You can add a genitive ’s to a preposition in English

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Gwen Rehrig tweeted a poll to ask if this sentence is acceptable to American English speakers:

As you can see, over 80% of people said it was either definitely or possibly acceptable. I replied that every single student in my grammar class said “Nooope. No way.” when I asked them. 🙂

But hang on, is that sentence unacceptable in Standard English? Continue reading “You can add a genitive ’s to a preposition in English”

Millennials are killing bad linguistics articles

There’s an article in Philadelphia Magazine called “Here’s how millennials are changing the Philadelphia accent” and it’s better than bad – it’s good! The author talks to linguist Betsy Sneller, who was on a recent episode of the Vocal Fries podcast, about her research into the changing Philly dialect. It’s chock full of good linguistic information, a note about how of course millennials are changing the accent (that’s what the younger generation does), and sound files! And somehow they managed to get through a whole article on Philadelphia and language without mentioning jawn. That’s not easy, well done. You should go check it out:

And here’s the link to the Vocal Fries episode: You should go listen to all their episodes.

Can you tell a Mexican accent from a Cuban one?

On a recent-ish episode of Marc Maron’s WTF podcast, actor Paul Rodriguez talked a little bit about language. He was describing a show he was in and how one of the reasons it didn’t work out was because of the backgrounds of the actors in it. He said:

I knew there were problems at the beginning. First of all, to white America we all sound the same. But to Latinos, we know the difference between a Puerto Rican accent and a Cuban accent and a Mexican accent. And they cross-casted, you know – they put – my father was Joe Santos, an Italian, then my mother was Katy Jurado, Mexican, so it didn’t work but the attempt was good.

The part that really struck me is when Rodriguez says, “we know the difference between a Puerto Rican accent and a Cuban accent and a Mexican accent.” Think about it for a second. The entire family in the show was supposed to be from Mexico. Could you imagine someone saying that all European accents sound the same? Or that they can’t tell the difference between accents? Between (Hollywood’s stereotypical version of) an Irish accent and a German accent?

If you can tell the difference between a French person speaking English and a German person speaking English, then you should be able to tell the difference between Southern American accents. Right? But can you? I’m trained in linguistics and I don’t know if I could. But I would notice if Hollywood tried to pass off Arnold Schwarzenegger as being in the same family as Penélope Cruz. Something to think about.

Carmen Fought, a linguist who has studied this topic, says that we still do not know the relationship between Chicano English and, for example, Puerto Rican English. Chicano English is a term used to cover the varieties spoken by Mexican Americans in the southwest US, while Puerto Rican English is the variety spoken on the east coast of the US by people of Puerto Rican ethnicity. There are sure to be similarities, but we don’t yet know the differences. Fought also says that we don’t know much about the regional differences inside Chicano English. I would love to hear more people like Rodriguez – people who are familiar with these varieties – speak about them more. How do they know a speaker’s background is Mexico or Puerto Rico or Cuba? It’s all very, very interesting.


Fought, Carmen. 2014. “Chicano English”. Languages and dialects in the U.S.: Focus on diversity and linguistics, ed. by Marianna Di Paolo & Arthur K. Spears, 115–125. New York: Routledge.

Update on the future

Just a quick note: I will be updating this site more frequently from now on (because, you know, I have all the time in the world). I’ve changed the look slightly and I may tinker some more (I’d like to make the posts wider). I’ve also noticed that it’s been a bit of a downer here with the last couple of posts being negative reviews. But I have some reviews coming up of stuff I liked! And then I’ll have some other stuff I didn’t. I’ll also writing some shorter posts, in addition to my usual long-winded, time-consuming ramblings. See you in the future!

Adjectives just can’t get a break

Everyone loves verbs, or so you would be led to believe by writing guides. Zack Rutherford, a professional freelance copywriter, posted an article on .eduGuru about how to write better marketing copy. In it he says:

Verbs work better than adjectives. A product can be quick, easy, and powerful. But it’s a bit more impressive if the product speeds through tasks, relieves stress, and produces results. Adjectives describe, while verbs do. People want a product or service that does. So make sure you provide them with one. [Emphasis his – JM]

If you’re a copy writer or marketer, chances are that you’ve heard this piece of advice. It sort of makes sense, right? Well as a linguist who studies marketing (and a former copy writer who was given this advice), I want to explain to you why it is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst. These days it is very easy to check whether verbs actually work better than adjectives in copy. You simply take many pieces of copy (texts) and use computer programs to tag each word for the part of speech it is. Then you can see whether the better, i.e. more successful, pieces of copy use more verbs than adjectives. This type of analysis is what I’m writing my PhD on (marketers and copy writers, you should get in touch).

Don’t heed your own advice

So being the corpus linguist that I am, I decided to check whether Mr. Rutherford follows his own advice. His article has the following frequencies of usage for nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs:

Nouns Verbs Adjectives Adverbs Word count
Total 275 208 135 90 1195
% of all words 23.01% 17.41% 11.30% 7.53%

Hooray! He uses more verbs than adjectives. The only thing is that those frequencies don’t tell the whole story. They would if all verbs are equal, but those of us who study language know that some verbs are more equal than others. Look at Mr. Rutherford’s advice again. He singles out the verbs speeds through, relieves, and produces as being better than the adjectives quick, easy, and powerful. Disregarding the fact that the first verb in there is a phrasal verb, what his examples have in common is that the verbs are all -s forms of lexical verbs (gives, takes, etc.) and the adjectives are all general adjectives (according to CLAWS, the part-of-speech tagger I used). This is important because a good copy writer would obviously want to say that their product produces results and not that it produced results. Or as Mr. Rutherford says “People want a product or service that does” and not presumably one that did. So what do the numbers look like if we compare his use of -s form lexical verbs to general adjectives?

-s form of lexical verbs General adjectives
Total 24 135
% of all words 2.01% 11.30%

Uh oh. Things aren’t looking so good. Those frequencies exclude all forms of the verbs BE, HAVE, and DO, as well as modals and past tense verbs. So maybe this is being a bit unfair. What would happen if we included the base forms of lexical verbs (relieve, produce), the -ing participles (relieving, producing) and verbs in the infinitive (to relieve, it will produce)? The idea is that there would be positive ways for marketers to write their copy using these forms of the verbs. Here are the frequencies:

Verbs (base, -ing part.,
Infin., and -s forms)
General adjectives
Total 127 135
% of all words 10.63% 11.30%

Again, things don’t look so good. The verbs are still less frequent than the general adjectives. So is there something to writing good copy other than just “use verbs instead of adjectives”? I thought you’d never ask.

Some good advice on copy writing

I wrote this post because the empirical research of marketing copy is exactly what I study. I call it Econolinguistics. Using this type of analysis, I have found that using more verbs or more adjectives does not relate to selling more products. Take a look at these numbers.

Copy text Performance Verbs – Adjectives
1 42.04 3.94%
2 11.82 0.63%
3 11.81 6.22%
4 10.75 -0.40%
5 2.39 3.21%
6 2.23 -0.78%
7 2.23 4.01%
8 1.88 1.14%
9 5.46%

These are the frequencies of verbs and adjectives in marketing texts ordered by how well they performed. The ninth text is the worst and the rest are ranked based on how much better they performed than this ninth text. The third column shows the difference between the verb frequency and adjective frequency for each text (verb % minus adjective %). If it looks like a mess, that’s because it is. There is not much to say about using more verbs than adjectives in your copy. You shouldn’t worry about it.

There is, however, something to say about the combination of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, etc., etc. in your copy. The ways that these kinds of words come together (and the frequencies at which they are used) will spell success or failure for your copy. Trust me. It’s what Econolinguistics was invented for. If you want to know more, I suggest you get in touch with me, especially if you’d like to check your copy before you send it out (email: joseph.mcveigh(at)

In order to really drive the point home, think about this: if you couldn’t use adjectives to describe your product, how would you tell people what color it is? Or how big it is? Or how long it lasts? You need adjectives. Don’t give up on them. They really do matter. And so do all the other words.


Other posts on marketing and linguistics

How Linguistics can Improve your Marketing by Joe McVeigh


Last week, Google unveiled Search plus Your World, their latest attempt to make the Internet shittier. Search plus Your World “helps you find personal results that are relevant to you.” What this means is that (when you are signed into your Google account), Google sorts their search results to more accurately reflect what they think you want to know. Which means is that Google is trying to tell you what you want to hear. Cute, but not helping.

Eli Pariser coined the term “Filter Bubble” to describe the ways that some online designs can overreach and become detrimental to user experience. This is most evident in the ways that Google orders its search results and how Facebook decides which of your friends are important to you. I highly recommend viewing Pariser’s TED talk on Filter Bubbles.

Based on your physical location, Internet history, and now your Google+ friends, your search results in Google will be different from anyone else’s, even if they are sitting right next to you. Facebook, for its part, will do things like remove friends from your news feed if you don’t click on the articles and pictures they post often enough.

Both of these things suck. Here’s why: Think about when you ask someone a question. Would you rather they gave you an honest answer, or would you rather they told you what they thought you wanted to hear? It’s the Smithers Predicament. Google could give equal value to their results, but they choose not to. When you’re shopping for shoes, it’s harmless. When you want information about the world, it’s ridiculous. Pariser, in his TED talk, shows screen caps from two friends’ search results on Egypt. The more left-leaning friend got results about the Arab Spring. The more right-leaning friend got results about travel and accommodations. Why? Because Google would rather be Waylon Smithers than Professor Frink.

The Federal Trade Commission has added Google to an antitrust investigation to see whether Google is unfairly promoting its services since results now feature Google+ hits more prominently. I’m not sufficiently versed in antitrust law to speak to that, but I can say that Google’s actions have made me seek out new ways to find information on the Internet. I used to think of Google as the index to an encyclopedia and I’m pretty sure most people feel that way. Now I realize it’s just a Yes Man.

There are ways to get out of the Filter Bubble, but it’s not easy. Pariser offers some tips, while Duck Duck Go is a whole search engine dedicated to not tracking or bubbling you. Their take on the Filter Bubble and its problems is much cooler than this article (check it).

The Internet is one of the single greatest human accomplishments and Google helps millions of people every day. But a bit of skepticism still goes a long way.

[Update – Jan. 26, 2011] Google sees your concern and raises you a No Opt Out. The “Don’t be evil” company is placing even more of its services under a privacy policy that allows them to share information about you. Why would they want to do this? Google’s reason: so they can offer you a better user experience, dear. The real reason: so they can make more money, dummy.

So… don’t be evil, just greedy?

There are a few things to do, besides what I mentioned earlier in this post. You could close your Google account. Also, if you rad ass blog is on Blogger, like mine is, you could move it to another host, like WordPress or DreamHost or any other one that isn’t out there sucking at not being evil.

[Update #2 – Jan. 26, 2011] Just to be sure, I was wrong when I said Google would rather be like Smithers. It’s pretty clear they are aspiring to be Monty Burns. Also, that’s it for Simpsons references. Promise.