"[The general public] react to waves of expert truth which continue to wash over them with a sort of mute indifference. An uninvolved outsider might interpret this as the first stages of a purification rite. Indifference is often the manner behind which humans consider change. Given our history, it should be possible to decipher our intent. We are trying to think our way out of a linguistic prison. This means we need to create new language and new interpretations, which can only be accomplished by re-establishing the equilibrium between the oral and the written. This is a situation in which dictionaries should again be filled with doubt, questioning and considerations. They can then be used as practical weapons of change."
-John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion
The power of language is one of my chief obsessions. Granted, one of many, but still. Language has been used as both a tool of oppression and revolution. In England after the Norman conquest of 1066, whether you spoke French or not determined your social prospects. What counts as a word can have drastic consequences. 'Bling' being included in the Oxford English Dictionary a few years back caused quite a lot of controversy, but it did help legitimize what's known now as African American Standard Vernacular. Thanks to actions like the bling inclusion, what's heard in a place like Harlem is now a recognized dialect of English, and I believe this was a huge step forward for racial equality. Some even argue that what language we use controls how we think; language preceding thought, so to speak.
So why should we care? Well...we speak it. We also write it, read it, and listen to it. Pretty obvious, I know, but stop all those activities for a day and see how far you get. We need language and we need it to be working for us as opposed to an agent of control. The above quote mentions the balance between oral and written language, and how important it is to maintain that. Oral is flexible and fluid, phrases and constantly invented and dialects spring up like...springs...in a faulty mattress...faulty mattress springs. Nevermind.
The written, by contrast, is static. It defines the language, attempts to control it. Now, you can speak the written and write the oral, it's more a method of approach. The written, in short, is boring. Dan Rather is the written. He doesn't speak, he communicates--he conveys information and nothing more. How we approach language determines, again, whether we can use it or if others can use it to control us. We're cut off from each other by specialist language, each profession having such a highly evolved dialect and a slavish devotion to it that it's become impossible to actually talk to each other.
It goes back to my previous post, with having all the answers. If you seek to define language in an exact way, become an agent of the written, you have all the answers, and we're up the creek. Take delight in how words are used, I say. Keep language flexible and surprising. Free how we speak, and let it be interesting.
Oh yes, and leave comments. I have doubts whether anyone actually reads this, and even less confidence that I'm making any sense, so I wouldn't mind a bit of validation at least on the former.
1 comment:
Sorry to burst your bubble Sifu, but I read your blog. And, oh woe is you, I have a comment. I work with two deaf girls (well women I guess - they are old enough to be my mom) and communication is key. The language barrier is very obvious. We write to communicate, and it is a challenge to keep it very simple and basic. We take what we say and think for granted and unless we challenge it, we can't make much in the way of change. Hope that makes sense!
Sihing Tania Wilson
Post a Comment