Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or education?

[CitySpeak]

There is good language and there is bad language. What does language mean to you? Why?
__________________________________________________________________
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Nonstandard 1. Contraction of am not. 2. Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not.

USAGE NOTE: Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance. •But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet. •The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not?

1. What do you think of “ain’t? Do you think it might be okay to use “ain’t” sometimes?

2. According to the usage note, using “ain’t” is not correct. Do you think that one must speak correctly all the time? Why would you say that?

3. People sometimes form an impression of you by how you speak. Do you think this is good or bad? Do you think it is fair and reasonable? Why?

4. Do you think it is possible to form an accurate opinion of someone by how he or she speaks?

5. Do you think that poor language usage is a sign of ignorance? Why? Think about how people speak your first language. Think about English.

6. Do you think that good language usage is a sign that someone is not ignorant? Why?

7. Do you think it is good to set standards for language insofar as what is correct and what is not correct and what is good usage and what is poor usage? Why?

8. If some people don’t speak correctly and do not value speaking correctly, why do you think this would be so?

9. If people make it a point to speak correctly and place value on good language, why do you think this would be so?

* Respond to any of the questions. Respond to the topic in general.

_____________________________________________________________

Here are some of my comments to kick things off.

Speaking well has to do with exposure I would say. If one is exposed to certain forms of linguistic expression, one may pick up on certain forms of linguistic expression. When I say exposure, I mean reading, listening to the radio, environment and conversational opportunities. There is no guarentee, though, that all of this will have a direct effect on one's language ability.

I don't believe, however, that language skills would necessarily be associated with intelligence. We have to think about how we define intelligence as well. Good language skills can certainly be associated with intelligence; however, a lack thereof would not, to me, necessarily indicate low intelligence. Let's keep in mind creative intelligence. I've heard musicians speak - known and unknown - who do not conform to that which we may consider to be standard with regards to English grammar and usage; however, they still struck me as articulate, expressive and quite intelligent individuals.

No, I would not like to mention any names.

 

[jwschang]

Re: Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or educatio

There is good language and there is bad language. What does language mean to you? Why?
2. According to the usage note, using “ain’t” is not correct. Do you think that one must speak correctly all the time? Why would you say that?

Speaking well has to do with exposure I would say. If one is exposed to certain forms of linguistic expression, one may pick up on certain forms of linguistic expression. When I say exposure, I mean reading, listening to the radio, environment and conversational opportunities. There is no guarentee, though, that all of this will have a direct effect on one's language ability.

I don't believe, however, that language skills would necessarily be associated with intelligence. We have to think about how we define intelligence as well. Good language skills can certainly be associated with intelligence; however, a lack thereof would not, to me, necessarily indicate low intelligence. Let's keep in mind creative intelligence. I've heard musicians speak - known and unknown - who do not conform to that which we may consider to be standard with regards to English grammar and usage; however, they still struck me as articulate, expressive and quite intelligent individuals.
No, I would not like to mention any names. [/color]

This is an interesting subject that you've raised. I think that language has been and is being deliberately used by some people as a class barrier. To me, the most important thing about speaking correctly is to be understood correctly, more so with people close to you (family and loved ones) than in business, politics, diplomacy (these are a special bunch of speakers here), etc. The question of intelligence does not arise for me.

In fact, some people are so very good at communicating without resorting only to words. A picture paints a thousand words. A glance, a gesture, a movement, an expression, all these take a naturally sensitive and/or intelligent person to communicate to another.

The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard.

Except for people who have learned or been trained in non-verbal communicative behaviour, we are generally "uneducated" in non-verbal language, unlike a spoken language which is learned and/or taught.

This is one area where women are more "intelligent" than men. A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word.

 

[CitySpeak]

Re: Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or educatio

There is good language and there is bad language. What does language mean to you? Why?
2. According to the usage note, using “ain’t” is not correct. Do you think that one must speak correctly all the time? Why would you say that?

Speaking well has to do with exposure I would say. If one is exposed to certain forms of linguistic expression, one may pick up on certain forms of linguistic expression. When I say exposure, I mean reading, listening to the radio, environment and conversational opportunities. There is no guarentee, though, that all of this will have a direct effect on one's language ability.

I don't believe, however, that language skills would necessarily be associated with intelligence. We have to think about how we define intelligence as well. Good language skills can certainly be associated with intelligence; however, a lack thereof would not, to me, necessarily indicate low intelligence. Let's keep in mind creative intelligence. I've heard musicians speak - known and unknown - who do not conform to that which we may consider to be standard with regards to English grammar and usage; however, they still struck me as articulate, expressive and quite intelligent individuals.
No, I would not like to mention any names. [/color]

This is an interesting subject that you've raised. I think that language has been and is being deliberately used by some people as a class barrier. To me, the most important thing about speaking correctly is to be understood correctly, more so with people close to you (family and loved ones) than in business, politics, diplomacy (these are a special bunch of speakers here), etc. The question of intelligence does not arise for me.

In fact, some people are so very good at communicating without resorting only to words. A picture paints a thousand words. A glance, a gesture, a movement, an expression, all these take a naturally sensitive and/or intelligent person to communicate to another.

The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard.

Except for people who have learned or been trained in non-verbal communicative behaviour, we are generally "uneducated" in non-verbal language, unlike a spoken language which is learned and/or taught.

This is one area where women are more "intelligent" than men. A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word.

Well, once again I am reminded that there is language for all occasions.


The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard. <<<<

This is interesting. I take it we might think of what you are referring to here are very subtle forms of paralanguage, such as the type where you can tell when something is bothering someone that you know very well even there are no obvious signs that something is bothering that person.

Of course, there is more than just that.

A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word. <<<<

Very true. I think if we were to pay closer attention we might be able to tune ourselves in to more nonverbal communication.

 

[CitySpeak]

Re: Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or educatio

There is good language and there is bad language. What does language mean to you? Why?
2. According to the usage note, using “ain’t” is not correct. Do you think that one must speak correctly all the time? Why would you say that?

Speaking well has to do with exposure I would say. If one is exposed to certain forms of linguistic expression, one may pick up on certain forms of linguistic expression. When I say exposure, I mean reading, listening to the radio, environment and conversational opportunities. There is no guarentee, though, that all of this will have a direct effect on one's language ability.

I don't believe, however, that language skills would necessarily be associated with intelligence. We have to think about how we define intelligence as well. Good language skills can certainly be associated with intelligence; however, a lack thereof would not, to me, necessarily indicate low intelligence. Let's keep in mind creative intelligence. I've heard musicians speak - known and unknown - who do not conform to that which we may consider to be standard with regards to English grammar and usage; however, they still struck me as articulate, expressive and quite intelligent individuals.
No, I would not like to mention any names. [/color]

This is an interesting subject that you've raised. I think that language has been and is being deliberately used by some people as a class barrier. To me, the most important thing about speaking correctly is to be understood correctly, more so with people close to you (family and loved ones) than in business, politics, diplomacy (these are a special bunch of speakers here), etc. The question of intelligence does not arise for me.

In fact, some people are so very good at communicating without resorting only to words. A picture paints a thousand words. A glance, a gesture, a movement, an expression, all these take a naturally sensitive and/or intelligent person to communicate to another.

The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard.

Except for people who have learned or been trained in non-verbal communicative behaviour, we are generally "uneducated" in non-verbal language, unlike a spoken language which is learned and/or taught.

This is one area where women are more "intelligent" than men. A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word.

Well, once again I am reminded that there is language for all occasions.


The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard. <<<<

This is interesting. I take it we might think of what you are referring to here are very subtle forms of paralanguage, such as the type where you can tell when something is bothering someone that you know very well even there are no obvious signs that something is bothering that person.

Of course, there is more than just that.

A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word. <<<<

Very true. I think if we were to pay closer attention we might be able to tune ourselves in to more nonverbal communication.

 

[CitySpeak]

Re: Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or educatio

There is good language and there is bad language. What does language mean to you? Why?
2. According to the usage note, using “ain’t” is not correct. Do you think that one must speak correctly all the time? Why would you say that?

Speaking well has to do with exposure I would say. If one is exposed to certain forms of linguistic expression, one may pick up on certain forms of linguistic expression. When I say exposure, I mean reading, listening to the radio, environment and conversational opportunities. There is no guarentee, though, that all of this will have a direct effect on one's language ability.

I don't believe, however, that language skills would necessarily be associated with intelligence. We have to think about how we define intelligence as well. Good language skills can certainly be associated with intelligence; however, a lack thereof would not, to me, necessarily indicate low intelligence. Let's keep in mind creative intelligence. I've heard musicians speak - known and unknown - who do not conform to that which we may consider to be standard with regards to English grammar and usage; however, they still struck me as articulate, expressive and quite intelligent individuals.
No, I would not like to mention any names. [/color]

This is an interesting subject that you've raised. I think that language has been and is being deliberately used by some people as a class barrier. To me, the most important thing about speaking correctly is to be understood correctly, more so with people close to you (family and loved ones) than in business, politics, diplomacy (these are a special bunch of speakers here), etc. The question of intelligence does not arise for me.

In fact, some people are so very good at communicating without resorting only to words. A picture paints a thousand words. A glance, a gesture, a movement, an expression, all these take a naturally sensitive and/or intelligent person to communicate to another.

The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard.

Except for people who have learned or been trained in non-verbal communicative behaviour, we are generally "uneducated" in non-verbal language, unlike a spoken language which is learned and/or taught.

This is one area where women are more "intelligent" than men. A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word.

Well, once again I am reminded that there is language for all occasions.


The spoken word (as against the written) unavoidably has the greatest impact on the listener. That's because most of us (consciously or unconsciously) use, or react to, unspoken communication based on our personal experiences and our own very personal make-up. Being very personalised, non-verbal communication is so varied that the listener is unaccustomed to reacting or paying greater attention to it than the word which is spoken and heard. <<<<

This is interesting. I take it we might think of what you are referring to here are very subtle forms of paralanguage, such as the type where you can tell when something is bothering someone that you know very well even there are no obvious signs that something is bothering that person.

Of course, there is more than just that.

A relationship is truly more enriched by the unspoken word than the spoken word. <<<<

Very true. I think if we were to pay closer attention we might be able to tune ourselves in to more nonverbal communication.

 

[CitySpeak]

Re: Does speaking well indicate intelligence and/or educatio

This is an interesting subject that you've raised. I think that language has been and is being deliberately used by some people as a class barrier. To me, the most important thing about speaking correctly is to be understood correctly, more so with people close to you (family and loved ones) than in business, politics, diplomacy (these are a special bunch of speakers here), etc. The question of intelligence does not arise for me.

That's an interesting point. Would you happen to have any particular examples? Or, could you elaborate on that even more?

In fact, some people are so very good at communicating without resorting only to words. A picture paints a thousand words. A glance, a gesture, a movement, an expression, all these take a naturally sensitive and/or intelligent person to communicate to another.


Yes, this to me is definitely "paralanguage", the idea of which I find quite interesting.

There are many facial expressions, ways to move body, and phatic language sounds that can indicate something we are thinking about.

This is usually done quite unconciously, though I would also say it is done quite conciously as well.

Can we really substitute this nonverbal communication with smileys and emoticons?

8) :idea: