Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Label for lower register

< Wiktionary:Votes

Label for lower register edit

Voting on: Which (cross-language) context label to use for a "lower register", if any.

Prior to July 2021, English Wiktionary used to have such a label named "colloquial", which would categorize entries under "Category:X colloquialisms". As a result of an RFM discussion linked below, the category was subsumed under "informal", but such a merge has evoked debate.

Context: Some languages have a separate lower register that has been described with a variety of terms, such as "colloquial", "spoken", "vernacular" and "low colloquial". The terms used vary depending on the language being discussed, yet the phenomenon is largely similar between those languages: the lower register is common in everyday language and when spoken, while the higher standard register is used for most written texts and when speaking formally. "Informal" terms in these languages are generally not part of this lower register but may be used even in many standard texts, which sets them apart from strictly being part of the lower register.

Options edit

For supporting separate informal and lower-register labels, one option is provided each for the following options for what the label should be called:

  • colloquial (the status quo before the merge)
  • spoken
  • vernacular

In addition, three other options are also provided:

  • Support separate labels for all languages, but abstain on what it should be called
  • Oppose separate labels for all languages, but language-specific subvariety labels may be created
  • Oppose separate labels for all languages, and language-specific subvariety labels are not to be created (the status quo after the merge, since they are all categorized as informal now)

The number of support and oppose votes in total is counted up. If there is an equal number of both, the vote ends as no consensus. If there are more oppose votes, the opposing option that got more votes wins, or if there is a tie, the vote is a oppose (cross-language label) + no consensus (on language-specific labels). Else the label with the most support votes wins, or if there is a tie, a second vote will be held.

Any editor may only vote for one option. It is expected that people will vote for their label of preference and support only "support, but abstain on label" if they have no preference. Those who think lower-register terms should not have a single cross-language label, or that they should be categorized as informal, should vote for the corresponding "oppose" option.

Schedule:

Discussions:

Support separate labels "informal" and "colloquial" for all languages edit

  1.   Support per my earlier points in the linked discussions, which I will summarize below:
    • This is something absolutely worth documenting as separate from "informal", at least for Finnish, but to my understanding some other languages also have something similar, which makes a cross-language label the correct option. The merge discussion I feel simply failed to consider all languages and to me always smacked like it was only about English entries. Naturally, our glossary should properly explain the difference between "colloquial" and "informal" and specify that not all languages do and should have the distinction; let the language communities decide how to use them.
    • "spoken" implies the lower register is the spoken language, which is not necessarily the case, as the higher register can be spoken in formal contexts and the lower register written in chat rooms, etc.
    • "vernacular" can also mean a "language unique to a particular group of people", as our entry puts it, which would make it synonymous to slang or jargon, which is also not strictly the case here.
    • "colloquial" is the label that was used for years until the (in my view) ill-conceived merge.
    — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 00:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. The distinction between "informal" and "colloquial" is an important one — even if it is hard to articulate why in certain cases. Imetsia (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. I maintain that the merger should have been discussed with the greatest number of communities before deciding to make such a sweeping change, rather than forum shopping. It's frustrating to see this type of thing happen over and over again, often leaving minority language communities in the dust in favor of the English-editing community. If anything, it should've been merged for English specifically. I'd hope for future decisions like these, that if there's clearly no discussion from multiple language-editing communities, a decision is not made until there is. AG202 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support. Thadh (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support per my earlier points. Most importantly, the ineptitude of one community of editors should not cause damage to the work of another. The extent is what makes this case particularly serious – Finnish informal entries alone number at over 4500. brittletheories (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support. I was going to abstain, until Surjection made the point that the way these labels are used will depend on the community for each language. Vininn126 (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support. Even if some languages lack this distinction, Wiktionary's default has always been to have all labels available in all languages. If a label isn't applicable in a certain language then bar that language from using that label, not the other way around. If there are wide-spread errors in the use of certain labels within certain languages fix it within those languages. What has been done with the labels informal and colloquial is analogous to a couple of editors misusing {{lb|xx|imperfect}} in a language that has no imperfect tense, only to then merge the imperfect label with another one in Module:labels/data for all languages and then demand that editors whose languages do have an imperfect tense make a special label specifically for their language. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support separate labels "informal" and "spoken" for all languages edit

  1.   Support. Such a category is sorely needed; even if languages lack clearly seperate "informal" and "spoken" registers, there will still be a gradient which requires more than one convenient label. Though these two labels make for a good baseline, editors should of course be able to supplement this with additional categories or override them if the language's sociolinguistic situation demands it. Requiring custom categories are not the appropriate solution, as not every language will have editors selfless enough to labor on a language-specific categorisation system. I admit that editors will sometimes carelessly misuse these labels, but features such as IPA pronunciations are sometimes misused by editors: should we remove those? It seems apparent to me that "spoken" is the most clear and unambiguous label for the (re)nascent category. "Colloquial" seems far from ideal: it does generally denote a lower register than "informal", but the distinction isn't stark enough to be evident when they are placed in contradistinction. On the other hand, as Surjection notes, "vernacular" is too strongly associated with (often-proscribed) varieties specific to a region, class, ethnicity, or other group to be practicable here; it is unsuited for the kind of general natural speech that this category will contain. This leaves "spoken" despite its somewhat regrettable ambiguity. However, I don't see such ambiguity being much of a issue in practice: most users who are perceptive enough to work on Wiktionary will be perceptive enough to realise its intended signification, especially if a adequate explanation is supplied. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support separate labels "informal" and "vernacular" for all languages edit

Support separate labels for all languages, but abstain on what the latter label should be called edit

Oppose separate labels for all languages, but language-specific subvariety labels may be created edit

  1.   Oppose as above. If a certain language has the difference between "informal" and "colloquial", create the language-specific categories and/or labels. —Svārtava [t•u•r] 03:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose blanket separate labels across the board. Individual languages should opt in if they wish to make a specific, subtle distinction between levels of informality. This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I'm willing to be convinced if good examples showing the presence or absence of several distinct lower registers can be provided in a broader range of languages. It's really hard to know what our global "default" should be based on the limited information provided, in particular whether Finnish is anomalous in having this distinction, or English anomalous in lacking it, relative to other languages of the world. This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other I was going to do a review of the languages that I'm most familiar with by looking at the categories, but that's kinda hard to do when they were merged without much discussion, so everything is jumbled up now. I know that personally though, and this is reflected in the Beer Parlour discussion, French makes that distinction very clearly, and I'd like to have that distinction for the other languages I'm familiar with. Also as a side note, I definitely perceive a distinction between informal & colloquial when it comes to English, with the former being used, for example, in newspapers that are trying to be more personable, speech with a manager at work, or in an online group with people from around the world. While on the other hand, colloquial is more restricted to language used with very close friends and family. I'm not sure if this is due to my experience with other languages, but at least from my perspective there's a nuanced but important difference. AG202 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that langue populaire isn't best described in English as "slang", even if they don't call it argot in French... This, that and the other (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other The thing is that there's a tier under langue populaire that's called the registre argotique that's specifically for slang, like verlan, see French Wiktionary's entry on registre argotique and the corresponding category. I wouldn't lump both registers under "slang" when we could easily show the differences in register with "informal" and "colloquial". AG202 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "French makes that distinction very clearly": could you elaborate? PUC – 14:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PUC Maybe "very clearly" was a bit of an overstatement as there are times where words will shift between the two, but it's definitely more defined when compared to English. I'll copy-paste my Beer Parlour comments below along with an additional closing comment.
    "'Either way I would prefer seeing terms that are consistent across languages.' As much as we can try, I don't think that there's a solution for labels regarding formality usage across all languages. Some languages have up to a 5-or-more way distinction with politeness/formality when it comes to vocabulary, and those should be shown with our labels (ex: French has up to six registers depending on whom you ask, and currently the registers familier and populaire, even some from jargon and argot for some reason, are all grouped together 'informal French', which is borderline inaccurate). Also, just because we have the labels doesn't mean that every language has to use them, while at the moment no one can use them properly... [separate comment starts here] It's not meaningless if they're generally considered and taught as different registers, and actually yes, the bourgeoisie are often said to avoid popular words even with friends and family; I remember distinctly reading about that in my French Literature courses and the dynamics that it can create. I'd recommend the book Diversité : La nouvelle francophone, if you want some examples of the differences. For more info on the registers, niveaux de langue, Les registres (ou niveaux) de langue, the French Wiktionary, [...] and more. Sure some words might fluctuate between the two depending on the source, but it's a distinction that's French Sociolinguistics 101, so I'd really recommend reading into it more before making a sweeping policy..."
    I don't see why we should have less of a distinction than French Wiktionary and Larousse which also makes the distinction. Le Petit Robert also made the distinction with their physical editions as noted distinctly in this study: QUATRE NIVEAUX DE LANGUE TELS QUE REFLETES PAR LE PETIT ROBERT (which I'd recommend at least skimming), but it seems that they've lumped the two online unfortunately at least for smaller dictionary (perhaps they do in le Grand Robert that they advertise having "all registers"), even though they still mention it. The Trésor also marks which words it considers "populaire" and Hachette's le Dictionnaire du français →ISBN does it as well. Françoise Gadet also makes the distinction more clearly in her two books, Le français ordinaire (familiar) & Le français populaire. Long story short, there's a ton of evidence that points towards separating these two registers, and if there's a concern of overlap, then we could be more strict about the delineation rather than entirely removing the distinction. AG202 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks for the pointers. PUC – 12:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep no problem! AG202 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought about this some more, my position is that the labels should definitely be merged for English (a technical merger in the Lua modules, not just a social deprecation as Surjection suggests below), but I really don't have an informed opinion on other languages. So I don't truly "oppose separate labels for all languages"; I oppose them only for English, and I essentially abstain when it comes to other languages. I admit I should have brought this up before the vote began! This, that and the other (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose I don't think "informal" and "colloquial" are clearly distinct in reference to English, so I oppose separating these categories for all languages. As different languages have different sociolinguistic situations, deciding on the labels on a language-by-language basis seems most appropriate.--Urszag (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, while it says "all languages", what it means is not having language-specific labels, but general ones. Each language community would get to decide how to use the labels. If there is no "informal"/"colloquial" distinction in English, editors could decide to not use the latter label with English entries at all. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thank you. Then I'm changing my vote to abstain. I didn't write this clearly, but I was also thinking that aside from being unclear in reference to English, I think English speakers are unlikely to understand how these are meant to be distinct in reference to other languages. So for general, rather than language-specific categories, I still would prefer some other pair of terms. However, if it turns out to be the most accepted terminology in all of the languages where the distinction is important, I guess it makes sense to go with informal vs. colloquial.--Urszag (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose: I think it is right that a distinction be made between different registers of a language, but oppose using colloquial and informal for this purpose, because in English the difference between these words is unclear. Our own definition of colloquial states: "(linguistics) Denoting a manner of speaking or writing that is characteristic of familiar conversation, of common parlance; informal." Thus, it appears (1) that colloquial is not limited to spoken language, and (2) informal is treated as a synonym of colloquial. For this reason, I think we should stick to informal as a default for all languages, but if a specific language wishes to adopt another term to denote a lower register that can be voted on. However, I do not agree that the term used should be colloquial – that will be confusing for the reason I have mentioned. It can be spoken, vernacular, or something else that there is consensus for. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose. I don't think we can do a good job separating informal and colloquial. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose I have stated my opinion before; I am fine with language-specific labels but not with unilaterally separating colloquial from informal. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose The last incomprehensible vote, of which Surjection has been a fan as well, went bad in spite of consisting but of a single new line, and I still barely fathom what this vote is supposed to permit that she could not do before, bar ascribing invented meanings to contextualization labels; and what happens to categories as opposed to labels is untold and unvoted by supporters though afterwards Surjection will say otherwise. I believe in editors of using those labels that befit the terms and languages described without having to vote on private meanings. Fay Freak (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not ascribe intentions to editors who did not even vote in that vote, thanks. I don't know how many times this needs to be said to you. AG202 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ascribing me an intention to ascribe intentions, but I haven’t, so you need it to be said. Thanks. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The last incomprehensible vote, of which Surjection has been a fan as well", Surjection did not vote in that election nor have they been an ardent supporter of it, so there was no need to mention that. (Also you yourself did not even participate in that vote) AG202 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that’s why I said “fan” and not “supporter”. Also there is a thing like successive supporters and fans. Afterwards she found meanings therein that not everyone voted for. Even without intention. Fay Freak (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose separate labels for all languages, and language-specific subvariety labels are not to be created edit

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain Urszag (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Label_for_lower_register&oldid=66106533"