Linguistics; political language; persuasion; the "folksy" register of English...
I posted The Tale of the Wicked Welfare Queen, not because I like that story but to serve as a pattern to be analyzed and used for constructing equally effective stories that could present the ideas of the non-Right. And I said "I am hoping to see some new stories from you in response to the pattern, either in this journal or in your own LJs, whichever you prefer." dpolicar very graciously, and very helpfully, responded by posting The Tale of the Virtuous Rescued Family [Politician's Version -- draft .01], which you can read in full at http://ozarque.livejournal.com/437254.html?replyto=8545542 . I'm grateful.

In that story, dpolicar used the following items:
an' for "and"; doin' for "doing"; 'em for "them"; 'course for "of course"; plus "ain't," "ain't gonna," and "they don't want nobody else to..."

Which led kelsied to tell dpolicar ...
"You're not the only one I notice doing this. But when folks want to seem genuine, they adopt a folksy accent."

... and led dpolicar to respond:
"For what it's worth, I first wrote this in the register I'm most comfortable with. But in that register, I try hard to be precise and specific and anchor points with facts and logic. But the whole discussion on this blog up to this point has stressed again and again how ineffectual that is, so I ended up rewriting in a different register. As has been pointed out, I not only still ended up with too many specifics, but I botched the register in the process. I don't disagree with either of those judgments... this isn't a register I'm comfortable with and I cringe at hearing it, let alone writing it. For that matter, I also cringe at hearing the version of the Welfare Queen story we're using as our model of a good story in this exercise."

But suppose we take another look at the version of the story I wrote to be used as a pattern -- the one I imposed on you, which may well have been a mistake -- repeated here so you don't have to go find it:

======
The Tale Of The Wicked Welfare Queen

Generic Version

"You know what really gets to me? Makes my blood boil? I work like a dog, just trying to keep a roof over my family's head and food on our table, and I pay every last damn penny of my taxes! And what does the government do with my money? Hey... let me tell you what they do with it! They give it to a Welfare Queen that drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac, and wears a mink coat, and has $150,000.00 in her bank account.... You know what's in my bank account? Maybe enough to pay my phone bill, if I'm lucky! And you know why that is? It's because most of my money, what I make working my tail off every single day, goes to the damn Welfare Queens!"

Politician's Version

"You know what really gets to people? Makes their blood boil? You work like a dog, just trying to keep a roof over your family's head and food on your table, and you pay every last penny of your taxes! And what does this administration do with your money? Hey... let me tell you what they do with it! They give it to a Welfare Queen that drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac, and wears a mink coat, and has $150,000.00 in her bank account.... And all the time she's lying around her swimming pool eating chocolates and getting a nice tan, you know what's in your bank account? Maybe enough to pay your phone bill, if you're lucky! If this administration has had the decency to let you keep that much of your own money! And you know why that is? It's because most of your money, the money you make working your tail off every single day, goes to the damn Welfare Queens!"
=====

Notice, please, that this story-as-pattern doesn't use the non-standard items that are in The Tale of the Virtuous Rescued Family. It doesn't use "ain't," it doesn't chop off pieces of "and" and "them," it doesn't use "gonna" or "ain't" or double negatives. It doesn't so much as drop a G, from beginning to end. The closest it comes to being non-standard is when it says "a Welfare Queen that drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac" instead of "a Welfare Queen who drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac"; that might get a red-penciled "too informal" on an essay exam (unless there'd been enough instances of "who" in a row previously to "justify" the switch to "that" for the red-pencil-wielder.) Nevertheless, the variety of language I used makes dpolicar wince. The question is: Why? What's triggering that wince?


Maybe it would be easier to answer that question if we looked at a few examples of less "folksy" language. The first two -- from a fund-raising e-mail that turned up in my inbox this morning, courtesy of George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute -- are:

1. "And Rockridge followed up with cogent analyses..."

2. "When Karl Rove resigned, Rockridge again offered its unique and important perspective on the press coverage of Rove and others who accrete power by unscrupulous means: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/karl-rove ."

Conversations with ordinary people aren't going to include the words "cogent" or "accrete." [Or "nurturant."] This linguist is of the opinion that Rockridge isn't offering its unique and important perspective to ordinary people. And there's a persistent belief that if you are going to talk to ordinary people you will have to say "ain't" and drop your Gs and double your negatives.

My other two examples -- from people explaining the common journalistic practice of standardizing non-standard language when you're allegedly quoting it -- were quoted recently at Language Log:

3. From journalist Howard Bryant: "I really don't like to make people look stupid, especially when I understand what they're saying."

4. From editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz: "The meaning of what the athlete is saying is not altered, just the grammar. It's rooted in the belief that you shouldn't embarrass someone whose command of grammar is weak."

That is: Ordinary people who are using non-standard language look stupid, and even though their command of the grammar of their native dialect is flawless, they look as though their command of "real" grammar is weak; those who aren't ordinary people have an obligation to do what they can to keep that from happening. That is: Those whose command of the grammar of Standard American English is strong can feel entirely confident of their ability to rewrite what the person "quoted" said without altering the meaning of that person's utterance, despite having little or no command of the grammar of the dialect in question.

We -- on both the Right and the non-Right -- have to get this mess straightened out, somehow, or we're never going to be able to reason together. And the most powerful tool we have available for straightening out this kind of mess is the good story.