In response to question 4(b)...
Language: communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in convention, always with conventional meanings; speech.
Communication. Human. Speech. Meaning.
When George Orwell wrote his dystopic novel, 1984, he gave great importance to how language was "regulated", how it was under the control of the government. Newspeak was the language of the society of 1984, and it had laws, lines, borders drawn clearly with a sharp blade, not to be broken, or trespassed. Unfortunately, these "laws" tended to go much further and penetrate the English language much deeper than simple laws of grammar that every elementary school student despises.
What would come along with putting laws on language is censorship. As it states in the definition of language, it is a way of "communication", and censorship on communication is a subject we're all familiar with. Phones being tapped, mails being monitored, texts being read before they arrive at their destination... Even in our day, in our "normal" world, yet I wouldn't quite say that it is too far from the world of 1984, we are changing the way we speak, just in case someone hears it, or someone reads it. We don't say "bomb" or "terrorist" or "communism" on the phone, you know, just in case. Just like prisoners use argo, a different set of vocabulary with different meanings, so that they wouldn't be understood by the cops while they're planning their "great escape". So, we already censor our speech, what would become of it if our language was fitted into laws other than past participles and present perfects?
Here's the answer: no more expression, no more conveying of thoughts. Just saying what people want to hear. Becoming those prisoners, only without an escape plan.
Language changes as people change, as I stated in one of my previous blog posts, and just as you cannot stop this world spinning out of control from changing, you cannot stop the language from changing, let alone fit laws around it. There is a whole branch of linguistics who deals with this "change of language"; historical linguistics.
Let's say that under the influence of a strict, religious government, it was no longer legal to use the words "evolution", "big bang" and "logic". Let's assume, again, that the scientists, at least those who are left, discover a new species in the depths of the wilderness of the Galapagos islands. How are they supposed to discover where this species comes from? How are they supposed to know there is a concept called "evolution", if they are the new generation? These kinds of brutal and austere laws would mean the end of language as a way of knowing, and sharing knowledge.
So, language is currently our best way of communication, unless you prefer hitting stuff to make noise and yelling out unintelligible sounds to communicate, and there is no sense in fitting it into tight, tight shackles we call "laws", which have already made the world we're living in a much duller, organized and cautious place, and taking all the fun out of it.
Consider this: let's assume, for the last time, that you broke the laws of language, and you ended up in jail. You would be a prisoner of your own words and speech. Do we really want that?
Language is not only a tool that you could use in order to communicate your thoughts but also your feelings. In a society in which there were laws about language, the words used in order to express emotions would be limited. The limitation of these words would cause limitations in the expression of feelings. Think of trying to tell someone that you love them when there is no word for ‘love’. In the end, people would not need these words because they will not have any feelings to express.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Derya. In today's society, sometimes people are afraid of saying something just because some important people would get offended. There are many journalists in jail just because they spoke against the government's policies. It happens in our daily lives, everyday. I sometimes don't defend myself on some homework matter just because that certain teacher will get mad at me and therefore lower my grade. (we all know some teachers do that) So, I believe that language doesn't limit our thoughts but society does.
ReplyDeleteHello Derya, I agree with everything you wrote on communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in convention, always with conventional meanings; speech.
ReplyDeleteLanguage truly is our best way of communication, and using codes, yelling out unintelligible sounds, or hitting stuff would not help us at all.
Living in a world like 1984 truly would be terrible, we would never be able to express our selves properly and saying the wrong things could lead us to become a prisoner of our own words.
I agree with all of you that we humans should enjoy the freedom of expression and that our statements should not be limited by laws. This can make the world a more “fun” place as you said. However I also believe that there should be laws to a certain extent. For example using the word “bomb” in an airplane being illegal is normal. It protects the society from terror and chaos. I mean I am not saying that we should have rules such as in the 1984 novel. However I still think that the way of communicating with people and sharing knowledge would be better with some rules to a certain extent. I do not believe that for example when countries are sending each other formal messages they can use offensive language. This again can cause mayhem in our modern world of today. Finally, hate messages against minorities, racist language, statements that encourage crime and violence should be controlled.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very good point. Your post has made me reflect on the idea of laws and language. In our country, it is illegal to swear at the president, and this has been so for a very long time. On the other hand, a few months ago there was an incident where a group of people were very rude to the German chancellor Angela Merkel; and she stated to the international press that they had complete freedom in their speech and that she was not offended. Even though not being able to swear at the president will not necessarily affect my day to day life, the idea behind it is very wrong and if it develops it can result in the repercussions you talked about.
ReplyDeleteDerya, I really liked your blog post, especially the allusion to Orwell's novel. Man I miss that book....anyway that's beside the point. I wrote about the same topic as you. Even though I came to the same conclusion as you did, I wanted to bring up a point that you might consider. In some cases, it might be important to preserve a language seeing as how languages are representations of cultures. Do you think that, in some cases, it might make sense to make learning a language mandatory for citizens in order to preserve the identity of the culture?
ReplyDelete