Malapropism

Liz   Fri May 04, 2007 12:42 pm GMT
It has been mentioned in this forum several times that native speakers, by definition, cannot make errors. (I might add that it applies to healthy people only as there are some diseases that may result in the loss of the ability to speak correctly, e.g. Broca's aphasia.)That's what most linguists say and I'm inclined to think that it is true.

However, sometimes I do have doubts about the validity of that statement. Although it is true in most of the cases as dialectal / non-standard varieties shouldn't be considered incorrect, what about malapropisms? They aren't due to regional / social variation, but they are at the same time, in my opinion, clearly incorrect. What about them? They can be regarded as mistakes, nevertheless, many native speakers use them.

(Note that I'm not referring to spoonerisms / slips of the tongue here, which are accidental and occassional mistakes, but I'm talking about those who consistently use one word instead of another.)
Guest   Fri May 04, 2007 1:16 pm GMT
Ignorance of a word or phrase when used carelessly is all it takes for a native speaker to make a mistake. I doubt linguistics believe native speakers cannot make errors for this reason alone. And this isn't necessarily malapropism. Sometimes a mistake is repeatedly made until the person successfully corrects himself/herself...
Guest   Fri May 04, 2007 1:27 pm GMT
linguistics=linguists
furrykef   Fri May 04, 2007 1:32 pm GMT
I'm both a prescriptivist and a descriptivist... which one I am depends on the situation and possibly my mood. ;) But I'm inclined to call something a mistake when there is clearly some confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the speaker. Malapropisms fit very neatly into that category.

Spelling errors are also usually just mistakes, like "definately" instead of "definitely". In most cases like that, the writer didn't intend to use a nonstandard spelling, and would correct it once it was brought to his/her attention.

Of course, today's errors can still be tomorrow's accepted usage, and the day after tomorrow's standard usage.

- Kef
Guest   Fri May 04, 2007 2:12 pm GMT
>>However, sometimes I do have doubts about the validity of that statement. Although it is true in most of the cases as dialectal / non-standard varieties shouldn't be considered incorrect, what about malapropisms? They aren't due to regional / social variation, but they are at the same time, in my opinion, clearly incorrect. What about them? They can be regarded as mistakes, nevertheless, many native speakers use them.<<

I would have to say that such are not incorrect myself from a linguistic standpoint, but at the same time I would still say they are nonstandard (unless they have caught on to the point of becoming effectively standard). They might not "make sense" if one tries to read them literally, but a lot of things in languages really do not "make sense" if one thinks about them too hard.

>>Spelling errors are also usually just mistakes, like "definately" instead of "definitely". In most cases like that, the writer didn't intend to use a nonstandard spelling, and would correct it once it was brought to his/her attention.<<

I am very strongly descriptivist, and yet I still think that there is such a thing as spelling errors because I do not view writing as being equivalent to speech and view it as being inherently artificial in the first place. At the same time, I view such as being distinct from overt nonstandard spellings, which are not failed attempts at spelling in a standard fashion but rather deliberate changes in the orthography being used (e.g. to bring what is represented closer to what is actually spoken). Nonetheless, in all but very informal writing (such as when chatting online) I avoid nonstandard spellings, aside from my occasional playing around with different orthographies for English.
Travis   Fri May 04, 2007 2:41 pm GMT
The above post is by me.
Guest   Fri May 04, 2007 3:25 pm GMT
<<The above post is by me.>>

It wasn't hard to find out, Travis. :-)
But what the hell...you are writing paragraphs! That's a great achievement. You are making headway... :-)

No offence is involved, I'm just kidding. I've recently read some old threads on which some people were preoccupied with your writing style, nevertheless, the content of their posts was not even worth mentioning anyway.

<<I would have to say that such are not incorrect myself from a linguistic standpoint, but at the same time I would still say they are nonstandard (unless they have caught on to the point of becoming effectively standard). They might not "make sense" if one tries to read them literally, but a lot of things in languages really do not "make sense" if one thinks about them too hard.>>

They do make sense in a way that the given word (which is used inappropriately in that context) bears a resemblance to another word which should be used in that particular context. Hence the confusion of meaning.

As far as non-standard usages are concerned, I don't know...I think they fall out of that category, too. I might be wrong, but I consider usages non-standard that are widespread but not (yet) accepted as standard for some reasons like low prestige or just regional variation (e.g. ain't, double/triple/quadruple negative etc.).

As opposed to them, malapropisms can be quite individualistic, that is, you might be the single person in the world who use that particular word in the wrong context. (That's a slight exaggeration, too.) Or you mightn't have seen the word written down, just heard it, and you've misunderstood it.

So, I don't think they are so widely used to be called non-standard. Non-standard forms aren't errors/mistakes, nevertheless, they are often perceived as such. I don't condemn these usages as I'm sure I do it sometimes, but I don't think it's something that can *really* be discussed in terms of "(non-)standardness".

KEF:

Most definitely agreed. However, the reason for spelling errors/mistakes can the lack of knowledge of orthographic rules, or the fact that you are simply a bad speller, which doesn't necessarily coincide with the lack of education.

<<I doubt linguistics believe native speakers cannot make errors for this reason alone.>>

Then read something on linguistics.
Liz   Fri May 04, 2007 3:27 pm GMT
Oops...sorry...the above post was mine.
Liz   Fri May 04, 2007 3:29 pm GMT
<<you might be the single person in the world who use>>

"who use" is supposed to be "to use"
Liz   Fri May 04, 2007 3:32 pm GMT
<<That's a slight exaggeration, too.>>

"too" should be "though"

<<he reason for spelling errors/mistakes can the lack of knowledge>>

a "be" is missing
Josh Lalonde   Fri May 04, 2007 3:53 pm GMT
I'm essentially a descriptivist as well, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that native speakers cannot make mistakes. I would rather say that a community of native speakers cannot make mistakes: anything that the community accepts is by definition valid for that community's variety. Of course, what one community accepts may be a mistake in another variety, and communities can be defined quite narrowly (ie. teenagers of a particular neighbourhood). People can make mistakes either consciously, by producing an innovation or borrowing that is rejected by the community, or unconsciously in simple slips of the tongue. That's how I see it.
Travis   Fri May 04, 2007 4:02 pm GMT
One note is that when I was speaking malapropisms above, I was not speaking of occasional slips of the tongue or purely idiolectal usages but rather consistent usage of such forms on a wider basis, especially in phrases where one might not know what the standard version of such a phrase is. (Remember that there are many phrases today which are considered standard but which actually originated as malapropisms of other phrases which have since been lost in most dialects.)

In cases which are slips of the tongue, I would regard them as exactly that. And as for cases where such are limited to particular individuals' idiolects (as opposed to being used by more than one person), I would simply call such idiolectal quirks and leave it at that.
Orson Cart   Fri May 04, 2007 6:06 pm GMT
Travis, could you be more pacific?
Travis   Fri May 04, 2007 7:06 pm GMT
I know that there are a good few examples of such things, but the only one that I can remember offhand at the very moment is the word "sweetheart", which originally was actually "sweetard", having the "-ard" morpheme at the end, like words like "drunkard" and "laggard".
Guest   Sat May 05, 2007 12:35 am GMT
>><<I doubt linguistics believe native speakers cannot make errors for this reason alone.>>

Then read something on linguistics. <<

There are lots of zings in linguistics. It's too broad for me to have given much ascension to this little gen.

But I'd like to know how a linguist justifies an utterance as not being in error where such is incorrect even in the speaker's local dialect.

Some native speakers have a steadfast personality where they deliberately avoid the use of any words or phrases that are only vaguely recognizable to them. On the other hand, other speakers can be reckless on occasion or can utter something, in an unassured manner, that is clearly invalid.

I suspect the justification has something to do with the meaning that is intended by the speaker, regardless of the actual delivery.