After reading Michiko Kakutani's piece on p. 152 in your Thinking in Writing book, answer the following:
Do you think that changes in language bring about social change, or that social change brings about changes in language, or both, or neither? Be sure to support your argument with compelling examples drawn from your own experience and/or from written sources. Post by the end of the day (3 p.m.) on Tuesday. Enjoy your weekend.
Yes, changes in language bring about social change but do not bring about change within language. In the beginning, politics were examined down to the very word, as demonstrated by the loose constructionists and the strict constructionists of the constitution. The interpretation of the very words put down by the founding fathers of this country was disputed over because of the language in which it was written. As such, any change in language is bound to lead to great change, whether it is political or not.
ReplyDeleteOne such change in history would be the introduction of the word, “nigger”. The n word introduced a plethora of definitions that define what a black person was. Because of those definitions, people in both the north and south had accepted the idea of slavery for a while. Even a law known as the three-fifths compromise was passed, stating that perhaps people who are dark in color were not fully human. Just one little word had caused a giant movement that impacted America in a social, economic, and political way. The United States was permanently changed after that.
The key factor that makes me believe that language does not change other language is because of my personal experiences and my lack of understanding for what “change of language” actually mean. First off, I believe I’ve never witnessed language changing other language before. People tend to be very careful in their choice of words nowadays. I don’t think that new words change how people talk. Yes, new words bring about new definitions but that doesn’t change the tone within the person’s voice when he or she is saying it. Secondly, I don’t understand what the change of language is. Is it a change in the way people talk or say things or could it be a change in the English language?
Kakutani highly criticizes Rosalie Maggio for writing a book of nondiscriminatory language. The reason being euphemism does not solve problems, it only hides them. Kakutani argues that by using more harmonious words in our society, our society will not necessarily become more harmonious. From a personal standpoint, I feel nondiscriminatory words cause the discrimination and belittling to become harsher. I agree with Kakutani. Hiding the harsh words and coating them with sugar only makes the message more obvious. Harmonious words don’t make the world a more harmonious place. Someone who’s always a grouch but does a lot to help society is doing more than someone who just spits out words that sound nice.
In the end, I agree that words do change how society works in some ways. Other times, however, like in the use of euphemism, does not help to change society. Changes in language help us remember who we are in society and tell us what we need to do in order to live our lives. Changes in language do not bring other changes in language because people usually have the same meaning in their voices even if they are using the same words.
In my lifetime, I have not been exposed to a whole lot of social change or even much change in language. The only real sort of difference I have seen over the years in these two is the influence of the availability and connectivity brought on by the Internet. The Internet has altered the way we communicate with our friends; we have started using abbreviations like “lol” and “ rofl” to indicate an emotion. I believe that for the most part social change brings about change in language. Although, in modern day society, I don’t see as much controversial discussion focused on language. The language that we use today is extremely developed, and although it is not as gender neutral as some would like it to be, it is still very inclusive. The children of today never grew up in a school where there were separate water fountains for black and white children, or where separate sections on the bus for blacks and whites existed.
ReplyDeleteAn obvious example for the theory that social change influences language is found in the essay which we just read for this blog, “The Word Police” by Michiko Kakutani. In her essay, Michiko states that some are even trying to change the written word “woman” to “womyn” in order to further separate the sexes and to supposedly make women more independent of men. This proposed language change has been brought on by a small social movement that wants to increase the power of women. I think that inescapably language change is brought on by social change, because the power of changing a few words in a dictionary is not as powerful as an organized movement of people standing for the same beliefs.
I agree with the statement that Kakutani makes about language effecting society: “Calling the homeless “the underhoused” doesn’t give them a place to live; calling the poor “the economically marginalized” doesn’t help them pay their bills” (155). This quote doesn’t need to have anything added to it, changing language does not cause any other changes aside from changing the language itself. Of course there are many parts of the English language, and not just the English language, many other languages, that have sexist or racist slurs without anyone noticing them. In English there are, for instance, all the words with negative meanings that contain the word “black”. There are also sexist slurs that become very apparent in words like humankind, or woman. In German there are words like “herrlich” and “dämlich”, that mean “glorious” and “dopey” respectively, but what isn’t apparent right away is that the “herr” from “herrlich” means “man” in English, and the “däm” in “dämlich” is the adjective derived from the word “dame” which means “woman” in English. What more need I say? There are many flaws in the languages spoken today around the world and that is worthy of notice, but in no way should it be put before actually trying to better the situation of those minorities targeted by the linguistic flaws in our speech.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the notion that society can change language, we talked about the n word several times earlier in the year. The n word used to be commonplace in America, but since African-Americans have no longer been considered slaves, the n word is a taboo, that will have serious repercussions if uttered in front of the wrong people. Another good example would be that of superstition. Superstition was always a big part of American society, for instance the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, but with each new scientific discovery it lessons and so does the jargon accompanying it. Oren also brings up a good point when he says that the internet has changed society a lot, which is very true. The way our generation speaks would be hardly comprehensible to someone who grew up without the internet. In the end, I think that language does not change society, but that society does change language.
I think that both changes in language and society beget changes within the other. As society is a network of interaction between human beings, and language is one of the most prevalent, powerful, and communicative forms of human interaction, language and society are fundamentally linked, changing with each other and effecting one another.
ReplyDeleteLanguage affects society in many ways. When an influential person, like an artist, a writer, a politician, or a public figure uses a certain phrase, a verbal construction, or a term, people will listen and depending on there feelings for the speaker, emulate or avoid the same language. As yet in this example the only influence of language has been to affect the language of others. Societal change due to language follows in the actions of those who use and avoid the same language as the influences. By reacting to words with different values, habits or morals, or maintaining original values, habits and morals more forcefully than before, the members of society change themselves and thus society according to how they regard public figures and their language.
In Kakutani’s essay, The Word Police, Kakutani describes how certain “word police” criticize sexist or violent phrases like the “king of the jungle” or “kicking around an idea” by saying such terms influence society by fostering sexism and violence is the subconscious psyche of the public. I disagree with this view of how language changes society because I feel that in this case, it is in fact the originally violent or sexist society which came up with such a term and therefore is not changed by language, but rather the changers of language. In my example of language changing society in paragraph 2, society is one way until some speaks new words or ideas, changing definitions and society is changed. In Kakutani’s example it seems only a previously sexist or violent society would adopt the terms Kakutani mentions.
Society affects Language in many ways as well. With every new word invented, term coined, historical reference attached, or description invented, language is changed as society evolves through time. the changes in society that we see every day are the slow mutations that breed new organisms of language, and drive the evolution that has made language and individual words and meanings so different today then in past centuries. “Nuclear” now often connotes death and destruction, Islam – extremism, and appeasement – anti-Semitism, because events in history and society have changed the way we speak, use certain words, and perceive others. Much in the way the user of language influences the change language has on society, as aforementioned, the event in society which is described in language influences the change society has on language.
I agree with Ziqi that in his reasons for Kakutani criticizes Maggio. Because euphemism for words doesn’t not solve problems but rather hides them and causes others, paradoxes in politically correctness, and unnecessary policing of language.
I believe that change in society is what changes our language. My first example is in history, after the civil war, and after Martin Luther King, and even more years after when African Americans were finally integrated into society with the white people, our language changed. People who were once called the “n” word and other profane things were now respectfully called African Americans. As society changed and white and blacks became more equal, our language diverged into a more appropriate manner. The previous words we used became swears and were left behind as new, more correct turns were brought about.
ReplyDeleteTo this current day however, our society is still changing and so is our language. It is most seen within the teenage realm of internet and cell phones. As emailing became popular, then chatting, then texting, then facebooking, then tweeting, our written language transformed into shortened sentences to ease our amount of typing. As society became lazier, as our obesity rates sky rocket, we find ways to lessen the amount of energy we waste on typing a sentence. We become quite clever with abbreviations and mixing numbers into words like “wait: to become “w8.” Websites like twitter even encourage this kind of writing by limiting the number of characters you can write; forcing people to succumb to the ways of the texting language. This wouldn’t seem much of an issue if it weren’t for teenagers decreasing ability to formally write. I, myself, have been writing to someone on facebook, then switch to writing an essay on to realize I’ve written all my “you” as “U.” The texting language is ok for certain purposes, like texting, but when it comes to writing a complete essay for school, we must remember the correct and proper way of writing. If we could become a little less lazy, perhaps, our way of writing will change with society, and will we’ll find the strength to write those few extra letters and add the correct punctuation.
IN RESPONSE TO JONATHAN: What you said about the other languages than just English having sexist or racial slurs as well was really interesting! Also your last paragraph about the “n word” I agree with. As I said early in my essay, as society changed and blacks became integrated the “n word” faded and became a swear and better terms were brought about.
I think that changes in language do bring about social change, but not in the desired effect. If the word police do make all the changes mentioned in Kakutani’s essay it would frustrate and exacerbate people. I know that I would be frustrated by it. It is just so ridiculous that people get their feathers so ruffled by mere language. The N-word is something to get upset about, but black eye and blackmail certainly are not. What is completely ridiculous would be to use “ovarimony instead of testimony - as one participant at the recent Modern Language Association convention was overheard to suggest” (153). When I read that I got upset. It bothers me that people are so absurd and look so much into words. That somebody would actually look into the word testimony and see it derived from testicles, and therefore want to replace it with a derivative of ovaries is outrageous. Other people would also be angered by this which is why such a change in language would bring about social change but not in the expected way. Instead of there being less racism or sexism, there would be more and the cause would be turned into a joke. Of course I am against racism and sexism and believe in the fair and equal treatment of all of humankind. However, there’s a point where people are just looking for something to complain about, such as turning testimony into ovarimony. A word that has no relation whatsoever to gender, unless you’re an adolescent who’s looking for a cheap laugh. On the other hand, I do believe that social change does bring about a change in language. Look at the N-word, it used to be common to use it, but know it is socially unacceptable and barely used by the white population (at least around here).
ReplyDeleteI believe with Oren that social change brings language change and it is a natural process. I do not think a change in language changes society because it is impossible to force people to change their views simply by the use of language.
It seems to me that social change and real world action is really the underlying source of changing language. Somebody can’t just change or invent a word because they want to and expect everyone else to do the same. But if actions and events in real life occur, people will accept a change in language to describe this event. For example, the “n” word only became “bad” because of the way people used it. By using the “n” word in a very offensive and negative way, people began to see the “n” word as a “bad” word rather than just a classification of a group of people. If nobody had used it in this way it wouldn’t have caught on as being a negative word. On the other hand, somebody could not have just decided that the “n” word would become a “bad” word. The actions of people had to make the word bad.
ReplyDeleteAnother example I can think of is Facebook. There was an underlining action of Mark Zuckerberg to create this website. Without this action, people wouldn’t ever have started saying: “Did you post it?” Or “Did you like that post?.” Once people started saying these types of things it caught on for other people, but Mark Zuckerberg’s initial action of making this social change caused all the other language to develop.
From Michiko’s World Police, He talks about how Ms. Maggio wanted to change the word king. The thing is, as he also points out, kings exist. They are part of this world and therefore should have a word that describes them accuratelty. How can you change “King” to “monarch of the jungle” (153) when kings are not at all “monarchs of the jungle?” You can’t try to change the meaning of a real life existence such as a King.
I agree with what Jono said about how changing language really only changes language and nothing else. His example of "Calling the homeless "the underhoused"" (155) really sticks out to me and proves this point. Sure you can call something different, but that will never change what it really is.
I think that changes in society bring about changes in language and not the other way around. Kakutani emphasizes this point when she says, “Calling the homeless ‘the underhoused’ doesn’t give them a place to live; calling the poor ‘the economically marginalized’ doesn’t help them pay the bills” (155). By changing the way you address a certain issue doesn’t help the situation, rather it makes it less important to the eyes and ears of those who can help.
ReplyDeleteWith the introduction of media and technology to the world, people have come up with new faster ways of writing things down. Abbreviations like “brb” or “ttyl” would never have become part of our language had emailing and texting not been invented. Those abbreviations could not have possibly become prevalent without the proper outlet. This is true for many other situations. In this scenario change in language was brought about by electronic communication, but other inventions can bring about new language as well. For instance, with the invention of facebook came the terms “friending” and “liking.” The light bulb brought the phrase “having a light bulb go off in your head.” The list goes on and on.
Less material changes in society bring about changes in language as well. An example of a word that, because of present issues, will always have a different and new connotation is the word “occupy.” Before the whole Occupy Wall Street protests, “occupy” was just like any other word with its definition but no real social implications. Now whenever I hear the word, even if it doesn’t have to do with the various issues of today, my mind goes strait to the movement. I expect that it will even be included in the “list of terms” on the sidebars of textbooks on the 21st century.
I disagree with what Jonathan says about the “n word” and the word “superstition.” They are like the word “occupy” in that they were around in language without any assuming meanings, but a change in society (slavery and the Salem Witch Trials) brought new ideas to their definitions. It was not the word, but how history used it, which changed their definitions.
I personally thing it’s a bit of a both, a “Chicken and Egg” feedback loop. I think for changes in language to develop, there has to be a chance in society that initiates the shift, but once there is a change, often, a snowball effect forms, the shift becoming a self-perpetuating loop.
ReplyDeleteThis may be a little confusing, so I’ll try explain it better. A group of people will come up with a new word, or euphemism. Let’s use Ellen’s example of calling the homeless the “underhoused.” It’s fairly silly, but it subtly changes the meaning of the word. So, we have a specific group of people calling the homeless “the underhoused.” Their friends start using it. The media makes a slip, and someone says it. Even if you disagree with the idea behind the word, it’s going to become ingrained in the public consciousness. Eventually, you might even accidently start using it. That term becomes associated with homelessness, and even if the new euphemism doesn’t overshadow the actual word it’s trying to replace, now the concept is stuck in the public mind. The more people that use it, the more people thing think about it, and, unconsciously, it colors their attitude.
I don’t think changing words, or changing meanings of words start without societal influence, but once the word reaches a sort of “critical mass” it’s capable of overshadowing the societal change that caused it. Words take their own meanings, and identities, and come, go, and are redefined as time passes. Words that were utterly inoffensive become offensive because people started using them in an offensive ways. Conversely, words that were once the height of rudeness are now acceptable, because they’ve become such a common part of speech they’ve lost their impact.
I believe that language and social change go hand in hand in the sense that one wont change without the other. Language wont evolve with out the social need for it too, and social idles wont truly be changed until old words have been completely striped of their negative connotation. I do believe that there are the occasional situations where a word does not have to change grammatically but can change in meaning. Usually words change or lose there meaning because of larger social changes. If in one day the “N” word became was just wiped from every ones brain and all literature, I believe that people would quickly come up with another offencive and equally hurtful word. it is not because people are bad but that socially our culture depends on negative stereotypes to define its self. The “N” word is again a good example, because it has become I word to represent black community and yet still remains extremely offencive when said from the outside. Words will change meaning when the people who use them no longer have a need for that meaning.
ReplyDeleteMichiko Kakutani has completely the wrong idea of how to create a more gender equal world. Instead of changing our hole language to be nuder we need to learn to cope with things that make us uncomfortable and simply deal with the fact that when we say Man Kind we dont mean only men.
Social change is the most significant catalyst for a change in language, but a change in language can also bring about changes in society in some cases.
ReplyDeleteSocial change largely contributes to a change in language. In my life time I have seen a major shift in the way Americans view and speak about the Muslim world. The word terrorist took on a new meaning as terrorism came to our doorstep. As the twin towers fell, Islam became a violent, anti-American religion. In the west the image of a Muslim shifted from an Arab searching for water (stereotypical) to a box cutter carrying – cockpit storming – terrorist filled with hatred for the United States (the new stereotypical). The new society that 9/11 created shaped our thoughts and image of the east, and also changed the language we use in referring to Muslims.
There are also some instances when a change in language can change society. I thought it was interesting that Ziqi brought up the constitution and the words our founding fathers used, because that is one of the only places I think that a change in language can bring about a significant change in society. The constitution was fashioned to account for many situations, and as a result can be interpreted in many different ways. In some cases, if the founding fathers had changed but a single word in the constitution the way our nation is run could be drastically different. For example, gun rights are, has been, and will be a hot issue on the political scene. The cause of the discord? Vague language used by our founding fathers. If they had been a little clearer in either pro or anti-gun rights then we might not be having the gun control discussion today.
I completely agree with Jonathan that a change in language rarely brings about a change in society, and calling the homeless under housed will certainly not give them a house. However I don’t think the “n” word or any other word that has such negative connotations apply to this. If we completely eradicated words like the “n” word, then the image we have of certain people or of groups of people could change and we would begin to treat them better as a society. If you call yourself stupid enough times you’ll begin to believe it whether you are or not, and the same goes for positive words.
I believe that social changes bring about changes in the language. When people use words in a negative sense, they give the words power to hurt or have negative connotations. The "n" word is a perfect example of this, for it was used not in a negative way long before it became a slur. The fact that people started to referring to african-americans as "nigger" gave the word a new meaning, a much more negative one with much more power than before.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to phrases such as using “ovarimony instead of testimony,” (153) I agree with Carl completely when he says it is ridiculous for people to go crazy over which world is said. People have become so obsessed over changing the details of speaking so both men and women are represented equally, when honestly, people just speak this way. I am female and would say "mankind" instead of "humankind" just because that is the way it is commonly said. To me I don't become angered by the phrase "mankind" representing both male and female, because I really don't think that people say "mankind" to give men more power. These words have just gained their meanings and connotations from social changes in our past, and those changes happened. Perhaps we say "mankind" instead of "humankind" because until quite recently women were not viewed equally with men. But I don't think about how women have suffered when I use the word "mankind," that just happens to be the word I use to represent the human race. I feel that people make a much bigger deal over things like this than necessary.
I believe both social and language changes bring about changes in the other. Personal experience shows how my language has been affected by the society. Language changes based on social changes depends on what is heard or read and whether or not what is heard or read affects you so that you begin to say the same things. After watching a movie which holds what I think, is an amazing line I often start using the line or words in my day to day life. For example, after watching The Princess Bride I started to use the word ‘inconceivable’ more. Also, watching interviews with people who influence the culture one picks up words. Celebrities can say something which will then become the next new ‘thing’. The written social language can change the spoken language. I read a lot and from personal knowledge I know that what I read affects how I talk and how I write. My vocabulary is quite wide because I read so much and so am exposed to a wider range of vocabulary words. For instance, I started using the word proclamation because when I was younger I was very interested in stories with kings, queens, princes, and princesses. These books often had the word proclamation as the ruler would issue a proclamation of decree. Social technology has definitely changed language. Texting, messaging, tweeting, facebooking, etc…has brought about the large world of abbreviations. Those abbreviations, such as ‘lol’, ‘ttyl’ and ‘brb’ are now commonly used. In a conversation people use those words and Lauren Myracle has even written books using only abbreviations. I believe that language can make social changes, but not all the time. The obvious example of language affect social change is the ‘n’ word. If the ‘n’ word had not been used negatively then people would not have reacted negatively to the word. The word would not have developed the strong negative connotations that it still carries today. I do not agree with Michiko Kakutani that all the words that include ‘man’ have oriented our society around men. I do not think that making a language with neutral sexist terms would affect our society for the better or the worse.
ReplyDeletei agree with what oren said about the internet. i said similar things in my response. for everyone who used the example of the 'n' word as language affecting social i definitely agree with. i agree with lilian that people should calm down about the whole woman, man sexism. i also am a woman and yes i would say mankind as well. i think nathan had a interesting point and a different take.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that changes in language bring about social change, I think that changes in language signify a social change that is taking place. The fact that so many people are becoming concerned with what it considered politically correct, and trying to use words that are supposedly less biased signifies that our society is attempting to change for the better regarding certain biases. On example of how a social change is recognized through a change in language has to do with how we now used the internet, and computers. For instance the phrase “look it up” is replaces with “google it”. Or even how we talk about how we communicate. “I will respond to email the fastest”, “Can you send me an email?”, the word email originated in the late twentieth century according to the dictionary. This tells me that we are now four electronically geared than we used to be, which is a big social change. I know many people who would rather text or chat that talk on a phone, possibly even in person. This is a social change that has come about the the last decade or so, and it has changed out language extensively because we have changed our methods of socializing, and communicating so extensively.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carl that when people take not of every single word that has roots that are connected to males rather than females and tries to change it, it doesn’t really help. Trying to make a female equivalent of a word just makes it so that men and women become more divided through language, and I don’t think that anyone really wants that. I think that certain changes such as having Ms. rather than just Miss, and Mrs. are important though, because it gives power to women in that they are able to keep whether they are married or have been married, etc. private, just like men.
Language can sometimes bring about cultural change, but only very rarely. Usually attempts to bring about change in culture by changing language fail. When I was young there was a kid in my class I knew who had to go to special education to help him with his learning. He felt like he was an idiot. The educators told him that he wasn’t stupid, he simply learned differently. While this was certainly true, it didn’t make him feel any better. Changing the language used to describe the education didn’t change anything for him.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is the use of the “n” word. The power of the “n” word has been taken away because even African Americans use it. Taking away the power of this word, however, hasn’t done anything to help society overcome racism. The improvement in our culture has been due to people learning to overcome their racist past, not by taking away the power of certain words. Language is nothing more than a means of communicating what is on our minds. If we change the language we use, we are not changing our minds. In other words, using the “n” word differently does not change how we view racism.
Instead of language bringing about social change, social change brings about change in language. For example, society uses cell phones nowadays as a common means of communication. This societal change has brought about a change in our language. Since cell phones require that we type less, abbreviations such as LOL, and BFF have become more common. Without this societal change, this change in language would have never taken place.
Quite of few people, such as Oren, have claimed that they have not been exposed to a large amount of cultural change. I strongly disagree. We may not realize ii but we have been exposed to plenty of change. Youtube, for example, was invented a mere 6 years ago in 2005. Young people spend large amounts of time on youtube, so youtube certainly effects our society. This represents a rapid change that has recently occurred in our culture.
As I read Kaukutani’s essay “The Word Police,” she gives the example of using substitutes for words like black eye, blackmail, and black sheep. I think these words originally evolved from social changes but have just remained the way were created now a days. All of these words are fairly negative, and I see the use of the word “black” is probably an insult to the black race. Going off of this example, I believe that social change brings out language change.
ReplyDeleteAlso referring to Oren’s comment about not experiencing much social change in our lifetime, I agree because growing up in a small town in New Hampshire, nothing extremely drastic has happened here over the course of 16 years. I also agree with his example about the use of technology has changed our “language” in a way. However, “lol” and “ttyl” or mostly used for chatting on the Internet and not face-to-face directly. Then again if you think about it, I think the majority of kids talk to more people on the Internet and in text rather than in their daily school lives because everyone is busy and rushing all the time. This would also lead to my belief that social change brings out language change. Since workloads and teenage lives have become much more sped up in the past fifteen years or so, this has lead to more language use on the Internet since new technology is constantly being invented.
Personally I don’t feel that offended that “man” is in the word “woman.” Truthfully I never really cared too much about it because now a days women are much more powerful and independent so I am not bothered by the fact that “man” is “woman.” I found it really interesting that there is consideration to change the word to “womyn” and for the consideration for the word “waitron” to combine waiter and waitress. I don’t see that necessary because if they change one word they will need to change the rest. In the history of the world there has always been a prince and princess, and I don’t see anybody wanting to change the word to “printron.” It just wouldn’t make sense. I don’t see the need to change the words, because they do not bother me, it’s just how I grew up learning them.
Changes in language definitely bring about social change, but in a lot of situations it doesn’t. In our modern world, certain words have two or more very different meanings depending on how they are spoken, two whom they are spoken, and the context in which they are spoken. The “n” word is a strong example of this. The “n” word was a powerful word, but because of the fact that African Americans began to and have been using it among themselves, the strength it holds has been diminishing. While this change in language has occurred, when a white person uses the “n” with the intent to harm or not it stills doesn’t go over well. I remember this one time when I was in fifth grade an unnamed student in a rage of hatred used the “n” against one of our African American classmates. Even though the language and context behind the “n” word has changed over the years this was still a huge deal and a major problem. Our entire 5th grade class had to meet in the gym later that day to discuss how this was wrong and that this behavior was unacceptable. There have also been a change in the way words like “gay” and “fag” are used, but they are still extremely hurtful and unacceptable when used against someone who is actually homosexual. Many people throw these types of words around, using them for different things then they actually mean, but are still harmful. While the language may have changed over the years social change has occurred, but also not at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Hans said about how the author of this essay has the wrong idea about how to make our world non-gender specific. I totally agree that people just need to cope with some of the stuff the way it is and realize that mankind means both men and women. While women might say that the world needs to be equal in language for both men and women, they need to realize that all of these words include people of every gender and have been that way for so long it isn’t going to change.
I think that social evolution gives rise to change in language and how we speak. Simply by restricting or changing the way a person speaks you can't change what they feel. But if you change the way they feel a fundamental part of themselves is transformed and that will come across in their speech. For example, with the rise of technology society is developing a secondary vocabulary that pertains to computers and technology. Things like MP3's and desktop widgets didn't exist in our lexicon ten years ago but now they do.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fight for political correctness has been given an inordinate amount of importance. While we as a society should strive to excise hateful speech from our vocabulary I think that to boycott words and phrases because they have a remotely sexually or racially biast root would gut our language and turn it from a tool to communicate into a cumbersome list of rules that one must follow so as not to offend. Maybe I'm insensitive and unaware but I think that most people dont have a problem with many of the words or phrases in Kakutanis essay.
I agree with Liam that people often use hateful words but not in hateful ways and it is difficult to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is insensitive.
After reading the piece by Michiko Kakutani, I have absorbed the kind of changes that would’ve been inapt to the certain time periods and even the present. For instance, the author very well states that womyn and woman are different, and that the correct one that should be used in society is womyn, for it as Oren said “further separates the sexes and makes women more independent of men”. Because of this, I think that social change engenders a change in language. We don’t use the word foreign anymore, but rather use international or global as we become more connected with more parts of the world. What was commonplace during one time now is rarely used, especially if it has a derogatory meaning. Also, back then some women had an issue with announcing their marital status, which had no bearing on their place, social strata, workplace, and so on. Now, women may use the term Ms even though they are married. Using the term Mrs. really did hearken back to the days when women were property and so change in society altered the language that was used to classify them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that in an age where technology is present and almost essential, our terminology has transformed to fit society. The communication between two or more human beings has changed a lot, and we rarely reflect on how different it is compared to back then when conversations in person were typical. We now have to adapt to fit what is customary and then even more so to change our language.
I agree with what Brendan said about Facebook. Our terminology consists of things that wouldn’t usually make sense in another era, but is now used as a way to socialize.
Based on Michiko Kakutani’s essay I believe that Change in society in what changes our language every now and then. The N- word that we previously talked about is an example of how one word changes from the changes within society because the N-word was once known as a swear or arbitrary word to use around people of a different colour, nowadays the coloured people themselves are using the N-word as a joke or just simply used as a shout out to someone of the same race. I also believe that social technology has changed our language. For instance texting, facebook, tweeting and many more has made our language shorter using abbreviations. For example people are now using words like “lol” or “KK” all the time, it has even become a part of some peoples everyday speech. Language might even be able to make social changes, but for now to me changes in society is what it making the language change. Although Michiko Kakutani believes that all words with the word “man” is what is/has changed our language, I don’t think its that simple I think there are underlying factors that have changed our language not just one simple word like “man” that happens to be in a couple commonly used words in out society today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lilian when she says that people should calm down about the woman, man sexism. I Think that yes once upon a time man was a highly treated word that woman is not mankind ext. but give it a rest everyone is treated equal these days(at least in America) isn’t that enough?
I also agree with Liam when he says people can use hatful words, but not necessarily meaning what the words definition is. I think that people use it all the time to either look cool or even without realizing it.
Hurrah, that's what I was seeking for, what a stuff! existing here at this website, thanks admin of this web site.
ReplyDeleteMy website - diets That work Fast