of Japanese.

When the preceding two facts about myself are learned by my interlocutors, I often get asked what the difference between the three languages are: Chinese, Japanese, and English. They will often go straight to the basic syntax, and assume that’s all there is to discuss. But if one would consult the table below, such an analysis is not so simple.

Read the rest of this entry »

Even if you know all the words in the sentence, it doesn’t mean you know what the sentence means. Moreover, even if a grammatically correct translation is attainable, doesn’t mean that it carries the same discoursal value. Such is the curse of polylingualism (by which I mean, “the phenomena of having more than one language in existence”).

So in English, we have this fascinating effect of doubling negatives in order to soften the intent. Wonderfully documented in Laurence R Horn’s The Expression of Negation, Horn notes that the two negatives do not completely cancel each other, and instead end up producing a weaker positive than the original positive statement. Consider:

1. Mary’s happy. Or at least, not unhappy.

2. Bart: Dad, are you licking toads?
Homer: I’m not NOT licking toads…

3. A: I thought you were friends with her?
B: Well, I’m not NOT friends with her…

Read the rest of this entry »

In my Sisyphean quest to elevate my Japanese lexicon to a level comparable to my English, I’m forced to delve into regions of vocabulary that are not normally (ie, never) covered in language classes, no matter how advanced the course. I doubt very much, for example, that any non-mathematical student of Japanese would ever learn how to say “the sixth root of sixty-four”, or “different isotopes do not affect molecular structure”. Language classes will mostly cover pedestrian topics (ie, statistically likely domains of conversation), related to family, personal well-being, some basic anatomy (hair, eye, hand; but not spleen, kidney, liver), literature, and some politics and geography. But never math, or astronomy, or physics, or literary analysis, or music theory. I should mention that I’m not blaming language courses for not being exhaustive in covering all conceivable intellectual domains; I’m only lamenting the fact that I personally have not had the pleasure of being formally taught “tech talk” in other languages, and therefore do not possess an intuition for which expressions are natural, and which are formal. In math, for example, the exponent an is technically expressed as “a to the power of n“, but conventionally, we shorten that to “a to the nth power” or more simply “a to the nth“.

So continuing on my quest, I decided to learn the names of the planets in our beloved solar system. And, being the etymological nut that I am, was able to immediately see some interesting facts. But first, the planets:

Read the rest of this entry »


COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English
L1/L2/... - Primary/Secondary Language
NNS - Non-Native Speaker
NS - Native Speaker