Linguistic smack talk: it's a thing.

This is going to make sense to approximately nobody, but I needed to document the GLORIOUS SASS of the linguistics article I am currently reading.

Basically, in 1989, a bunch of linguists discussed and voted on revisions to the International Phonetic Alphabet, and as such some new symbols were added, while some existing ones were changed, and others dispensed with entirely.

Geoffrey Pullum, prominent linguist and scholar, had some stuff to say about these revisions, and - boy - is he not one to mince his words. He wrote a piece* for the Journal of the International Phonetic Association expressing just what he thought about the proposals, and (indirectly) those who supported/rejected them.

He starts by telling us how his article will be laid out:

'Following two standard practices that are in fact objected to on phonetic grounds by many phoneticians, I will organise these notes by pretending that there are such things as clearly identifiable segments, and that among these segments there is a clear distinction between consonants and vowels.'

People who believe in the tangible segmentation of speech sounds? What imbeciles! God, I love that this dig is so unnecessary, and SO sassy. 'Let's just pretend for a second, in some crazy, imaginary world, that the ideas of 'consonant' and 'vowel' even exist. Come on, kids, let's play. LET'S MAKE BELIEVE.'

'It is unfortunate for the IPA to have had to introduce no fewer than eight new letter shapes for a set of sounds that are so rare ... But it is done.'

I am sobbing, this guy is the best. 'You guys just do whatever, see if I care. I mean, your idea is STUPID, but whatever, it's your funeral.'

'A long-standing movement to introduce a symbol for a (fully) open central vowel (a turned small capital A is the symbol of choice for this faction) raised its head once more again and was defeated once again. Students of the deja vu will be amused to note that the first known move  to get an open central vowel ordained was in 1907.'

Students of the deja vu! I honestly could not love him more. Also of note: the sassy use of the term 'faction' for the pro-open-central-vowel types, which for some reason makes me think of an underground sect holding hands and chanting 'aaaaaaa'**

'The [ɶ] symbol for Cardinal 12 survived - the unusable in pursuit of the unspeakable, as Oscar Wilde might have said, since Cardinal 12 is an unpronounceable contradiction in terms with jaws fully open and lips rounded. Perhaps one day it can be acoustically synthesised so we can hear it uttered as nature never intended.'

STOP IT, I CANNOT HANDLE HOW GLORIOUSLY BITCHY YOU ARE. Invoking Oscar Wilde! Imagining hypothetical futures to prove your point! Messing with common idioms to add extra sass! I think I love you.

The end of the article is too long to quote in its entirety, but it's a brilliant and oddly heart-wrenching few paragraphs that compares the debates between phoneticians about various symbol usage with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I shit you not. It is, like I said, actually really lovely, and suggests that while huge political conflicts can be overcome, such silly bickering about the use of the letter [j] in American vs. IPA graphic representation of sound should easily be dispensed with.

But, at the same time, it is comparing debate in linguistics to the fall of the Berlin wall, so.

I have to stress that I have no strong feelings for or against Pullum's opinions - this isn't a vehicle for mocking his ideas, it's just a celebration of the cattiest, most entertaining scholarly article I have probably ever had the joy of reading in my brief career as an academic. Four for you, Geoff Pullum - you go, Geoff Pullum.

*Pullum, G. (1990) Remarks on the 1989 Revision of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20, 33-40.
**I would have used the symbol for a fully open central vowel here, but - quelle horreur! - there isn't one! Oh, I amuse myself.