Stories & Soliloquies

Stories & Soliloquies
  • About my Soliloquies
  • Metaphysics, Myth, & Magic
  • My Poetry & Fiction
  • Philosopher Fridays
  • The Philosopher’s Lexicon
  • Tag: grammar

    • The Life of a Language

      Posted at 12:00 pm by Michelle Joelle, on March 31, 2014

      I’ve made it no secret that I think of languages as living things. They change, they grow, and they thrive on creative use. Without it, they die. One of the reasons this happens is that political forces institutionalize the use of another language, or a specific version of that language, and so all official records maintain this one version and none other. To advance in society, the official version must be adopted, and so the colloquial languages fall out of use and die.

      One of things we do in the name of preserving languages is to fastidiously enforce concretized grammatical rules. In France, La Francophonie fights the good fight against encroaching anglicization. But in No Bearla, a native Irish speaker attempts to travel through Ireland using only the official language of the country, and finds himself encountering difficulties getting information outside of token Irish speakers (many who say openly that the language is dead) and some written sources.

      One of the theories that arises from the conversations in the show is that Irish is dying because it’s not used a regular language, but instead taught as a subject in schools. Perhaps this over-formalization makes the language inaccessible – instead of communication, the focus is on vocabulary lessons and grammatical rules. In a lot of ways, to concretize a language is to lock it in a time capsule and make it something that eventually dies and becomes the province of scholars alone. The result of this is that the “proper” language stays put while the colloquial language forges on, changing and growing until one day it no longer resembles its origin enough to be identified with it.

      Perhaps that’s why the French model works and the Irish model does not – with constant moderation and alteration as society changes, it can stay relevant.

      While I don’t have the academic tools as my disposal to explore this idea further, I think a parallel can be drawn to a similar tension in how we treat the English language. I get a little caught between my disdain for people who pride themselves on judging others’ grammar, and my own frustration with ill-crafted sentences that hide the author’s meaning. I’m not fussy, but I can’t deny I prefer to read prose that’s grammatically pleasing. It’s just easier to understand.

      In How to Escape the Claws of the Grammar Police, Ben Huberman looks at the “right” ways to break grammatical rules, and I agree with his advice. I think learning the rules gives you a mastery that lets you see it for what it is – a set of arbitrarily rules derived from current patterns. If you break the rules unintentionally, you might be part of a general zeitgeist, but you might not. Master those rules, and you can step outside of them to drive new patterns.

      So I’m caught between two desires. I want languages to grow and change match the world in which we live, but I also don’t want to see them die. I think these two goals can be connected, but I’m afraid that they’re both impossible to control. When we police a language too much, we choke it out – but if we let it change too much with the political and social tides, we let slip through our fingers.

      Posted in The Waste Book | 5 Comments | Tagged grammar, grammar police, irish, la francophonie, language, writing
    • Universal Grammar

      Posted at 11:00 am by Michelle Joelle, on January 24, 2014

      When you study philosophy, you tend to spend a lot of time thinking about reason and language. For many philosophers, the two are inextricably linked. Plato warned of the damage that sophistry and oratory (the manipulative misuse of language, devoid of truth) could do on the minds of others, the power of stories to shape our character and ability to think, the power of mathematics to teach us abstraction, and of the changes that turning to written language could cause to our minds and souls. Augustine pondered the universal nature of grammar as he attempted to find a place for individuality within the rational soul. Medieval thinkers went over and over the nature of the Trinity and the idea of Christ as the Word, and what it meant for our understanding of personhood and knowledge. Rousseau warned that the introduction of purely conceptual language had changed our ability to think, empathize with others, and even act in our own best interests irrevocably. This is not even to mention the post-Heidegerrean “linguistic turn” to analytic philosophy and linguistic logic, and the political power of critical theory to challenge the hegemony of western phallogocentrism.

      The point is, whether language and the human quality of thought are tied together is of central importance to our understanding of the world in both how we access it, and how it really is. Entire philosophical frameworks turn on whether either or both are universal and essential, or malleable and learned.  I’ve recently come across a couple of articles to read in tandem when pondering the issue.

      The first is an article from the NYTimes called Does Your Language Shape How You Think?, by Guy Deutscher. There’s a minor glitch at the beginning of the article when the author claims this idea was a discovery of a scientist in the mid 20th century, but other than that it’s a great piece. It doesn’t really dig too deeply into the structural issues at play, but it does work nicely with questions concerning vocabulary.

      The second article is from Scientific American magazine titled Is Consciousness Universal? by Christof Koch, and I owe credit to the blog Self Aware Patterns for pointing it out to me (as well as this awesome comic that’s equally relevant to this discussion). This rounds out some of the open questions left by a discussion of language and thought, but it also leaves open questions about where thought originates, and where the subjective experience of language comes into play – sending me right back to the first article with new questions.

      The question is whether our use of language plays a part in shaping our subjective experience or if it is itself shaped by some innate mental framework. I don’t have a solid answer with which I’m comfortable – I tend towards a more holistic view where the innate (a priori) and the empirical (a posteriori) aren’t separate but reciprocally intertwined. It’s a false dichotomy.

      But it’s a dichotomy that’s fun to ponder. Let’s say that language shapes how we think, and that the edifice of reason is built empirically. On the one hand, the idea that a rational consciousness could be something learned through the manner of speech that surrounds us is deeply unsettling – few want to think that their very thought patterns and ability to imagine consequences is determined by something so changeable and arbitrary as their patterns of speech (it’s practically nihilistic). On the other hand, the freedom offered by a purely subjective notion of consciousness appeals to modern desires for autonomous individuation, giving some hope that we could be in control of how we think and what we give meaning if we could only harness the power of linguistics (the grand hope of ordinary language philosophy, if you’ll forgive my glibness).

      Let’s say instead that consciousness and reason are innate and universal, and that language is just a way to connect that internal world with the external stuff that confronts us. In that case, language is just a tool that helps us take the complexity of sensory data and simplify it through the use of labels, categories, and hierarchies. On the one hand, this means that there reality has an essence, and that our minds have the power to access it. However, it also means that this power is only as strong as our language, and that faulty wording, bad grammar, poorly framed logic, and limited vocabulary can prevent us from ever accessing that reality. If we’re too wedded to our understanding of reason, we miss things that don’t fit into it neatly – like quantum physics (which I’m pretty sure I’ll never understand), gut feelings, and more.

      I don’t think it breaks down that cleanly, though.

      Posted in The Waste Book | 8 Comments | Tagged articles, grammar, language, nytimes, reason, scientific american, Thought, universality
    • Looking for Something?

    • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

      Join 422 other followers

    • Follow on Bloglovin
    • Popular Posts & Pages

      • The Writers Roast
      • About my Soliloquies
      • A Bit of Winter Hygge
      • Of Physical Laws and Fictional Characters
      • For Ever, and Ever, and Ever
      • Why the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a Good Thing
      • The Philosopher's Lexicon: Apophatic Theology
      • The Blacksmith's Apprentice: a Poem
      • 30 Days of Painting, Day 1: Floral Vine and Lace Doodles
      • 30 Days of Painting, Day 28: Sunset Colors
    • Tags

      academia acrylic acrylics aquinas arendt art Augustine awards beach books C.S. Lewis christmas definitions dictionary editing ephemerality epistemology favorite words feynman Fiction film food god harry potter history husserl hygge illustration kindle language learning lexicon libraries links list literary time consciousness literature logic longreads magic medieval Metaphysics music myth my work NaNoWriMo nature painting pensieve philosopher fridays philosophy photography Plato poetry reading reason reblog religion Rousseau science snow spring stories storytelling syllabus temporality theology time tolkien trees vikings vocabulary water colors words writing
    • The Archives

    • top blog sites
      top blog sites

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy