Social Media Musings... page 11
Just stuff posted from time to time, not necessarily in chronological or topical order, fitting the general theme of this website.
PAGES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Laboring Because of a Love of Language
Some overly long morning thoughts about language. I just have to get them out of my head so that I can get on with my day; so you, my Facebook friends, are the victims of that necessity. Thankfully, for your sake, you can just skim it or skip it altogether.
****
Many people like to speak about the evolving nature of language these days. Well, rather, I should say that many people like to *cite* the fact that language evolves, but not all of them really understand the concept or use it appropriately.
Commonly, people seem to think the idea of the evolution of language provides support for activist, revolutionary efforts to overturn linguistic conventions in order to supplant old and/or support new social and political agendas. For the record, that's not quite what "evolution" means. At the very least, it's a non-organic type of evolution that is more comparable to revolution, colonialization, rape, and war. That's why people respond negatively to such efforts: Because they are coercive and unnatural.
But that's not really the topic I wanted to comment on today.
My thoughts this morning were prompted by two incidents this week, both related to the English language, and one of them also sparking thoughts about language generally and, in part, its evolution.
****
Many people like to speak about the evolving nature of language these days. Well, rather, I should say that many people like to *cite* the fact that language evolves, but not all of them really understand the concept or use it appropriately.
Commonly, people seem to think the idea of the evolution of language provides support for activist, revolutionary efforts to overturn linguistic conventions in order to supplant old and/or support new social and political agendas. For the record, that's not quite what "evolution" means. At the very least, it's a non-organic type of evolution that is more comparable to revolution, colonialization, rape, and war. That's why people respond negatively to such efforts: Because they are coercive and unnatural.
But that's not really the topic I wanted to comment on today.
My thoughts this morning were prompted by two incidents this week, both related to the English language, and one of them also sparking thoughts about language generally and, in part, its evolution.
Elder Myeengun Henry at the June 15, 2023 Convocation ceremonies at the University of Waterloo.
|
One incident was hearing the comments of Elder Myeengun Henry, one of the Region's most thoughtful and kind indigenous leaders (at least, that is my impression so far from my limited - just two or three conversations at different times - experience with him).
During the UW convocation ceremonies yesterday, Elder Henry expressed gratitude for the settlers' gift of the English language that facilitates our communication. It was an interesting thought interspersed with his other wise sayings and encouragement to the graduands. His comment twigged, for me, thoughts about the nature of English in particular (though the characteristics I am thinking of can be true of any, and probably every, language, since they are expressions of human thought and creativity) that I will come back to in a bit. |
The other incident was a conversation with another indigenous scholar this week, Kelly Fran Davis. This was our first meeting (at a dance presentation she provided with her family). She also seems to be a generous, kind, intelligent, and creative scholar and artist.
In our conversation, I asked about the outfits worn by the dancers in her presentation. I used the word "costume". She responded (very kindly), "we don't call them 'costumes'." Although this reply suggested to me that she might not have a complete understanding of the meaning of that word, I accepted her comment without argument for the reason I explain below. |
Kelly Fran Davis, explaining a wampum belt with the help of one of her grandsons, June 13, 2023, Kitchener City Hall.
|
If you look up the definition of "costume," you will find that one of its meanings - often, the very first one listed - is, "a set of clothes in a style typical of a particular country or historical period". The term is an evolution from the word "custom" and, just as "habit" can also refer to a kind of outfit, it inherently refers to a clothing style that has cultural, personal, or occupational significance. In this regard, the use of that word is not merely an accurate way to refer to traditional outfits of any culture, nation, or group, it is an appropriate and non-judgmental one. It ought not to evoke a negative response.
However, I recognize that we also use the word "costume" in other ways, which are derivative of that first one. We use it to refer to the outfits worn by children at Hallowe'en, and by actors in dramatic presentations when pretending to be someone they are not. In those contexts, we are putting on the costumes of others - the costume is not ours, but theirs - and doing this can be either an act of play, tribute, or appropriation.
As noted, this is a *derivation* from the primary meaning and use of the word "costume," but it is easy to acknowledge it is a very common one, and, in a correct sense of the way language evolves, has likely become what most people consider to be its primary meaning.
Viewing this meaning as the primary (rather than, as it is, a secondary and derivative) use of the word, it was easy for me to suppose that Prof. Davis might not have misunderstood the word (after all, her response to me was kind, not angry), but might view that word as primarily representing the wearing of something that does not represent who you truly are, and therefore could, quite reasonably, take exception to it. This is the reason I did not object to or argue with her comment. It is fair for her to take that position. It is only because of my love for language generally, and for the history and nature of the English language in particular, that her comment has stayed with me, gnawing away in my brain, and, as a result, partially prompting this overly long post.
The other effect of that exchange was one that was reinforced by Elder Henry's brief comments. Both incidents prompted me to think of what I consider to be among the most lovely (but, for foreign language learners, often frustrating) things about English (which, as I say, based on my experience in learning Japanese and my limited knowledge of other languages, I suspect are fundamentally true of all languages, but it seems to be particularly in relation to English that these traits gets popularly disparaged) are the facts that for almost any word there can be many meanings, and for almost any meaning there can be many words.
It is this multiplicity of meanings and modes of expression that gives English its poetry, its flexibility, and its vast regional diversity.
It is, for me, the poetry that matters most. And I fear that if we continue with the agenda of over-simplifying the language, of thinking about and treating each word as if it can only mean one thing in all times and places, ignoring context and disregarding intention and tone, we will lose the poetry and depth of expression that this language can provide.
English will evolve. It has done, greatly, for centuries, as every language does and should. In fact, its varied nature is precisely the result of that evolutionary process. That will continue; but let it be by nature, organic, and not as a result of either coercion, restriction, or misunderstanding.
Diatribe, done.
However, I recognize that we also use the word "costume" in other ways, which are derivative of that first one. We use it to refer to the outfits worn by children at Hallowe'en, and by actors in dramatic presentations when pretending to be someone they are not. In those contexts, we are putting on the costumes of others - the costume is not ours, but theirs - and doing this can be either an act of play, tribute, or appropriation.
As noted, this is a *derivation* from the primary meaning and use of the word "costume," but it is easy to acknowledge it is a very common one, and, in a correct sense of the way language evolves, has likely become what most people consider to be its primary meaning.
Viewing this meaning as the primary (rather than, as it is, a secondary and derivative) use of the word, it was easy for me to suppose that Prof. Davis might not have misunderstood the word (after all, her response to me was kind, not angry), but might view that word as primarily representing the wearing of something that does not represent who you truly are, and therefore could, quite reasonably, take exception to it. This is the reason I did not object to or argue with her comment. It is fair for her to take that position. It is only because of my love for language generally, and for the history and nature of the English language in particular, that her comment has stayed with me, gnawing away in my brain, and, as a result, partially prompting this overly long post.
The other effect of that exchange was one that was reinforced by Elder Henry's brief comments. Both incidents prompted me to think of what I consider to be among the most lovely (but, for foreign language learners, often frustrating) things about English (which, as I say, based on my experience in learning Japanese and my limited knowledge of other languages, I suspect are fundamentally true of all languages, but it seems to be particularly in relation to English that these traits gets popularly disparaged) are the facts that for almost any word there can be many meanings, and for almost any meaning there can be many words.
It is this multiplicity of meanings and modes of expression that gives English its poetry, its flexibility, and its vast regional diversity.
It is, for me, the poetry that matters most. And I fear that if we continue with the agenda of over-simplifying the language, of thinking about and treating each word as if it can only mean one thing in all times and places, ignoring context and disregarding intention and tone, we will lose the poetry and depth of expression that this language can provide.
English will evolve. It has done, greatly, for centuries, as every language does and should. In fact, its varied nature is precisely the result of that evolutionary process. That will continue; but let it be by nature, organic, and not as a result of either coercion, restriction, or misunderstanding.
Diatribe, done.