Try calling nouns labels for categories. For that matter, all words  
are labels for concepts. Common nouns are labels for types of things.

The structuralists came up with classifications based on distribution  
and co-occurence in part in order to do better than the meaning-based  
definitions. Hence a noun is a word that acts like a noun: it takes  
plural suffixes, can appear alone after an article, and so on.

Cognitive Grammar posits extremely abstract definitions for parts of  
speech, e.g., a noun is a bounded region in some domain; a verb is a  
relational predication with a temporal profile. It would take a long  
essay to explain these. Also, nouns and verbs are gradable categories  
such that some nouns are "nounier" than others, some verbs "verbier"  
than others, and so on. Cog. Grammar posits lists of criteria for  
each category.

Discourse-based grammar posits yet different criteria for defining  
nouns and verbs based on their discourse functions.

Of course, it is not practical to try to use these theoretical  
definitions in classrooms. I have found in at least one case that the  
structural definitions work at the middle-school level, once the kids  
catch on that they are using their own judgment to decide whether a  
usage sounds correct or not.

As to hell in a handbasket, I don't see any difference in using  
"leverage" as a verb and using "eyeball" as a verb. Both are  
anthimeria. Judgments of them are purely subjective.

That isn't to say that all use of language is equal. A good deal of  
language of government, advertising, and so on is deliberately  
obfuscatory. As to examples like "leverage", perhaps these are jargon  
that their users find necessary to name business concepts, or perhaps  
they are merely markers of insider status. These are common functions  
of language, and there isn't much we can do about them.

Language is both a reflection of and a manipulator of thought. If  
thought goes to hell, language will. If someone wants to use language  
to euphemize (e.g., "collateral damage" for dead or injured  
noncombatants), then it is up to someone else to point it out and  
hold such people accountable. Correcting language won't do any good  
if the thought behind it doesn't change.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/