959. Learn why human language goes beyond basic communication to allow spontaneous creativity, expression of identity, and leadership in linguistic change — things animals and chatbots can't quite achieve. Plus, I answer a British listener's question about the confusing way Americans use the word "gotten."
959. Learn why human language goes beyond basic communication to allow spontaneous creativity, expression of identity, and leadership in linguistic change — things animals and chatbots can't quite achieve. Plus, I answer a British listener's question about the confusing way Americans use the word "gotten."
The "chatbot" segment was written by Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno and the author of "Like Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English." You can find her at valeriefridland.com.
| Transcript: https://grammar-girl.simplecast.com/episodes/chatgpt-gotten/transcript
| Subscribe to the newsletter for regular updates.
| Watch my LinkedIn Learning writing courses.
| HOST: Mignon Fogarty
| VOICEMAIL: 833-214-GIRL (833-214-4475) or https://sayhi.chat/grammargirl
| Grammar Girl is part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network.
| Theme music by Catherine Rannus.
| Grammar Girl Social Media Links: YouTube. TikTok. Facebook. Instagram. LinkedIn. Mastodon.
by Valerie Fridland
Recently, there's been a lot of buzz about new chatbots that can have a conversation almost like a human. But there's a big difference between being "human-like" and actually being human. To really get what it means to be a sentient communicator, we need to consider what separates the way humans talk from the way both animals and machines communicate.
Grammar Girl here. I’m Mignon Fogarty, your friendly guide to the English language. Stick around because after we talk about why animals and chatbots don't do the same thing with language that humans do, I'll talk about the tricky way Americans use the word "gotten" and share a listener's funny follow-up story about the NATO phonetic alphabet.
Human language is incredibly complex and constantly evolving. It's, quite frankly, amazing how it can convey not just literal information but also subtle hints about the speaker's attitude, perspective, and emotions. While animals and computers share some of these abilities, they don't have the perfect mix that humans do that lets us talk about things happening now, plan for the future, and reflect on the past – all while also changing up the way we talk to be appropriate in different contexts. What makes us special is the way our internal language system is shaped and changed by our social identities and relationships. This is why speech quirks like vocal fry, discourse markers (like "like," "you know," and "I mean"), and debates over pronouns (like "he," "she," or "they") are the very things that make us different from animals and machines.
No one would deny that our fellow creatures in the animal kingdom can communicate about basics like where to find food, where danger lurks, and who in the neighborhood is smelling good. But what they usually lack, compared to humans, is the ability to create new combinations of expressions in ways that go beyond something that's been said before. For example, while Fido can bark in different ways to tell you he needs to go out, that he is protecting the door from some transgressor on his property, or that he wants you to put some kibble in his bowl, he can't mix those barks to say, in a low-key way, “Dude, after I am done with this crappy kibble, I want you to let me outside so I can bite that delivery guy.”
In linguistic terms, he doesn't have what we might call a "discrete combinatorial system" — a key feature of human language. But, like humans, Fido does have lived experiences and emotions that he remembers for future situations, like knowing the vet clinic is a very bad place, or that he shouldn't pee inside the house. He also has his own ways of showing his feelings to others – like through the position of his tail and ears, or through different sounds like whining, whimpering, happy yips, or content groans. But he doesn’t have the capacity to add on his own new elements to his existing repertoire of signs and symbols.
On the other side of the spectrum, we now have chatbots that can hold conversations. Compared to most animal communication, chatbots use language in a way that's much closer to the way we do: The newest versions can take basic elements like nouns, verbs, and prepositions and combine them to create entirely new sentences. And they do it in an interactive way that's shaped by responses. So, the algorithms behind something like ChatGPT can offer insights or information that might be new to you. You could even potentially argue that they use "past experience" — their training data— to shape their responses in new situations, crafting new sentences based on what they know from before and from the current conversation. While this might feel very similar to human communication, there's a crucial element missing that makes humans unique – what we might call "sociolinguistic leadership."
And by sociolinguistic leadership I mean that ChatGPT and other bots like it can mirror what we put into them and even convincingly say sentient-sounding things to us, but they are lacking the fundamental ability that humans have to use language in an innovative way for social meaning.
While humans use the discourse marker "like" in places where they hope to communicate a subjective sensibility (as in “I’m like dying over here!”) or when relaying something was, "like, not quite verbatim” – generative AI can only copy this type of linguistic style rather than create one.
Here's another example: think about dialects. The language differences we hear as dialects come about because people interact, and their language slowly shifts toward shared norms, like saying “cat” more like “kit” if they're from the North, or more like “cut” if they're from the West. New forms and words come out of meaningful conversations we have with each other over time. The more we identify with some social trait or cool quality that someone else has, the more likely we are to adopt subtle aspects of their speech — without even realizing it — and this is how language change happens. So, if a person starts saying “someone” instead of “somebody,” for example, and others pick it up because it sounds more modern or hip to them than saying “somebody,” a new norm is born that will gradually replace the old one. And, in fact, a recent study of Canadian English found that “somebody” is on the way out, and “someone” is on the way in. So while a computer might be able to model language change by getting updated training data, it can’t lead in such language change — because linguistic innovation like this is driven by social identity, something computers don’t have. At least not yet.
That segment was written by Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno and the author of "Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English." You can find her at valeriefridland.com.
by Mignon Fogarty
If you heard my interview with Ben Yagoda about British words that have come into English, you may remember that Ben mentioned one of the previous editors of the magazine "The New Yorker" who had a list of banned words that included "gadget," "balding," and "gotten."
And "gotten" was a weird one because "The New Yorker" is an American Magazine, and "gotten" is the common American verb. But the editor preferred "got," which is what British people tend to say.
Well, after listening to that interview, a British Mastodon user who goes by Holdfast wrote, "I think one of the reasons that nobody else [presumably outside the United States] uses "gotten" is because it doesn't seem to mean the same as "got" and we are not quite sure when to use it. For example, I could say "I've got a bit of money in my pocket" but I think using gotten there wouldn't mean quite the same [thing]. Is this something you could explain to those of us outside the USA please?"
Sure! I am happy to explain, and you're not alone in your confusion. In the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, David Crystal says, "'Gotten' is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong. It's not simply an alternative for 'have got.'"
The simplest part is that in American English, the past participle of "get" is "gotten" and in British English the past participle of "get" is "got."
This means that when Americans talk about acquiring something in the past, we could use "gotten" and say, "I have gotten a new set of maracas" whereas British people would be more likely to say, "I have got a new set of maracas."
We also use "gotten" to talk about a process, becoming. For example, Americans would say, "I've gotten hungry," and British people would say, "I've got hungry."
But it gets a little more complicated because Americans don't always use "gotten." If we're talking about possession — having something, like a bit of money in our pocket — we'd say "have" or "have got."
I have a bit of money in my pocket.
or
I have got a bit of money in my pocket.
We'd never say, "I've gotten a bit of money in my pocket," unless maybe we meant it magically appeared. "I've gotten a bit of money in my pocket; I have no idea where it came from!"
In fact, we could use "gotten" and "got" in that sentence: "I've gotten a bit of money in my pocket ("gotten" for the process); I have got no idea where it came from ("have got" for possession, or the lack of possession of an idea).
We also use "got" instead of "gotten" to say we have to do something — for obligation or necessity. For example, "I'd buy you a drink, but I have got to pay my library fine on the way home." Or we might leave out the "got" altogether and just say, "I have to pay my fine," but "have got" creates more emphasis.
We're also more likely to leave out the word "got" in questions. For example, New Fowler's Modern English Usage, a book whose emphasis is on British English, says that "in Britain, you’re more likely to hear the question “Have you got this book in stock?” whereas in America, you're more likely to hear “Do you have this book in stock?”
So thanks for the question, Holdfast. The short answer is that in America, we use "gotten" as the past participle of "got," but not for possession or obligation.
Finally, I have two caller voicemails for you. This first one is a funny follow-up story about the NATO phonetic alphabet that made me laugh:
"Hi, Mignon. My name is Sandy, and I would like to thank you for your recent story about the NATO phonetic alphabet because it brought to mind an amusing story from many years ago. The background is that my father was a World War II veteran, and he had taught me when I was a child to use that NATO alphabet when speaking if I was using initials or names of letters when they might be unclear such as over the telephone. Fast forward to several decades later when I was ordering a briefcase over the telephone. I said to the sales lady that I would like the briefcase embossed with my initials 'SRB' as in 'sierra', 'romeo,' 'bravo.' The sales lady on the other end of the line repeated those words back to me — 'sierra,' 'romeo,' 'bravo' — and then she said, "Wow, that's a funny name." I hope that brings you a chuckle the next time you're trying to think of the NATO alphabet instead of the random words you use for your name. Thank you so much for your entertaining and informative podcast. Bye bye."
Thanks so much, Sandy. That's so funny.
And here's the familect story:
"Hi, Grammar Girl. The familect story goes that one day … we were eating dinner, and we were having simple sirloin steaks, and my young son, who was probably about four at the time, asked, 'Where's the Al sauce?' And my wife and I looked at each other with a puzzled look, and Andy said, 'Yeah, the Al sauce." And I made the connection. A-1 to him looks like Al, A-L, and so from now on we've called A-1 sauce Al sauce. So that's our familect. That's one small familect."
I thought that was the perfect story to go with our chatbot segment since I've heard many people say that "AI" looks like the name "Al" to them when it's written in the sans serif typeface that is so common online. Thank you for the story, and I plan to answer your question in a future episode.
If you want to share the story of your familect, your family dialect, a word your family and only your family uses, call the voicemail line at 83-321-4-GIRL. It’s in the show notes, and be sure to tell me the story behind your familect because that’s always the best part.
Finally, we're down to the wire if you celebrate Christmas. If you still need a gift for your mom who always corrected your grammar, a teacher, or the aspiring writer in your family, you still have a few days to pick up my updated book, THE GRAMMAR DAILY. It's like a tip-a-day calendar you keep forever. THE GRAMMAR DAILY.
Grammar Girl is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Thanks to audio engineer, Nathan Semes; marketing associate, Davina Tomlin; ad operations specialist, Morgan Christianson; digital operations specialist, Holly Hutchings; director of podcasts, Brannan Goetschius; and marketing assistant, Kamryn Lacey, who loves to go thrift shopping, where she mainly looks for clothes and handbags. How fun!
And I’m Mignon Fogarty, better known as Grammar Girl. That's all. Thanks for listening.