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?
Showing posts with label Assignments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assignments. Show all posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
The Changing Constant of our Lives
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)