In response to Question 2.
“Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” George Orwell.
Why has George Orwell found the need to say that political language is different than any other language we speak? Do we really speak differently according to the people around us, where we are, what time it is, and what we are talking about?
Yes, we do.
Just like reading, listening, watching, hearing, language is a way of knowing. It may seem obvious, but without language, we wouldn’t be able to share our information and what we know. We see language as a constant in our lives, yet language is anything but constant. Both in the historical context and in our daily lives, the language we use always changes.
Historical linguistics is the branch of linguistics which deals with the change of language over centuries, but what interests us here is the change of language in one, short day of our mundane lives. We speak differently to the bus driver when we ask him where the next stop is, we speak differently with our best friends, differently with our “friends”, and differently with our teachers or bosses. When I am speaking with my best friend about music, she both understands what I’m saying in the musical context without me having to explain it, because she is also a musician, and she understands what I’m trying to say, for example when I say “that thing we did with the thing in that place”, because we spend all our day together and we know each other very well. If I had said that very same sentence to a stranger, they would think me mad. The set of words specific to a profession is called jargon, like the music vocabulary I used to talk to my musician friend about the use of leitmotifs in the music of Lord of the Rings. The very existence of jargon shows how we change our language according to who we are talking to and where we are talking to them.
Another type of language change we see in our daily lives is called “code switching”; when people switch to an entire other language, not just change their vocabulary. For example, when I can’t say what I must in French class, I switch to English in the middle of the sentence.
Of course, as there is a problem with everything good and nice, and as much as changing our language may provide variety and may liven our conversations, we changing the way we speak create problems for linguists. For example, when linguists want to observe how people from the Çömelek village talk amongst themselves and how the Turkish language used daily has changed in the southern part of Turkey, they need to talk to people and record what they are saying. Only, there is one problem: people tend to be more careful about what they’re saying and how they’re saying it when they are talking to a linguist, so the linguist can never know how the people really speak amongst themselves. This is called the observer’s paradox and shows a problem with language as a way of knowing while language changes constantly.
Language is dynamic; it changes over time, we twist it and manipulate it every time we talk, according to the context, audience and setting of our conversation. Change, in this case, language change, is always good, since people change and the only way people can show what they know, how they know it and tell other people about it, is through the one and only path which us humans take for granted, the changing constant of our lives; language.
You said: "Language is dynamic; it changes over time, we twist it and manipulate it every time we talk, according to the context, audience and setting of our conversation." Why do you think people feel the need to do this? Why can't they just speak without changing it or twisting it?
ReplyDeleteYou have said that language changes as people change but this change is good. Can this manipulating and twisting of languages still be considered good for the extinct languages which cause the loss of many cultures around the world?
ReplyDeleteYou talked about the relationship between changing languages and changing people. This made me think about language as a type of map for historians. For example the use of foreign words can show a certain interaction between two cultures and we can trace this interaction. Do you think this kind of change in language is also good? Turkish contains many French words (such as şezlong or biziklet) because during the Ottoman Era the French had an enormous influence on our society. Similarly today, Turkish is starting to gain English words such as "meeting". Do you feel this enriches the langauge by increasing its word count, or does it contaminate it?
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk about how language changes I started to think that how good this change might be. As language changes the way we express things and the way we try to understand also changes in time. Do you think that this change might also be bad in someways?
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of your post you mentioned a quote by George Orwell, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” I really like this quote and I agree with most of what you have said in this post. You also say that the changing of our language is a good thing because it means that it’s alive, but you also said that language change is always good. Though often when a language changes some words get out of use, do you think we should try harder to keep our older vocabulary to instead of only using new words?
ReplyDeleteLanguage is definitely a way of knowing, but its vocabulary gives it definition.
ReplyDeleteThis post makes me wonder whether people coming from countries with richer language have an advantage. Relating to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this makes me wonder whether people with richer languages have a also a richer view of the world. As you talk about code switching I wonder why it happens. Is it because one language doesn’t have enough of vocabulary to describe a certain feeling or action, so if we don’t have that word how do understand that action or feeling. Therefore I do believe that people have an advantage in terms of perceiving the world and understanding it based on the language they speak.
ReplyDeleteIn your essay you have talked about the musical jargon you use with your friend. This probably makes communicating with your friend much easier. But a person listening to you who does not know about music would not be able to understand what you are saying. Therefore, the jargons you are using will stop you from transferring information to the people around you since these people cannot comprehend some of the vocabulary that you are using. Would you say that although they allow the people inside a group to communicate easier, jargons make it hard for people outside the group to understand the information and limit language as a way of knowing?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you upon your statement that language is dynamic. The reason we are not speaking Shakespearean is because, the language evolved over time. Language is a tool of communication, and so as our needs and wants are changing with the emerging technology, so does the words we use to express them. I agree with you that language being dynamic is a positive thing, because I can't imagine myself trying to express myself with the language used centuries ago.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that when you speak with your friends you speak in a way that only they understand you. You also mentioned code switching and how language is dynamic and constantly changes. In one of our classes we talked about how in the Turkish society, we try to invent new words. And when someone invents a new word as slang, and if people like it they start using it. In Turkish for instance “pampa” and “fenerasyon” are new words which are not in the formal dictionary. The language becomes dynamic and changes easily. However in many countries, there are organizations that try to protect their language and do not like to add new words. For instance in France the “Academic Française” is very active. You said that “language change is always good”. Do you think that countries should not protect their own languages to a certain extent?
ReplyDeleteI have found your essay to be informative as well as insightful and I agree with your statement that language is dynamic. You said that language "changes over time, we twist it and manipulate it every time we talk, according to the context, audience and setting of our conversation." The statement is true, but you stated that it is always good in this case. With the advancement of technology, people tend to use shortcuts (such as shortening words or not completing sentences) while sending texts or writing messages on the Internet. Do you think that this would affect the constant change of language, and if so, to what extent?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you stated in the sixth paragraph. People who intentionally change the way they speak cause some problems for linguists and psychologists as well. Many research on this topic have the risk to go wrong because of this. I really don't understand why people don't accept where they are from and try to change how they speak to make themselves seem different. Why are they so embarrassed about where they are from?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Merve about how wrong it is to change dialect because of the fear of being discriminated. We live in a global world that keeps developing rapidly and there are many nations which are homes to multicultural societies. Each society has their own history and culture and in order to protect this legacy, their language and dialect should be embraced. Otherwise, the society will not have any remains for the future and the language, alongside the culture, will be lost. On the other hand, if everyone was to confidently speak their own language in their own dialect, they could prevent their society from turning into ashes.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with everyone who mentioned the disadvantages of changing a certain language. I believe that language is one of most powerful legacies that a society can have and it should be protected; it should not be changed or shortened, in certain cases such as technology. Language is an aspect that defines a culture and the traditions of its society. Lastly, I think that some societies feel the need to change their dialect when they face a stronger society; but they should protect their legacy and never damage it for the sake of power.
ReplyDeleteIn your last paragraph you used the words " Change, in this case, language change, is always good". However, for the past few years some of our Turkish teachers are saying "Türkçe'yi Kirletmeyin!" which means "Don't damage Turkish" when translated in a way. So as we change and learn new languages, we sort of change codes as we speak, write and use our language. Instead of saying "güle güle" or "hoşçakal" we say "bye bye" in Turkish nowadays for example. Would you agree that the changes that are being made in our languages are not always positive but sometimes also damaging?
ReplyDeleteMany of you have commented on the fact that language change may not always be good, as it may corrupt a language and eventually lead it to its demise and burn it to its ashes. Even though I partially agree with yours, and everyone else's arguments on this subject, this change we're talking about is inevitable. It cannot be stopped, just as people and the times we're living in cannot be stopped from changing. "The colors of the world are changing day by day", and, since language is currently our best way of communicating, it also has to change. This change is always for the greater good, because this change, this evolution of the language, is actually its metamorphosis into a better, broader, more expressive way of communication, may it be foreign words in your own language, or new words created to suit the new technology and way of living.
ReplyDeleteMay I also point out that desperately trying to "preserve" one's language in its form in the 1800's may not always be the best choice. For a while, TDK tried to find an originally Turkish substitute for the word "otobüs", the word for "bus" in Turkish, clearly taken from English, so that the language "would not be corrupted". They came up with "çok oturgaçlı götürgeç". Now, which one would you prefer?