Talk:Language myth

Bob, I can see this issue has raised yer hackles and I really don't want to get involved in edit-warring with you, but I feel that Teflpedia should tone this article down to prevent it looking like a blog.

There are several bits that need looking at/editing as they don't really stand up to scrutiny, scientific or otherwise, including the following random sample: a)"we can understand little of what foreigners say to us" - this is patently NOT the case, as humans have been able to make themselves perfectly well-understood since they first made contact with othrs of their species; b) "clearly shows us that it is words which carry the largest semantic meaning." - of course! There wouldn't be any semantic meaning if there weren't words to express it - that goes without saying!! But precisely the whole point of non-verbal communication is that it relies on natural, animal expressions and gestures that are basically understood by every human being, regardless of mother tongue, and substitute or complement the need for formalities such as words/grammar/semantics, call it what you will.--Technopat 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree with Mehrabian (who wouldn't?) when he says that we can get emotional content without words. This is really stating the obvious and I doubt anybody would disagree. The issue is this "90% of communication is non-verbal" which is wildly quoted and is clearly false.  It seems clear that the non-verbal content can vary from 100% in a "come here" gesture to zero when you are listening to the radio.  I'd say it's impossible to put any "average" value on it as it's obviously so situation dependent. But, in general, it's pretty clearly less that 90% - a figure which isn't even supported by the data which originally gave rise to the myth.


 * As to whether we can understand people who do not share our language is concerned - if communication is so easy between people who speak different languages why do we need to teach them new languages? If they can get 90% of communication without learning another language why bother learning it?  Many of my students would be delighted to understand 90% of English without further study.


 * But having said all this I'm no longer sure exactly what we are debating. Yesterday you wrote: "And I do NOT "maintain that 90% of conversation is non-verbal."" Well, neither do I. I most obviously accept that some communication is non-verbal, as do you.  I maintain that the quantity of non-verbal communication will depend on the context; and I get the impression that you would agree with this. So I'm not quite sure exactly where we differ.--Bob M 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings Bob. This whole whatchamacallit has been a great little practical exercise in the limitations of writing over face-to-face communication! People can say what they like - literally - but when F2F there is little doubt that meaning is more effectively transmitted.


 * More extensive use of emoticons might have eased the mounting tension along the way, but there were actually moments when I was convinced you were 100% sceptical of the importance - and even existence - of non-verbal communication itself, not just the urban-myth figure of 90%. To paraphrase someone or other, somewhere between wild disbelief and blind faith there is a point at which most people would agree. :)


 * Another thing worth pointing out is that much verbal communication is simply not effective and much results in misunderstanding. As teachers, we all know how instructions that are apparently perfectly clear, precise and foolproof can get misconstrued - and in fact it is actually remarkably difficult to give/write clear step-by-step instructions without taking for granted that the reader/listener will understand what we consider obvious. The Lego exercise I mentioned somewhere for the tango seating is a great case in point.


 * In fact, I once challenged a group of 12 smart business executives to give me step-by-step and foolproof instructions - previously written down and polished for homework - for opening a box of matches and lighting a cigarette. Although they were all fully convinced that they were experts in communication, strategy etc. and that their versions would be word perfect, it became quickly evident that they were, one by one, failing miserably in their task. Although I allowed them to ad lib and build upon what the previous guy had instructed me to do, none of them were able to get me beyond the stage of getting a match out of the box and putting the phosphorus against the friction strip. And none of them had thought of telling me - in their written instructions - to put the cigarette in my mouth before lighting it, either. Not that we ever got near that stage in practice. Oh, and the challenge was to do it in their mother tongue first to prove that they could do it... Try it one day (actually, over a couple of days) when you have the time and someone who is especially keen on communication. Though now with smoking not permitted, I'll have to think up an alternative.


 * As the above exercise shows, it's actually very difficult even in non-emotive contexts. And as everyone working with people knows, most of us have even greater difficulty putting our own feelings and thoughts into words - even in our mother tongue.


 * Re your "if communication is so easy between people who speak different languages", I was once spent several days in a village deep in a tropical rainforest, none of whose inhabitants had any idea of English or any other language that would have been understandable to me. With goodwill, humour, pointing and patience on both parts, we were able to communicate perfectly - even in a situation of extreme tension that arose. But that's a story for another day. I'm outta here.--Technopat 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess there must indeed be something wrong with this communication system. My first post began by criticizing the 90% figure, my second began by saying But I most certainly did not say that verbal communication was 100% of communication. My fourth long post included the words: I of course accept that non-verbal communication is largely unintentional. I have never suggested that it doesn't exist. Only that 90% is a grossly exaggerated figure. My fifth post included the words: I most obviously accept that some communication is non-verbal.


 * Given all this it is really quite worrying that you had the impression that I denying the complete existence of non-verbal communication. Still, as you say, we live and learn. :-)  --Bob M 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Titles and urban myths
The first urban myth here is "English spelling is irregular" this is the the subject which is debunked. The second is "We only use 10% of our brains" this is the subject with is debunked. Logically, the myth should be the be the title of the section. "How much human communication is non-verbal?" is not a statement of belief. If is a question. It might go well in a section of the non-verbal communication article. Indeed, we could work on it together. But the widespread incorrect belief is that "90% of human communication is non-verbal". The wikipedia article takes the same line calling it "extremely weakly founded" and pointing out the flaws. If your objection is to the use of a number how about a written "Ninety percent"?--Bob M 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Point taken. Ninety percent it is, then :) Or how 'bout "Around 90%..."--Technopat 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it weakens it a bit and the common assertion is "90%" - itself a suspiciously round number for such a dramatic statement - but this debate is frankly wearing me down slightly so let's leave it at that. [[Image:Th_hug.gif]] (The hug is not very butch, but it's the best one we've got under the circumstances.) :-) --Bob M 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Folk etymology
Was toying with the idea of starting an article page for the above, but it might better fit in as a subsection of this 'ere article.

Examples
etc. Feedback? --Technopat 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * posh - The origin of the adjective "posh" is "Port Outbound, Starboard Homebound"
 * "Fuck you!" comes from English longbowmen shouting out "Pluck yew!"
 * I can see it's linked, but I rather think it's a different topic. There are so many of these and I seem to hear them often. I've lost track of the number of times I've had to explain that the origin of "OK" is not known.  I've got my list of the 13 (?) different theories somewhere. It's almost an article in itself! But there are some I'm not sure of.  Is it true that "raining cats and dogs" started because people used to keep cats and dogs in the roofs of their houses? I've never looked it up but it's hard to believe somehow.--Bob M 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So Folk etymology it is then... Loads of mileage to be had there. --Technopat 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Can't find my list, but I reckon it's got summat like 17 different theories. As for the cats & dogs, your guess is as good as mine :) --Technopat 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked up cats and dogs - the "living in the thatched roofs" is common but wrong. But the jury is still out on the real exp.  My OK text is below.  But I can't remember where it came from now, so I'd guess that we'd need to re-edit it in some way.

Origin of OK
"Oll Korrekt"

Allen Walker Read wrote six articles in the journal American Speech in 1963 and 1964 on the origins of the word. He dismissed the Choctaw origins as mythic folklore, emphasizing the possibility that "OK" arose as a cute abbreviation.

He believed the word to be short for any of several different spellings of "all correct", including "Oll Korrect", "Orl Korrect", and "Ole Kurreck". There was a fad in the 1830s and 1840s involving the intentional misspelling of common phrases, and referring to them by the resulting initials. These may have been influenced by the Low German phrase "Oll klor", which would have been spoken by emigrants from Northern Germany.

African Origins

Another plausible etymology for "okay" is the suggestion that the expression may have entered North America along with African slaves many of whom arrived speaking one or more of several west African languages in which [oke] ("okay" or something close to it) was already part of the vocabulary, with a semantic scope quite close to that of "okay" in contemporary English. "Waw-kay" is an exclamation in both Bantu and Wolof dialects, "kay" being a word meaning "yes," and "waw" an emphatic; "waw-kay" is an emphatic "yes."

American Biscuits.

Another story is that it comes from boxes of Orrins-Kendall crackers which were popular with Union troops during the US Civil War. Some say the term comes from a German businessman Otto Kaiser who put his initials on goods he had inspected. Occitan language

The hallmark of the Occitan language is oc, the medieval Occitan word for yes, as opposed to oïl, the ancestor of the modern French oui, from the langue d'oïl of Northern France.

Vulgar Latin developed different methods of signifying assent: "hoc ille" and "hoc", which became the langues d'oil and langue d'oc (or occitan language), respectively. The subsequent development of "oïl" into "oui" can be seen in modern French, and "hoc ille" may have evolved into OK.

Choctaw Language

There is a Choctaw word "okeh" with the same meaning and pronunciation as American usage; Woodrow Wilson, among others, used this spelling to emphasize the Native American origins of the word. The Choctaw language was well known as a lingua franca of the frontiersmen of the early 19th Century, including eventual American Presidents Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison.

Greek Language

In Greece teachers would mark especially good school papers with "OK" for Ola Kala (Ολα Καλά, ΟΚ), meaning that everything is good; as a variant on that story, the Greek phrase would be used by sailors as a quick way of responding to the captain's inquiry about the condition of the ship. O.K. was marked on shipping crates after inspection, as the crates travelled and disembarked around the world people saw the abbreviation as meaning everything in them was all right 'Ola Kala'.

French Fisherman Origins

Another possible origin for the term "OK" comes from French fishermen, sometimes said to be based in New Orleans. When the fishermen came back from their trips and were approaching the harbour, when asked by the harbourmaster where to tie up their boats, the captain would shout "au quai", meaning "to quay". Later, when asked how their trip went, in the local taverns etc., they would simply reply "au quai", which would indicate that their ship had been tied up to the quay to unload a lot of fish. The phrase "au quai" became synonymous with success and integrated local slang.

Oak

The term OK has also been used in an English will and testament from 1565. It is possible that this usage originates from "oak" - the tree from which ships were constructed in the British Navy. The actor David Garrick (1717-1779) wrote the Royal Navy's song "Heart of Oak", a patriotic song celebrating naval victories of the Seven Years War (1756-1763).

No Changes.

The term OK was also used by typesetters and people working in the publishing business. A manuscript that didn't need any changes or corrections would be marked "O.K." for Ohne Korrektur (German for "No changes").

The Harvest.

Another story is that it comes from the British English word hoacky (the last load of the harvest). Or the Finnish word Oikein (that's right). Or the Scottish expression och aye. Or the French aux Cayes or au quai.

Languedoc.

There is an area in France called Languedoc which literally translates as "Language of OK", since "oc" means "yes" in the local dialect - which happens to match the Scottish (northern Gaelic?) 'och'.

0 Killed

According to one account the term was used in U.S. military records to state that there were zero casualties or zero killed, hence 0.K., at a particular battle site.

Initials

Since the term bears resemblance to a person's initials, many proposals have been made as to who "O.K." was, and why their name would become synonymous with acceptability.

One story says it comes from a railroad freight agent, Obadiah Kelly, who initialled bills of lading, or an Indian chief Old Keokuk who wrote his initials on treaties.--Bob M 10:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)