The Social Stigma of Using Words: Like Specifically the Word “Like”

I found an article discussing the different ways we use the word “like.” Normal uses of “like,” as a verb, noun, quotative, or as a word for comparison, are diverse as it is. But outside of those, the uses of “like” are normally looked down upon as socially unacceptable, much in the same way that uptalk is. Some people say that this is just another way to fill space, or another word for “um.” However, using “like” is not always associated with pauses in speech; its use is often intentional. Sometimes, we use it at the beginning of a sentence to emphasize or clarify a previous statement (e.g. The cheesecake was awesome! Like the raspberry sauce was so rich!). Other times, we use it in the middle of the sentence to highlight the importance of a specific phrase (e.g. I didn’t get to bed until like 3 in the morning). Here, we’re emphasizing the fact that it was so late to be going to sleep.

The two sources I looked at agreed that the use of “like” in this second way was for emphasizing the importance of something in the middle of the sentence. However, I think I also use it as “around” or “about,” meaning that it’s an estimate of something inexact (e.g. She cut the paper into like 5 pieces). Here, it isn’t about emphasizing the fact that it was five pieces, it’s more about communicating that we’re not sure how many pieces she cut it into. Anyway, this was just another meaning that I thought of that the articles didn’t mention.

The use of “like” was far more diverse than I realized. Are there other uses/meanings of “like” that you use or have heard? If you have time, check out some of the examples in the first article below!

Do you think “like” has the stigma of being annoying or incorrect in the same way that uptalk does?

https://theconversation.com/like-isnt-a-lazy-linguistic-filler-the-english-language-snobs-need-to-like-pipe-down-122056

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/like

https://xkcd.com/1483/

Linguistic "Groupyness"

            

             At the end of Chapter 5, the authors use Pittsburghese as an example for linguistic identity. In a large paragraph, they list several words and pronunciations that are associated with people who live in Pittsburgh. This list includes the usual terms we hear: nebby, slippy, yinz. After all that, however, we learn that outside of possibly the pronunciation of “dahntahn” and the use of “gumband,” “none of these items is unique to Pittsburgh”; instead, the idea of Pittsburghese is more about identity and the “people’s pride in being residents of Pittsburgh” (154). This surprised me (although it probably shouldn’t have). I didn’t realize that almost all of these linguistic differences were not unique to Pittsburgh, and that the idea of having a “Pittsburghese” was about the sense of having a “linguistic homeland.”

            This all reminded me of the linguistic biography I did about the different languages in China. My aunt explained to me that small and distinct linguistic communities are what make someone feel connected and part of a group. The idea of having an insider language that only a certain group understands is not only useful, but unifying. She mentioned that Mandarin, although it is the national language and gives people a common ground, does not unite the Chinese people in the same way that local languages do. This feeling of “groupyness,” found in smaller communities, is strong. Perhaps the idea of identity related to Pittsburghese is similar in the way it unites the people who live there and speak accordingly. But what’s the difference? Does the person in China, who speaks several distinct languages, have a deeper connection with those who are from the insider language than people who have only a dialectal difference? Is there something to be said for the ability to move in-and-out of multiple languages rather than switching between dialects? Also, do dialects lead to distinct languages if groups of people are separated for enough time?

Other questions I had from this chapter…

-       -     Are there any big differences in grammar across the linguistic regions of the US? Our book talks about small differences that apply to just one phrase, but are there overarching and applicable grammar rules that are distinct to a region?

-       -     The different vowel shifts are cool (pgs. 137-140)! Am I thinking correctly in imagining them to become like the GVS we learned about in Intro. to Linguistics? Will the vowels move enough to be completely new words so that the dialects are extremely different in each region (so different that they cannot be understood by outsiders)?