Linguistic Anarchy!

I’m one of those people who can often get over an inability to settle down to work by going out to a cafe.  Since I’m in Berkeley now, naturally the cafe I found this afternoon was no ordinary Seattle’s Best, but the Mediterraneum Caffé (Caffé Med) on Telegraph, former haunt of Ginsberg and other Beats, and the place that claims to have invented the latte.  

I asked for a small latte.  The young server paused and said, “would a medium be ok?”  I said “er, sure…” and she said “because technically if it’s in a cup smaller than this one (holding up a cup that would make a perfectly respectable soup bowl) then it’s not called a latte.  Actually, if it’s like a latte but in this cup (holding up a cup that is still generous for a coffee cup) it’s called a macchiato.“   

Having been influenced by old <a href=“”>Language Log</a> <a href=“”>posts</a> on Starbucks’ (you don’t say small you say tall) and Microsoft’s (Microsoft has no genitive) amateurish attempts to regiment language in various ways, I’m never very impressed by this sort of thing.  It’s not that I’m opposed to the regimentation of language in general—-in fact, I usually follow one of my old teachers in recommending that my logic students refrain from using valid in informal senses (valid point of view, valid claim etc.) and reserve the word for its technical senses (which are tricky enough as it is, given that many books reserve one technical use of the word for first order logical truths, as well as allowing the more well-known use on which it is a property of arguments or argument schemata in general.)   So anyway, that sentence got away from me.  It’s not that I’m opposed to the regimentation of language in general, but just that I reject the authority of just about everyone in imposing it, including Starbucks, but also including funky historical local coffee shops. 

So what’s the difference between what they’re doing, and what I feel justified in doing in my classes?  Well, I think it’s just that I have a good justification for the regimentation.  Reserving valid for the technical uses aids communication and understanding of the subject at hand.  A regimentation that makes it impossible to request a coffee like a medium latte, but smaller, by saying “small latte’‘ does not.  In fact, it seems like a snobbish attempt to wield power for the sake of it.  Similarly for the Microsoft and Starbucks examples.  

Am I right?  I can imagine someone defending the Starbucks example by claiming that the justification for having special names for their coffee sizes is artistic.  They want their  customers to have the best, most enjoyable most interesting/mysterious/exotic coffee-drinking experience possible, and what better justification could there be for their decision to name their sizes as they have? But even if that is so, it could only justify their introduction of the new expressions, not the outlawing of the old—-and hence not the regimentation.  

Anyway, though I wasn’t impressed by the no-such-thing-as-a-small-latte claim, neither am I impressed by people who are rude to young service workers, so I tried to make conversation, dredging up some faint memories about what a macchiato actually was:  “That’s interesting.  I thought a macchiato was where you just marked the expresso with foam?”  “Oh no,’‘ she said, “a machiatto is just like a latte but with less milk.”  And I just shut up and smiled and handed over my 4 bucks.   

Maybe Berkeley cafes are going to be more distracting than the ones in St Louis. 

2 Replies to “Linguistic Anarchy!”

  1. I hate Starbucks for what they did to ‘tall’ and what was done to me when people ordered drinks from me in my non-Starbucks coffeehouse. Question. Should I also hate what they did to ‘Macchiato’ or should I hate what they’ve done to the Macchiato? I haven’t been able to figure that one out yet.

  2. Perhaps they’ve done something to the macchiato by doing something to its name? I think I could be regarded as having done something to Kenny by always saying his name in a snarky voice, or by persistently using it to refer to Brian (I suppose that puzzling Kenny counts as doing something to him.) But this is just the kind of thing that people who want to protect brands worry about all the time, right? I’m sure they believe that writing the name “Nike” on a bad quality, knock-off t-shirt harms Nike itself.

Leave a Reply