The Word 'Like'
A revaluation of the word 'like' in casual discourse.
Often it irritates me when in discourse, someone abuses the word 'like'. I'm sure you've heard it:
I was like, running to the store to like, get some chips, when this guy was like, 'hey dude, want some donuts?' and I was like, 'uh, no!' and he gave me this look, and I was just like 'hurr donuts, no way!' . . .
Perhaps I went overboard in the example, but hopefully you understand to what I am referring. I experienced this today again and unsurprisingly the conversation was so insipid that my brain had a chance to wander and explore. I ended up conceding that the use of 'like' is indicative of something more interesting happening in language right now. I won't try to make excuses for a lack of creativity or a poor vocabulary, but here are my observations:
Relativity - Of course, 'like' can be used to relate things; it has a comparative function. This allows some forgiveness to it's overuse in my opinion. Anyway, if you look back at the example I came up with, the word 'like' actually modifies the way the verbs around it are used. The invented author of the above isn't running to the store, she was doing something similar to going to the store. She was doing something similar (in the instance of "like, 'hurr donuts, no way!") to existing ('was') in the state of 'hurr donuts, no way!'. The author isn't doing these exact things in her mind, but something close to them.
Relateability - Something prevented the author saying that she was doing exactly those things. There are a few levels of forgiveness here:
- of course the author could not re-enact exactly the scenario; anything communicated would have to be a relation
- perhaps the author has certain memories or impressions tied to the verbs and words that she used. As a courtesy, the author is trying to relate her memories and experiences to someone else using common language.
- The author could lack the tools to express her experience.
I find the second one interesting. Just as we all have particular memories or visions associated with words like 'yellow', 'bang', or 'sun', the author has specific, unique, impressions and experiences with the words that she chose to use. I imagine that experiencing miscommunications in language have conditioned her to deliberately be inexact (Did you literally run to the store, or did you do something like run to the store?).
So what causes this? There are two culprits that I can decipher. The first is that the author lacks the language skills to effectively communicate what she is intending. I would include in this group, being ignorant of your audience and how to effectively communicate with them. The second matter is the inherent, necessary, ambiguity in language.
Of the first problem, there is not much anyone can do to alleviate this. People have different understandings and grasps of language and how to use it effectively, and I think that this will always be so. I'm sure that part of this cause stems from the scenario in which someone is trying to communicate too quickly and couldn't be bothered to slow down and find the most accurate words.
The second culprit, is just as nasty a demon. I think that the only way we can communicate is through ambiguity and reference to impressions and imcomplete ideas. Fortunately, our faculty for language itself can cover the shortcomings of our spoken language and can construct meaningful thoughts and ideas (hopefully!). If we didn't allow ambiguity in our language, we'd never be able to communicate anything - we'd spend the entire time trying to relate back enough, and to be specific enough to determine exactly and logically which nouns were being discussed. We'd have to have an infinite set of verbs (which we presently don't). In addition to our faculty for language, we are fortunate to have such creative minds when there are gaps in our sentences - we can (more or less) accurately reconstruct the ideas in in a form very close to their original.
It will still annoy me when people overuse the word 'like', but hopefully I can learn to extract more of what they mean by paying closer attention. Perhaps this is a sign that we're experiencing growing pains with our language.
comments
1
gin
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
eh, I think you're giving people more credit than they deserve. it isn't even that "the author lacks the language skills to effectively communicate what she is intending" in most cases; usually, it's just a nervous habit.
the post was fascinating, though.
2
molotov
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
And what of nerves? It is too forgiving to imagine that people may, in a nervous situation, lose their wits and be incapable of communicating with accuracy?
And of habit - I have no problem with this. I may habitually do something similar to running to the store, but not exactly running to the store. I habitually say 'like ran', but non-habitually intend to communicate my impression of doing something like running.
3
gin
Thursday, February 1, 2007
incapable of communicating with accuracy, sure - but "like" tends to be less of an attempt towards accuracy (even unconsciously) and more of a filler word, like "um" or "uh."
then again, maybe those serve some unconscious purpose as well.
4
ava
Friday, February 2, 2007
Another use of the word 'like' is as a replacement for "said"; e.g. "I was talking to Deuce on the phone and he was suddenly like 'omv Mary got shot!'", instead of "I was talking to Deuce on the phone and suddenly he said 'omv Mary got shot!'" If I had to guess, I'd say that "like" is easier to use in verbal conversations because it makes the conversation flow more smoothly - "I exclaimed this" and "He replied that" can make a conversation sound somewhat stilted, as if you are describing something in a book rather than just talking.
5
molotov
Saturday, February 3, 2007
gin: I don't think that like is as much of a 'filler' word as most people think. I do think that it's unconscious, but also that it is an intentional relation tool.
ava: I don't think it's a replacement. It may be a substitute, but not a complete replacement. When you're relating events, it's impossible to 'directly' relate them. All relation is from at least a second-hand source (i.e. you). Assume we are talking; if Deuce's exact words were 'oh my god Mary got shot', the BEST you can possibly do is relate the language and tone he used, unless you had an audio-visual recording to capture most of the percievable sensations in that scenario at that time. Unless you had the mentioned media, the best you could do is relate (with some degree of ambiguity or incompleteness) what Deuce had said. When you say "he said", you only really communicate what he said, unless you add inflection etc. When you say, "he was like" you're describing how he was, which includes much more than what he said (and actually he could have never said anything in the first place).
6
ava
Sunday, February 4, 2007
That's true; it's used more to get across the /gist/ of what the other person said (along with their emotions, state of being, etc), whereas "he said" relates only the words. However, you could still describe the same thing without using "like"; "He exclaimed in shock that Mary had gotten shot" or something similar. I imagine the reason that 'like' is used as a replacement for this is because it is quicker and less wordy, and people are generally in a hurry when they are talking. (I notice that 'like' shows up a lot more in spoken conversations rather than in written ones, even informal written ones like IRC.)
7
molotov
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
I think you point out something interesting that I had not really addressed: people use it more in spoken conversation, than in text and writing. This might be because, for example over IRC, as an author, you understand that the medium in which you're using (real-time chat) is limited. Instead of trying to cram your sentences with adjectives and adverbs, you settle for a minimal textual footprint.
Again, I don't think this applies to everyone that overuses 'like' and other words, but I think it's interesting to notice things like that in a percentage of dialogue (however small that it may be).