In his latest “podgram”, Stephen Fry has echoed my views on linguistic pedantry.
After a lengthy (skippable, even) introduction Fry condemns the view that there are “right” and “wrong” ways to use language. Instead, he encourages us to embrace language as a fluid and perpetually evolving organism. It’s my strong belief that to have a true understanding of language, one must go beyond the simplistic literal interpretation of words and phrases, and acknowledge that meanings evolve and change over time. We should be free to let language evolve; it’s been doing it for thousands of years, so what’s all the fuss about?
Most of us use words today with little knowledge of their etymology, so how can we claim to impose any absolute meaning onto a word or phrase? Fry points out a key observation; that it’s usage that defines meaning. As usage changes over time, so will the meaning. And this is a natural process for language to undergo. The rules pedants impose on language have a restrictive and damaging effect. Cleverly comparing linguistic evolution to the biological kind, Fry says, “Things that are kept to purity of line develop all the ghastly illnesses and deformations of inbreeding and lack of vital variation. ”
That’s not to say that I support chaotic, unrestrained use of language in all circumstances. There are definitely times when applying rules to adjust one’s language can be of benefit. But it all depends on the context. As Fry exemplifies:
“What offends examiners and employers when confronted with extremely informal, unpunctuated and haywire language is the implication of not caring that underlies it. You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. Most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances; it’s only considerate. But that’s an issue of fitness, of suitability; it has nothing to do with correctness.”
The pedants underestimate our innate ability as human beings to extract meaning from language, however informal or adulterated it may be. As long as meaning is conveyed, any use of language is successful. What I find disappointing, however, is that such pedantry views tend to degrade one’s aptitude for decrypting unruly language, leading to an impaired ability to extract meaning, and thus communicate.
Go listen to the podgram.
Via BoingBoing which I can’t believe I wasn’t reading up until a few days ago!
I disagree, about some parts.
It’s true that language is defined by its usage, and words will naturally change their meanings (and have done so in the past). But on the other hand, that should not be taken as a licence to use whatever words you want to mean anything you want. The only reason we are able to understand each other at all is because of the consistency of language. When words are used to mean something different to usual, the meaning isn’t so much “changed” as “smeared”. You can imagine an extreme example that has some particular word whose meaning is different every time it is used. If someone says such a word, no meaning will be understood at all. By ‘misusing’ words, one strips away some of the meaning of the words for all others who wish to use them. So instead of “great”, “fantastic”, “awesome”, “amazing”, “sensational”, etc. all having different meanings, we just end up with a bunch of synonyms for “very good”. If we are to be able to express our thoughts to one another with words, the meanings of those words need to be more or less constant.
If we want to communicate complex ideas or anything with subtlety, we need words with clear and precise meanings. Vague language with smeared out meanings will not do. The rules of grammar and the subtle meanings of words allow for more powerful communication – greater depth of meaning, less ambiguities, stuff like that.
I’ve got an anecdote for you. A few months ago I went to a “philosophy night” at a local café. At this event people were meant to be discussing philosophical ideas so that we could all emerge wiser and more knowledgeable about the way the world works. Unfortunately, there were some important words which people understood to mean slightly different things. “Truth”, “true”, “fact”, “know”, “believe”, “objective”, “subjective”, … From my point of view we spent the night going around in circles because people couldn’t make their thoughts be understood, and the problem was that the meanings of these words was not precise enough. The meanings of the words was not precise enough because of how frequently they are misused. The meanings of those words were not stable enough to communicate with the precision that the philosophy required.
Finally, there is “right” and “wrong” in the sense that well defined rules of grammar do exist. If don’t follow the rules of grammar, maybe you aren’t evil but you are doing it wrong – that is to say you aren’t doing it in the way it is meant to be done.
Hmm.. I’m used to posting on forums that let me edit my post so that I can correct mistakes. I meant to write “From my point of view we *spent* the night going around in circles because people *couldn’t* make their thoughts be understood”. There are probably some other mistakes in there as well. Sorry about that.
Comment updated
I am writing a reply to this, but its gotten rather long…