Language and literature

[Regit]

Language is a living thing – it evolves almost organically and it’s pointless to insist on preserving the status quo by rejecting all forms of 'incorrect' usage... So while I agree (to an extent) with those who say that language has the elasticity to accommodate new uses, the playing field is far from level. Nike can make far more people familiar with ‘Just Do It’ than you or I could. The most influential of all, though, is the Media (primarily western media). It positions us as consumers and makes certain ideas literally unthinkable. So I would say the development of mass media communication is having a significant effect on language and language use.

I would not dare suggesting whether a usage of a language is correct or incorrect. Nor would I dare rejecting a part of our society. I would, however, form an opinion of whether a usage is a good or a bad one (eventhough given that my own usage has much to improve). I understand the impact of the media; the speed of its growth, fed by the capitalist ideology, overwhelms its creators' capacity to contain it. And with the help of technology, media and commerce become the driving forces of international relations. They take over from even cultural and political engines; and they force globalisation to happen too quickly when other aspects of society have not had a chance to be ready. And they swallow everything in their path and take them hostage, including languages.
But I am talking here in literature's point of view. Is a media's usage of languages, however powerful or valid, a good one? This sentiment reminds me of a poem you posted in the Poem of the Week thread; a paragraph made up of seven sentences. Do you think that it is good how the media might affect literature, in the way that this poem describes?
The reason why the media behaves the way it does is because most people cannot take more than 10 words of information at a time. And short messages that everyone can relate to immediately are more cost-effective. But it does not mean that everything the media produces is automatically bad (Btw, I think that "just do it", and other Nike golf commercials are actually quite good usage. ) Within the usage by media, I think that there are good and bad literature. I fully acknowledge the power of commerce, and the power of the capitalist ideology, but I still feel that it is right to criticise and discourage its bad literature when it is produced.

[Regit]

Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a semi-literate moron?” The words ‘created’ by Shakespeare are ‘better’ because he’s a better writer - he’s particularly skilled in their use.

Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’ but surely Shakespeare’s contributions have enriched the language and therefore broadened the range of expression available? Thanks to Shakespeare, our linguistic world is bigger. The limits of our language are the limits of our world.

Ah! I need not add anything more here SheykAbdullah.

[Nightshade]

The reason why the media behaves the way it does is because most people cannot take more than 10 words of information at a time. And short messages that everyone can relate to immediately are more cost-effective.

Thats actually not true. The theory is people need to interact with the advert sooo they have to Keep it simple to reach a larger target audiance. If they have highbrow adverts they risk alienating a large part of the audiance.

[The Unnamable]

Do you think that it is good how the media might affect literature, in the way that this poem describes?

No, I think it debases language to the level where the only issues that matter are those relating to our rights as consumers. In the post on Advertising, blp mentioned a Piero Della Francesca Nativity. He said, “It's not just that the painting is beautiful. An equally beautiful painting promoting breakfast cereal would be absurd where the Piero is idiosyncratic, kind, serious, thoughtful and compelling.”

What he’s talking about here (I think) is the same sort of feeling that I get when I look at those incredible late self-portraits by Rembrandt, where he looks how I feel, especially on a Monday morning when I have to reinhabit the husk in preparation for another skirmish with the forces of vacuousness. There is no attempt to package a message, to make the painting suitable for consumption. They aren’t selling me anything - not even the truth they depict. It’s there if you see it, that’s all. He might be painting to sell it to some wealthy and vain patron but he doesn’t adapt his art to speak to the lowest common denominator. If it doesn’t interest them, that’s their loss.

If the guiding principle behind the production of all texts is simply to sell the maximum amount of garbage to the greatest number of idiots, then the complexity and perplexity of human existence is lost.

[blp]

Yes. It probably comes back to that Keats quote I began the advertising thread with: 'We hate poetry that has a palpable design on us.' The attempt to manipulate is the degradation of language. Ambiguity or undecidability are not just Derridean invention, they're fundamental in any rich use of language. 'Just do it' is trying as hard as possible to get away from doubt.

Another interesting change in language use was pointed out to me recently: memory, save, search. In only babout ten years, these words have taken on new, lesser meanings.

[jackyyyy]

Another interesting change in language use was pointed out to me recently: memory, save, search. In only babout ten years, these words have taken on new, lesser meanings.

Don't you mean, 'more' ? Each of those words are way more ambigious than they ever were before. Or, do you mean lesser intrinsic value due to their spread?

[SheykAbdullah]

Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a semi-literate moron?” The words ‘created’ by Shakespeare are ‘better’ because he’s a better writer - he’s particularly skilled in their use.

Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’ but surely Shakespeare’s contributions have enriched the language and therefore broadened the range of expression available? Thanks to Shakespeare, our linguistic world is bigger. The limits of our language are the limits of our world.

The words created by Shakespeare and 'an illiterate moron' are going to have different basic ends, but the same ultimate importance. It is expected that a 'moron' won't create a word to express his inmost love, but that same 'moron' might make up words that deal with HIS sphere of life that Shakespeare never would encounter, say a word for a new type of discrimination among the lower classes, or a new kind of crime, or even a new type of slang.

After all, how is a word 'better'? Is it better because it is more intellectually involved and shows more knowledge of how language works? You need look no farther than floccinaucinihilipilification to prove my point. This word is eminently scholarly; it's roots in Latin are impeccable and the word itself was created by an Oxford Don. However it's length and complication makes it generally useless, where as (and he may or may not be an illiterate moron depending on your political stance) Rush Limbaugh's femi-nazi, while delightfully bourgeois and simple, is incredibly effective as a word despite its relative lack of sophistication.

In the end are 'fancy' Latin/Greek cognates better than Cockney Rhyming slang? At the very least the Latin/Greek amalgamations are less interesting to me, and I would certainly not consider myself an 'illiterate moron.'

So should we because one word has a better pedigree than the other value the one more highly?

In fact, your assertion that certain words can be better than others would lead me to the logical conclusion that a new purge of English is in order. I think we could create a master language if only we would ransack as many dictionaries as we could find and search the etymology of every word found therein and then destroy them from our langauge. We will then be left with a pure, beautiful, and masterful language, which might even be described, and perhaps not too inaccurately though not precisely, as Aryan. After all, we can't let those idiots create words.

As far as the assertion that Shakespeare broadened our language by creating words I certainly agree, and it is a good thing he did so, but as you have brought up before, maybe someone else with less fame had already invented words that were 'better' than his and meant the same thing that his did, but due to a lack of personal popularity and media influence they were not adopted. After all, we can all make up words. It's part of our right as speakers of a language. If they are incomprehensible then and only then are they bad, and the intellectual and the plebe alike can be incomprehensible.

I disagree. Firstly, I don’t understand why the aesthetic, intellectual, poetic or philosophic are considered unrelated to communication. Is all language merely functional and transactional? That’s a strange position for someone on a Literature Forum to adopt. Secondly, you seem to be implying that this basic, functional level is the core to which all other uses are added as mere ornament.

All language is ultimately, at its roots, functional and transactional. It can be used for other purposes, surely, and that is why I like literature, but the point of language is none of these; knowing that painting originated as a ritual to capture the spirit of an animal in a religion I don't believe in doesn't impact my ability to appreciate my favorite artist's completely secular work. Most hunters would never kill someone, but they use a rifle despite the fact that it was originated to be used in war. The end product sometimes has little to do with where a thing originated, but its origin does not necesarily diminish the things ultimate appreciation.

As for the second point, language did indeed emerge from a simple, basic core of pure communication. Man did not create a system of communication to explore his inmost feelings, rather he created it like the apes of today use language, to communicate threats, establish social bonds, and, with our increased sophistication of language over time, to coordinate raids and hunts.

It was not until probably long after that time that our ancestors settled down into using language to tell stories or write poetry. If you need any more evidence of this, you can look to people who only ever master the basics of language. Take the 'wild children' or autistics as an example, people that for one reason or another are incapable of obtaining a sophisticated grasp of linguistic nuances. These people are relegated to using language on a simple level, and they do not tell stories, rather they survive with what little communicative power they have.

As to the first sentance (and forgive me for addressing them out of order) I agree. These uses of languages are an aspect of communication. Howver there is a problem with the discussion of linguistics. Many people forget that linguistics is one science and philosophy another. I would never describe philosophy in linguistics terms and thus linguistics need not be defined in philosophical terms. There was a time when the science of linguistics was unadvanced and unresearched, and then, due to a lack of its own scientific standing, it could be described philisophically, just as Aristotle at one time described biology philisophically, but the time for these descriptions has ended and now the two sciences stand on their own and should be treated as such.

The aesthetic and the philisophical stand as some of the most intricate and beautiful forms of communication that language can express, as would be expected by the definition of 'aesthetic,' but these things are not in any way, shape, or form the reason for the existence of language, nor an excuse for it. They are merely forms of communication that language can take. They do not encapsulate langauge, rather, in a way, language can be said to encapsulate them, though admiteedly not wholly. A ship travels over the ocean carrying oil, but we wouldn't say that the ocean exists as a transportation method for oil, would we? It's use as such is merely a tertiary benefit.

[blp]

Don't you mean, 'more' ? Each of those words are way more ambigious than they ever were before. Or, do you mean lesser intrinsic value due to their spread?

They're more ambiguous in that they've been given new meanings to add to the old ones, but the new meanings are pretty banal compared to the old ones.

[jackyyyy]

There are several levels of language. Spoken language is different from written language. And then, you also have differences. A posh guy and a farmer won't speak and write the same. James Joyce's language is for example very rich but it's sometimes hard to understand. For Shakespeare, of course he invented lots of new words but nowadays his way of speaking is old english. Even the grammar is different.
Rappers have their own words and things are like that. The language has to change because it's living, it's how people express themselves. New words appear and some other disappear, that's the rule of the language... otherwise we would all speak and write latin nowadays.

mutantur omnia nos et mutamur in illis

[jackyyyy]

They're more ambiguous in that they've been given new meanings to add to the old ones, but the new meanings are pretty banal compared to the old ones.

I invent stuff, so for me, these words are critical. Rarely do I see a new word created. I have seen amalgamations of words to distinguish (for example) memory, data, save, etc, from one type to another, and more especially in languages other than English. Interestingly, for many inventions, words are stolen, rather than new ones created. Maybe that is the process, people are too darn lazy to go invent a new one, and especially in English, to be quick here, we use a word that approximates the task. Finer definition (which Union Jack moved to), or accuracy, would increase word count dramatically. Advertising creates new words all the time, interestingly.

[blp]

I invent stuff, so for me, these words are critical. Rarely do I see a new word created. I have seen amalgamations of words to distinguish (for example) memory, data, save, etc, from one type to another, and more especially in languages other than English. Interestingly, for many inventions, words are stolen, rather than new ones created. Maybe that is the process, people are too darn lazy to go invent a new one, and especially in English, to be quick here, we use a word that approximates the task. Finer definition (which Union Jack moved to), or accuracy, would increase word count dramatically. Advertising creates new words all the time, interestingly.

This is totally frivolous, but I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where, in a flashback to the eighties, one of Homer's friends starts talking about how the next big thing's going to be this thing called the internet - by which he means the netting just starting to be sewn into the inside of swimming trunks.

[jackyyyy]

Interesting stuff. The abstract notion produced by the use of a 'word' evolves to form another meaning, a new word. But, we don't always create a new word. I just asked myself, what is wrong with a finer word definition, if it increases accuracy - mean a lot less mistakes, reduce costs, overhead, and word spillage, etc. I have no problem learning more words, and I can pull anything I want out of my swimming trunks if I need to... however.. maybe we would need more letters in our alphabet.

[The Unnamable]

My, my, what a lot I’ve got. I can almost hear the inhalation of forum posters’ breaths from here. First of all, I’ll say that you are barking up the wrong tree (is that expression sufficiently demotic for you?). I’m not Edward Casaubon by the way. My question was in response to your own question using the example of rappers. While I realised that my use of ‘morons’ would imply that I associate rappers with lack of intelligence, I could just as legitimately have written, “Is this any different from asking, “Why should words created by Shakespeare be any better than the words created by a Star Trek scriptwriter or ee cummings?”” My purpose in asking the question wasn’t to deride rappers but to question your implied suggestion that some kind of intellectual snobbery was in evidence. At no point did I say that derogatory words should be cleansed from the language. That’s the job of a moderator. My own complaint, as I think is clear from my first post on this thread, is that new words and expressions are saturating our worlds for the sole purpose of reinforcing the ideological discourses of capitalism.

Your comments here seem to ignore one fundamental aspect of language – it evolves in a real political and historical context and is subject to historical and political forces. Yes, this has always been the case but never before has so much power to influence been so concentrated in the shape of a relatively small number of agents on such a huge scale. blp is correct above; “'Just do it' is trying as hard as possible to get away from doubt.” It hasn’t entered the language in order to extend our range of possibilities but to diminish them. The reason I chose the Nike example from millions of others was because of something that a student said in a lesson on Hamlet. This particular student was exasperated by what he called Hamlet’s ‘wishy-washiness’. He told me that Hamlet should ‘buy himself a pair of Nikes and just do it’.

A lot of what you say is both tactically questionable and irrelevant to what I said.

The words created by Shakespeare and 'an illiterate moron' are going to have different basic ends,

This assumes we can decide on the ‘ends’ of both.

but the same ultimate importance.

To whom?

It is expected that a 'moron' won't create a word to express his inmost love,

Expected by whom?

After all, how is a word 'better'?

It was originally your choice of word, not mine. Why didn’t you define it then?

Is it better because it is more intellectually involved and shows more knowledge of how language works? You need look no farther than floccinaucinihilipilification to prove my point. This word is eminently scholarly; it's roots in Latin are impeccable and the word itself was created by an Oxford Don. However it's length and complication makes it generally useless, where as (and he may or may not be an illiterate moron depending on your political stance) Rush Limbaugh's femi-nazi, while delightfully bourgeois and simple, is incredibly effective as a word despite its relative lack of sophistication.

Of course, I was saying that BIG words are clever. This was not what I either said or implied. Tut tut.

In the end are 'fancy' Latin/Greek cognates better than Cockney Rhyming slang? At the very least the Latin/Greek amalgamations are less interesting to me, and I would certainly not consider myself an 'illiterate moron.'

How about providing a few more examples to counter an argument I wasn’t putting forward?

So should we because one word has a better pedigree than the other value the one more highly?

Oops, I see you have.

In fact, your assertion that certain words can be better than others would lead me to the logical conclusion that a new purge of English is in order.

It just gets better! Now I am an advocate of the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

I think we could create a master language if only we would ransack as many dictionaries as we could find and search the etymology of every word found therein and then destroy them from our langauge. We will then be left with a pure, beautiful, and masterful language, which might even be described, and perhaps not too inaccurately though not precisely, as Aryan. After all, we can't let those idiots create words.

Hysterica Passio! Cue Tomorrow Belongs To Me. My Struggle.

As far as the assertion that Shakespeare broadened our language by creating words I certainly agree,

So the bits I actually did say, you agree with?

and it is a good thing he did so, but as you have brought up before, maybe someone else with less fame had already invented words that were 'better' than his and meant the same thing that his did, but due to a lack of personal popularity and media influence they were not adopted. After all, we can all make up words.

From a dwindling inventory of possibilities, thanks to global homogenisation. As for being free to create our own words, “"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"”

All language is ultimately, at its roots, functional and transactional. It can be used for other purposes, surely, and that is why I like literature, but the point of language is none of these;

Sorry, the point of language… as decided by…?

knowing that painting originated as a ritual… not necesarily diminish the things ultimate appreciation.

Sorry, you’ve gone again. All I’m getting is static.

As for the second point, language did indeed emerge from a simple, basic core of pure communication. Man did not create a system of communication to explore his inmost feelings, rather he created it like the apes of today use language, to communicate threats, establish social bonds, and, with our increased sophistication of language over time, to coordinate raids and hunts.

Would you say that is Man in the modern sense? It’s just that it sounds quite similar to the apes. Perhaps our perception of ourselves as ourselves has something to do with language?

As to the first sentance (and forgive me for addressing them out of order) I agree. These uses of languages are an aspect of communication. Howver there is a problem with the discussion of linguistics. Many people forget that linguistics is one science and philosophy another. I would never describe philosophy in linguistics terms and thus linguistics need not be defined in philosophical terms.

Now you are simply offering competing discourses. They preserve themselves by developing and extending the realm of what is deemed appropriate to their own realm.

There was a time when …It's use as such is merely a tertiary benefit.

More static, I’m afraid.

[Regit]

Thats actually not true. The theory is people need to interact with the advert sooo they have to Keep it simple to reach a larger target audiance. If they have highbrow adverts they risk alienating a large part of the audiance.

Yes, I would agree that your point is valid. But I would disagree with how you describe it as the theory; there is more to the theories of marketing than 'target audience'. And what you said does not prove my point untrue; remember, I was talking about the media, not just advertisement. It may be lacking; but I was not aiming to focus on this.

[Nightshade]

Yes, I would agree that your point is valid. But I would disagree with how you describe it as the theory; there is more to the theories of marketing than 'target audience'. And what you said does not prove my point untrue; remember, I was talking about the media, not just advertisement. It may be lacking; but I was not aiming to focus on this.

yes sorry I had erased some which is why the the was left.
I was thinknig about the relativist theory applied with hypodermic model theory and not really paying attention.