The Linguistic Evolution of ‘Like’(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Linguistic Evolution of ‘Like’
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/11/the-evolution-of-like/507614/?single_page=true
63 comments
The author forgot the other common usage of like, that is, in storytelling: "I was like, what are you doing here?" The word prepares you for not only what was said, but what was felt and done and whatever else needs to be communicated. Unfortunately this usage of like is so useful that it is certainly over-used now, and we need to go back to using the proper verbs. But that is easier said than, uh, said!
> not only what was said, but what was felt and done and whatever else needs to be communicated
I think or is more appropriate here than and, which undermines its utility: "I was like, what are you doing here?" does not indicate whether the protagonist actually said this, or communicated it in some other way, or even just thought it and didn't communicate it at all.
"this bad looking dude came in and I was like, 'What the hell are you doing here?'"
"whoa, you said that to his face?!"
"well... no... I more sort of thought it at him"
I think or is more appropriate here than and, which undermines its utility: "I was like, what are you doing here?" does not indicate whether the protagonist actually said this, or communicated it in some other way, or even just thought it and didn't communicate it at all.
"this bad looking dude came in and I was like, 'What the hell are you doing here?'"
"whoa, you said that to his face?!"
"well... no... I more sort of thought it at him"
This style of storytelling isn't nearly as useful as you imply. "I asked him what he was doing here," works just as well -- better! -- and saves us all the amateur reenactment.
Edit: I suspect there's something deeper going on here, which is that many of us have forgotten how to tell a story. Instead, we're just relaying what we remember of our own thoughts at the time. Instead of telling others what happened, we're reliving our own perspective of the experience in real time.
Related, I think, is this weird new way of writing in which people tell us that they "decided" to do something before relaying each thing that happened. For example:
"We decided to go to the beach for the day. After a while, we decided to grab some food. After lunch, we were all tired and decided to go home."
Just tell us that you went to the beach, ate some lunch, and then left. I understand implicitly that you had to decide to do each thing before you did it.
Edit: I suspect there's something deeper going on here, which is that many of us have forgotten how to tell a story. Instead, we're just relaying what we remember of our own thoughts at the time. Instead of telling others what happened, we're reliving our own perspective of the experience in real time.
Related, I think, is this weird new way of writing in which people tell us that they "decided" to do something before relaying each thing that happened. For example:
"We decided to go to the beach for the day. After a while, we decided to grab some food. After lunch, we were all tired and decided to go home."
Just tell us that you went to the beach, ate some lunch, and then left. I understand implicitly that you had to decide to do each thing before you did it.
"I asked him what he was doing here" is not the same. It is not necessarily better story-telling, as I think your edit implies.
How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said, as opposed to actually quoting the characters' words? Quoting is certainly a form of storytelling, and can often convey emotion more succinctly than needing to spell it out.
"He was like 'okaaay...'" vs "He said it was ok, but in a sarcastic manner that implied he was not happy with it."
But, distinct from an actual quote, ("And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'", per the other poster), the quotative-like allows narrator freedom in a way that a direct quotation doesn't. The listener doesn't expect the words to be a literal quote, rather, the sense of what was said is enough, allowing the narrator to simplify, or to exaggerate for emphasis or comedic effect.
How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said, as opposed to actually quoting the characters' words? Quoting is certainly a form of storytelling, and can often convey emotion more succinctly than needing to spell it out.
"He was like 'okaaay...'" vs "He said it was ok, but in a sarcastic manner that implied he was not happy with it."
But, distinct from an actual quote, ("And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'", per the other poster), the quotative-like allows narrator freedom in a way that a direct quotation doesn't. The listener doesn't expect the words to be a literal quote, rather, the sense of what was said is enough, allowing the narrator to simplify, or to exaggerate for emphasis or comedic effect.
How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said
I should clarify that in the first case I was talking about oral storytelling. My second complaint more generally applies to the written word.
This is entirely subjective, of course, but my choice of the word reenactment was deliberate. Often, I'm not told what happened; I'm given a tedious play-by-play of both sides of the interaction.
That's what I'm complaining about, not, more generally, the use of quoting as a literary device.
I should clarify that in the first case I was talking about oral storytelling. My second complaint more generally applies to the written word.
This is entirely subjective, of course, but my choice of the word reenactment was deliberate. Often, I'm not told what happened; I'm given a tedious play-by-play of both sides of the interaction.
so I was like do you wanna see a movie
and he was like I guess
and I was like, what do you mean you guess
and he's just like, I dunno, I guess
and I'm like just tell me if you want to or not
and he's all like get off my back
and I'm all like I'm not on your back
That's what I'm complaining about, not, more generally, the use of quoting as a literary device.
You excluded the main object of the conversation. Even in your contrived example the main point he is trying to convey is his disdain with the other person, how they felt when this altercation happened. your summary doesn't have any of that.
What seems lost is synthesis and abstraction of ideas: you get unfocussed narrative with no concentration on the point.
This exactly summarizes the point I (maybe clumsily) was trying to make
Also, "And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'"
It's subjective and entirely in my head, but the cadence of "I was like, what are you doing here?" feels so much better to me than your version. The like version feels youthful whereas yours is tired.
As always though, context is everything.
As always though, context is everything.
I actually completely agree, I would only use my version ("said to him") in formal/business settings where I am not very well-acquainted with the majority of listeners in the room!
But, I would probably stray from saying "and I was like, omg lol yes I will happily take your money" when I'm telling one VC about my last round of funding from another VC ;)
But, I would probably stray from saying "and I was like, omg lol yes I will happily take your money" when I'm telling one VC about my last round of funding from another VC ;)
You could have just said, '"I asked him what he was doing here," works better and saves us all the amateur reenactment.' and saved us all the amateur dramatization.
The Sanskrit word इति (iti), which literally means "thus" or "like this", can be used to offset direct or semi-direct speech (without needing a verb to make the meaning clear). In respects it's very similar to the English "I was like".
Reference I just found: http://staefcraeft.blogspot.com/2010/09/english-like-can-lik...
Reference I just found: http://staefcraeft.blogspot.com/2010/09/english-like-can-lik...
The author tried to address this in the final paragraph, but I think they completely missed the point of the quotative like. When I use the quotative like (which I do often), I'm not quoting someone, I'm conveying meaning.
For instance, I was out with my best friend disc golfing recently. He had just thrown his favorite disc when a dog that was off leash ran over and grabbed his disc. As the dog approached he started exclaiming. The dog was kind of paying attention to him, and went for his disc several times before grabbing it. I can't relate exactly what he said. It was something similar to "Hey! No! Don't! Don't grab my disc! No! For the love of God, NO! WHY!?"
Despite my best efforts, that quote is wholly inaccurate. When I related the story to his wife, I used the following syntax:
"And he was like 'No! NO! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!' as the dog grabbed his disc."
Had I claimed my friend had "said" that, he could have rightfully objected, as it wasn't a true representation of what he said. However, my recollection accurately captured the panic as the dog ran over to his disc, and the despair that was immediately apparent as the dog grabbed his disc.
Using the quotative like allows me to acknowledge my unreliability as a narrator, while also conveying my interpretation of the events more truthfully and quickly than would be possible if I were actually quoting what happened. A long argument could be related using the following syntax and everyone would still have an idea of what happened, without losing any of the emotional impact that a more dispassionate non-quotative telling would have: "I was like 'yes' and they were like 'no' and I was like 'but yes' and they were like 'but no' and I was like, 'I'm not going anywhere until this is resolved' and they were like 'well OK'."
Anyways, I think the author kind of missed the boat on that one, since I think it's the most versatile use of the word like, and the one that is most easily misunderstood.
For instance, I was out with my best friend disc golfing recently. He had just thrown his favorite disc when a dog that was off leash ran over and grabbed his disc. As the dog approached he started exclaiming. The dog was kind of paying attention to him, and went for his disc several times before grabbing it. I can't relate exactly what he said. It was something similar to "Hey! No! Don't! Don't grab my disc! No! For the love of God, NO! WHY!?"
Despite my best efforts, that quote is wholly inaccurate. When I related the story to his wife, I used the following syntax:
"And he was like 'No! NO! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!' as the dog grabbed his disc."
Had I claimed my friend had "said" that, he could have rightfully objected, as it wasn't a true representation of what he said. However, my recollection accurately captured the panic as the dog ran over to his disc, and the despair that was immediately apparent as the dog grabbed his disc.
Using the quotative like allows me to acknowledge my unreliability as a narrator, while also conveying my interpretation of the events more truthfully and quickly than would be possible if I were actually quoting what happened. A long argument could be related using the following syntax and everyone would still have an idea of what happened, without losing any of the emotional impact that a more dispassionate non-quotative telling would have: "I was like 'yes' and they were like 'no' and I was like 'but yes' and they were like 'but no' and I was like, 'I'm not going anywhere until this is resolved' and they were like 'well OK'."
Anyways, I think the author kind of missed the boat on that one, since I think it's the most versatile use of the word like, and the one that is most easily misunderstood.
That's sort of what I meant by semi-direct speech. It conveys the sentiment rather than the words (like indirect speech), but it uses the tense and person markers that the original occurrence would have used (like direct speech).
Related to this: I've also noticed that the word "so" is used a lot to terminate a sentence, maybe as a hesitation to stop speaking, or to (intentionally?) leave the final "point" somewhat ambiguous.
E.g.: "You bet! He did this, then that, and so... yeah!" (sometimes another word like "yeah" follows "so")
I'm guilty of it. ;)
E.g.: "You bet! He did this, then that, and so... yeah!" (sometimes another word like "yeah" follows "so")
I'm guilty of it. ;)
Slate's language podcast Lexicon Valley did a whole episode on the trailing "so": http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/0...
They also covered what is, to me, an even weirder linguistic phenomenon, the common and growing use of "yeah, no" at the beginning of a response to somebody: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...
I use this "yeah, no" construction myself quite a lot. I have a strong instinctive understanding of how to use it, and what it means. But I don't think I could consciously provide a decent explanation of why I'm saying both yes and no about something.
They also covered what is, to me, an even weirder linguistic phenomenon, the common and growing use of "yeah, no" at the beginning of a response to somebody: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...
I use this "yeah, no" construction myself quite a lot. I have a strong instinctive understanding of how to use it, and what it means. But I don't think I could consciously provide a decent explanation of why I'm saying both yes and no about something.
IME when we reply 'Yeah, no...', the first part isn't an affirmation, it's an acknowledgement that you have heard and understood the question.
Think of it as an informal but intimate way of speaking. If you just answered "No." it could come off a little bit cold or professional. By taking the time to use a few extra words you are showing more warmth to the asker.
Think of it as an informal but intimate way of speaking. If you just answered "No." it could come off a little bit cold or professional. By taking the time to use a few extra words you are showing more warmth to the asker.
this feels right to me.
"yes I have heard you, but I disagree with your point"
Something like: "did you try it this way?" "yeah, no that didn't work"
"yes I have heard you, but I disagree with your point"
Something like: "did you try it this way?" "yeah, no that didn't work"
To me the initial "So..." is something that was very noticable in conference talks etc a few years ago. (Probably replaced now with "Whassup?", even when talking to a non-existant audince, i.e. by YouTubers)
"Yah, nah" is a very common Australian slang. Are you from the States by any chance?
I use this a lot, but I think it's a reasonable addition to the language. There's a suffix in Korean, "~는데," that's usually used between clauses to mean something like "although": I did Y even though X happened and stuff like that. But you can also use it at the end of the sentence, and I think the trailing "so..." is the closest English has to an equivalent of what that means.
What a coincidence. I'm Korean and I also use "...so" a lot!
* Korean has a handful of useful verb forms that can signal, let's say, the role a sentence should serve inside the dialogue: do you want to tell something the listener should know, or something that they're not expected to know, or to reassert something already said, or say something expecting an answer? In English, such distinctions usually disappear, unless you want to be really explicit, in which case you say stuff like "I mean"/"I can see that"/"Did you notice"/etc. However, when I want to make such a distinction I'm already halfway into a sentence, so it's too late for me to go back in time and attach the "proper" English phrase to the beginning.
* Korean has a handful of useful verb forms that can signal, let's say, the role a sentence should serve inside the dialogue: do you want to tell something the listener should know, or something that they're not expected to know, or to reassert something already said, or say something expecting an answer? In English, such distinctions usually disappear, unless you want to be really explicit, in which case you say stuff like "I mean"/"I can see that"/"Did you notice"/etc. However, when I want to make such a distinction I'm already halfway into a sentence, so it's too late for me to go back in time and attach the "proper" English phrase to the beginning.
This also exists in Japanese as が (ga) for the same exact thing ie connect two clauses and usually carrying "but" meaning; and also can be used without a second close, effectively ending the whole sentence.
This is not surprising given how close the grammar is said to be for this pair of languages and it's a nice feature for people learning both.
This is not surprising given how close the grammar is said to be for this pair of languages and it's a nice feature for people learning both.
I have noticed that many sentences start with Yeah, at least for me. Usually around friends when there has been a silence. I always wondered if it was regional or just a weird thing I do, like affirming something before I said it out loud.
I've noticed a huge rise in people staring a response with "to be honest" or just "honestly".
A large number of my sentences begin with "To be [adjective]" or "In all [noun]".
"To be fair" and "In all honesty" (and combinations thereof) come up quite a bit.
"To be fair" and "In all honesty" (and combinations thereof) come up quite a bit.
Do you talk like that as well?
I used to pepper my comments with phrases like "to be honest" but I never use it in speech. I've tried to eliminate it recently because it usually isn't needed.
I used to pepper my comments with phrases like "to be honest" but I never use it in speech. I've tried to eliminate it recently because it usually isn't needed.
Yes, I do that in speech and written text. "However" is another one I use a lot.
For me, I think phrases like "however" and "to be fair" may come up a lot because I actively try to remain objective in conversations, and now I subconsciously add those into what I say as an indicator of considering different viewpoints. Then again, I may just be over-analyzing it.
(While we're at it, add "then again" to that list, haha.)
For me, I think phrases like "however" and "to be fair" may come up a lot because I actively try to remain objective in conversations, and now I subconsciously add those into what I say as an indicator of considering different viewpoints. Then again, I may just be over-analyzing it.
(While we're at it, add "then again" to that list, haha.)
Oh jeez. However is something I do too.
There's a fair chance that you're meeting an increasing number of liars, then, as research (have a google) clearly shows that 'honestly' often precedes a lie, or at least shadings or untruth.
Related: a lot of people I talk to on Slack/text/etc seem to think most sentences should end in ellipses
You mean like this?
> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot…
This is a vague, non-committal statement. It looks as if the writer is afraid of the consequences of having an opinion!
Now the same sentence again, without the ellipses:
> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot.
A firm statement that shows you where the writer stands on the topic. Much better.
An ellipse in or at the end of a sentence means something is omitted, but it is also (unconsciously?) abused to try to make utterances less direct. Have you ever received a paragraph or two of text littered with those ellipses of avoidance? If you are well-read this likely conjures an image of some bored teen responding to a neighbour inquiring after the whereabouts of their parents:
> Yeah they're probably at home… I guess… Maybe not… Dunno…
…whereupon they promptly return their attention to their smartphone. Only it isn't a teenager; it is an adult colleague (not quite) giving their opinion on some topic.
> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot…
This is a vague, non-committal statement. It looks as if the writer is afraid of the consequences of having an opinion!
Now the same sentence again, without the ellipses:
> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot.
A firm statement that shows you where the writer stands on the topic. Much better.
An ellipse in or at the end of a sentence means something is omitted, but it is also (unconsciously?) abused to try to make utterances less direct. Have you ever received a paragraph or two of text littered with those ellipses of avoidance? If you are well-read this likely conjures an image of some bored teen responding to a neighbour inquiring after the whereabouts of their parents:
> Yeah they're probably at home… I guess… Maybe not… Dunno…
…whereupon they promptly return their attention to their smartphone. Only it isn't a teenager; it is an adult colleague (not quite) giving their opinion on some topic.
Language does not have the sole purpose of making direct statements of fact though. Indirectness, in reasonable portions, is perfectly legitimate, especially because you often have to feel out your interlocutor's response to each line in your conversation - arguably, this is a more sophisticated use of language than straightforward statements or questions. In its natural environment, the trailing ellipsis serves a valuable role in signaling a willingness to change your mind, or at least a sensitivity to the other party's reactions and positions. I agree that a lot of people overuse them - in most cases, you should be able to get away with just using it after your thesis, so to speak.
> Ellipses have their place, but they seem to be abused a lot.
> Ellipses have their place, but I get the impression that they are also abused a lot.
> Ellipses have their place, but aren't they also abused a lot?
> Ellipses have their place, but maybe they are abused a bit too much.
I agree, sometimes a statement needs to be softened to indicate uncertainty or just to be diplomatic, but there are many ways to do that without resorting to ambiguity. Perhaps, maybe, seemingly, ostensibly, surely, evidently; there are so many words that can help soften (or harden!) a statement, and each carries a different connotation. The ellipse on the other hand simple conveys its meaning of omission — but there is no indication of what it was that was omitted (uncertainty? rolling-my-eyes sarcasm? fatigue?).
It can come across as laziness on the writer's part — as if they couldn't be bothered to formulate their thoughts.
> Ellipses have their place, but I get the impression that they are also abused a lot.
> Ellipses have their place, but aren't they also abused a lot?
> Ellipses have their place, but maybe they are abused a bit too much.
I agree, sometimes a statement needs to be softened to indicate uncertainty or just to be diplomatic, but there are many ways to do that without resorting to ambiguity. Perhaps, maybe, seemingly, ostensibly, surely, evidently; there are so many words that can help soften (or harden!) a statement, and each carries a different connotation. The ellipse on the other hand simple conveys its meaning of omission — but there is no indication of what it was that was omitted (uncertainty? rolling-my-eyes sarcasm? fatigue?).
It can come across as laziness on the writer's part — as if they couldn't be bothered to formulate their thoughts.
I sometimes soften a criticism here on HN simply by putting a question mark at the end?
I've noticed that I tend to avoid the period/full stop when writing instant messages like that. Like, exclamation marks and question marks go just fine, but a period will make it sound very weird in my head when it's in an IM conversation, for some reason. I will even start a new sentence on a new line without a period after the last sentence if I need to write multiple sentences in one message (which doesn't happen that often though).
I don't know why.
I don't know why.
My first thought is that it's a way to encourage a response.
The ellipsis also seems to soften the tone compared to a regular period.
The ellipsis also seems to soften the tone compared to a regular period.
I've always wanted a double-o form of "so" to match "to/too" when it's used as a measure of degree. "Summer vacation is soo far away!"
"Ordinary people, too, have long been using like as an appendage to indicate similarity with a trace of hesitation. The “slow-like” kind of usage is a continuation of this, and Saul Bellow has thoroughly un- Beatnik characters in his novels of the 1950s use like in a way we would expect a decade or two later. “That’s the right clue and may do me some good. Something very big. Truth, like,” says Tommy Wilhelm in 1956’s Seize the Day,"
My grandfather uses "like" often, but only in this way (he grew up in Depression-era semi-rural Canada). I've always found that interesting since I rarely see that usage mentioned.
Anyone else have older relatives who use "like" this way?
My grandfather uses "like" often, but only in this way (he grew up in Depression-era semi-rural Canada). I've always found that interesting since I rarely see that usage mentioned.
Anyone else have older relatives who use "like" this way?
I've spent a lot of time in rural Wisconsin and Minnesota, and that particular usage of the word like is still common, even among younger individuals. My roommate in college was from a really small town in Minnesota, and he'd describe things as "All [adjective]-like". He used like in the other manners as well though.
You see this usage commonly around parts of England, particularly among some of the northwestern dialects like Scouse.
Interesting. My roommate is from somewhere in northern England; I'll have to pay attention for this in the future. His parents speak with received pronunciation though, so I suspect he has fewer colloquialisms in his speech than the general population of wherever he's from. He contends that his accent and figures of speech wouldn't be recognized as English at this point, but every American I know pegs him as British almost instantly, so who knows.
Han Solo: "Then we'll do it real quiet like". Return of the Jedi.
Maybe it's an old Norse/Germanic loan?
The -lig/-lik suffix appears in all Scandinavian languages with similar usage: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-lig
The -lig/-lik suffix appears in all Scandinavian languages with similar usage: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-lig
Funny: I assumed (due to HN relevance?) the article was about the evolution of the Like button () on social networks. Guess it's time to step out of the filter bubble this morning!
I clicked thinking the same but was pleasantly surprised to find, like, a really good article.
I tried to stop myself.
I tried to stop myself.
Loved this article!
It reminds me of my middle school English teacher, who enforced a 'no-like zone' (in good humor). Every time anyone noticed the usage of like other than the old 'proper' usage, you'd get another tally added to your name.
I think it was a great idea, not because I'm worried about the new usage of the word like, but because it forced all of us to think carefully about our word choice when speaking in that class.
I think it was a great idea, not because I'm worried about the new usage of the word like, but because it forced all of us to think carefully about our word choice when speaking in that class.
I've actually been called out multiple times for starting sentences with "I don't know..." It took a while, but I've realized it's one way for me to allow my mouth catch up with my brain.
Like a buffer period for me to make sure I'm saying what I'm thinking. Otherwise my words become oddly jumbled and nonsensical. Maybe it might be better if that buffer period was just silence.
Like a buffer period for me to make sure I'm saying what I'm thinking. Otherwise my words become oddly jumbled and nonsensical. Maybe it might be better if that buffer period was just silence.
Except that also serves as a placeholder for your turn to speak. I frequently find myself taking an extra second to think before I speak only to have my turn pass me by, because someone else started up right away.
This happens to me all the time. Possibly every day. And normally the conversation just keeps moving.
Maybe it's an introvert thing.
Maybe it's an introvert thing.
I respect the descriptive impulse to see the function of 'like' rather than just mocking it. However, I'm not entirely convinced of the two senses of 'like' that the author sees. I imagine similarly nebulous arguments could be made for many other sense of like, which is why the analysis of 'like' as a hedge word or hesitation still might be the best.
I feel that like is often used as a verbal em dash, for emphasis and interruption.Once I understoid their intended usages I love the
— em dash
– en dash and
- hyphen
Like, uh, finds a way.
I was once sitting in a cafe & overheard the conversation of a group of people sitting on the next table. There was a girl who was super excited to share how her weekend was to her friend. She used "like" at least 1829 time in 2 minutes. It was a machine gun spitting "like" bullets. Thereafter I started hating the "like" word. whenever someone uses "like" more often than it should be then I feel "like" he is trying to kill me with "like" bullets.
It's very much akin to the SV habit of starting a sentence with "So, ...". It's a helpful key that you don't really have to pay much attention to what follows.
Interesting that it doesn't really mention the social media use of the word "Like" aka the Facebook Like button.
That was what I was expecting the article to be about. But it was overall a good read.
That was what I was expecting the article to be about. But it was overall a good read.
Even more relevant than usual: https://xkcd.com/1483/
The modern usage of "like" is utterly disgusting.