The gay lisp

[Borodog]

I didn't say that the theory was that all men spoke with a gay lisp. The theory is clearly that gay men are more disposed to the gay lisp than others. I don't buy it. They might be more disposed to a feminine way of speaking because of brain anatomy, and some of them might have a lisp, but I don't see them being more disposed as a group to the "gay lisp."

Besides, isn't that like saying that all men who were dresses are transvestites?

Besides, it can't possibly be right. If one concedes that there are some portion of straight men who speak in an effeminate manner (there seems to be such a trend among men in the deep south raised by higher society domineering mothers in my experience), and that some portion of all men speak with a lisp, there must be some small number of effeminate, lisping straight men. Who are probably very pissed off.

[JJNJustin]

This thread is absolutely fabulous.

-J

[Mickey Brausch]

The gay style, whatever that is, eventually becomes like the black style, whatever that is, in terms of getting adopted by some forward-thinking or simply by some flashier parts of society.

Outré and stylistic affectations of the minorities, in general, are to be aspired for, in certain circles of the majority, but only when such stylistic affectations are mostly devoid of much significance. When you see gold-plated razors hung around the necks of ivy league girls, punk style is dead. (And we all have that inclination, to be honest; just to varying extent.)

Mickey Brauth

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think there is much we can do with this topic in any forum, and here's why. there has been very little actual linguistic research on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, check the OP again.

And what's amusing is that in your own post you provide evidence (and criticism) of such research!

[ QUOTE ]
i suspect that the discussion, if it picks up any steam, will be largely anecdotal from this point on.

[/ QUOTE ]Linguistic research on modern languages is based almost entirely on the "anecdotal". You should know this.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
the most interesting thing to me here is how much of this speech pattern is learned behavior and how much of it is that people who are inclined to speak like this due to some physical reason are highly correlated with a likelihood to be gay.

[/ QUOTE ] It is mostly cultural, IMO.

Gays have two things against them. One is that they are working against the "natural order of things" (of both Nature and Social Norms), which makes them a separate group in society, by definition. The other is that they are viewed still with sentiments ranging from suspicion to hostility. This reinforces their need to be secretive, protective of their own, and defensive -- to varying degrees, of course, and depending upon the specific society one lives in.

There are gay-specific terms in almost every language, to the point that one can safely talk about gay languages, just as one talks of ebonics, engineers' lingo, cop lingo, gangster speech, et cetera. The only part of society that does not need to be secretive or defensive, is the majority; and the majority sucks out and adopts terms (and speech patterns) from the minorities constantly, because of primal needs such as the need to belong, which is present in every human. (And lost in the vast sea of a majority is kind of a fuzzy belonging.)

I happen to have dictionaries of gay non-English languages and the languages are very facinating, in their inventiveness and poetic allure. Two gay persons could be conversing in gay lingo without a third hetero party present having a clue what (or who) they are talking about.

Lisping is not some natural, in-born affectation of the gay mouth. (Yes, I know, hold the jokes.) Although it does work the mouth's tongue better! Lisping is a cultural artifact that some gays in some languages (not all Spaniards are gay!) have adopted, because it signifies the opposite of macho; delicacy, a bit of feminine helplessness, difference, warmth. And it's also supposed to mean teasing.

Lisping gays will hiss rather than lisp when in hostile attack mode.

Mickey Brausch

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Linguistic research on modern languages is based almost entirely on the "anecdotal". You should know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% wrong. By anecdotal I mean ten or twelve people posting "I know this one gay guy who is totally butch and this other straight guy who talks like a gay!" Or something more general about their experiences. Not statistics, not structural analysis of intonation or pitch in sentences, etc. Linguists - and most social scientists - have generally disposed of the notion of purely objective research, and accepted that even the act of observation affects the subject. That doesn't mean that they don't collect statistics and analyze data. "Anecdotal" is not the same as "subjective."

I would say 'you should know this' back to you to return the condescension, but I have no reason to believe it's true.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Linguistic research on modern languages is based almost entirely on the "anecdotal".

[/ QUOTE ]

By anecdotal I mean ten or twelve people posting "I know this one gay guy who is totally butch and this other straight guy who talks like a gay!" Or something more general about their experiences. Not statistics, not structural analysis of intonation or pitch in sentences, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]I do not know what kind of lingustics field research you have in mind but the term "anecdotal" is used int he sens of going into the geographical area of interest to collect evidence from stories and histories told by the people in the field (often about other people). The study of languages begins with oral histories. If I want to study the effect of modern culture on the local dialect of Marseilles, I better get my butt over there and start talking (and listening) to the locals! The locals' anecdotal evidence is the raw material upon which research is conducted. You should know this.

[ QUOTE ]
"Anecdotal" is not the same as "subjective."

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know why this confuses you. You can be as (unavoidably) subjective on your opinions as you want. On matters of mathematics and statistics, you cannot be too subjective, if at all. Anecdotal evidence in linguistic research, on the other hand, has everything to do with the "subjective" recollection of events, the personal version of developments, the individual analysis.

If you think you can be an archaeologist without, at some point in time, digging up some serious amount of earth, you are mistaken. And you should know this too.

Mickey Brausch

[NT!]

I said myself that linguistic research is usually conducted by immersion. Please don't try to argue against me by restating what I've already said. There is a difference between linguistic research that involves stories, oral histories, carefully catalogued subjects and backgrounds, large amounts of data, etc... and an anecdotal thread on an internet message board from geographically dispersed regions that involves vague information, hearsay, and probably a bunch of embellished or fabricated information.

[ QUOTE ]
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a linguist studies oral traditions and histories, they are interested in the 'anecdotes' of the culture and, tangentially, their content, but the data they are collecting (speech patterns, biographical info for the subjects, word choice, pitch, intonation, etc) is NOT anecdotal, it is specific, carefully and consistently documented using accurate and standard terminology, etc.

You are confused about the meaning of 'anecdotal' in the social science discourse. Once again:

[ QUOTE ]
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay.

[/ QUOTE ]

While linguistics is subjective and highly diachronic, it is NOT informal.

[El Diablo]

NT,

FYI, I for the first time in my time at 2+2 had to look up a word - diachronic.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
NT,

FYI, I for the first time in my time at 2+2 had to look up a word - diachronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a while since I studied linguistics, I only remembered it because I looked back at a few texts to make sure my post was accurate.

Saussure, the father of modern linguistics, believed that languages could be looked at both synchronically and diachronically, and that each approach was important... but current linguists have basically accepted that it's impossible to capture language synchronically.