Very quickly (and appropriately quickly) I wanted to throw out a thought for today in response to a "decade" comment on this blog: How has grammer or spelling changed in the 2000s?
In this very obviously social networking decade, as we continue to develop our "twittering," "friending" and "txting" skills...are we at the same time losing a sense of culture? More specifically is our loss of words now inhibiting us from the depth and color that words evoke?
Or, are we simply moving into an age where rhetorical analysis of society (art, lanaguage, politics, music, etc) will involve the reading in not the coding of the meaning of words but the actual code that represents a word?
You be the judge:
An interestin thort: r we losing culcha d wA w'r losing wrds? dz r lang influence culcha? n f so, S r loss of lang nt 1ly afecting us culturally, bt also socially? I tnk contextual thinkN duznt dev naturally NEmor. Nstead, r soc. S now developing a "flatter," less texturally :-$$$ soc.. wadya tnk? r we abL 2 reverse Ny of d fx dis loss of lang hs had n d wA dev n sustain culcha?
Off the top of my head, I can think of "nucular" replacing "nuclear" (God I hate that one...), and, made much more prominent during college football season, the handful of grammar mistakes that "professional" commentators like Bob Davie adhere to during a live game. While this more openly affects my dad as an English teacher, I cannot help but notice it mentally, even if I do not comment upon it like he so often does.
ReplyDeleteGood god, Justin. Never type like that again- I can barely understand that last paragraph!
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the most interesting concepts to me these days, as I continue to work as a writer. Words. Meaning. Usage.
I can't read anything or listen to anyone without mentally dissecting their use of, choice in, spelling of or bastardization of language. And yes- with the advent of texting especially, I think we've entered very interesting cultural waters.
I've always been of the opinion that words have only the meaning that we give them- we empower words by using them in certain ways. When we do not empower a word, it loses its meaning, its draw, its cultural sphere.
Conversely, when we imagine words have a power all their own, we become fearful of them. We lose control.
This concept is illustrated brilliantly, I think, in discussion of the so-called "n-word." Who can use it? What meaning does it hold? Is it a slur? A term of endearment? Well- I'd argue it's all of these things and more- it's imbued only with the power its USER gives it.
Curse words are another example. Here we are- it's 2010- yet George Carlin's famous "seven dirty words" remain off American airwaves- are we really that naive that we think the cops on Law & Order never say "sh*t" or "f*ck?" Why do we continue to empower these words? Is it for our own good, or to our detriment?
Of course- the flip side here is what happens between our utterances of words, and their reception in the ears of whomever we're speaking to. We may be fully confident in the power we've given a word- but the person who we're talking to may feel differently. How to reconcile this?
The point- I do have one- is yes- the loss of words DOES have a detrimental effect on our culture at large. Without them, we could not have this conversation. Language is perhaps our greatest asset as human beings- to lose it in a flush of abbreviations, intentional misspellings and other shortcuts would be quite a shame, I think.
(my point is proven as I attempted to post this comment without "*'s" in my curse words- eblogger would not allow it! Yet- does that automatic censorship prevent you, the reader, from knowing what I mean?! No! It's just so silly!)
I can appreciate the "short cuts" that texting provides us, but they are beneficial only after one has a solid understanding of the rules.
ReplyDeleteI am under the impression that much of our youth are mistaking the short cuts as proper grammar. I hope I am incorrect in this assumption.
I am also witnessing a lack of social interaction as texting replaces verbal conversation, and this concerns me. Texting should be utilized as an alternative method of speech and not the norm. Very soon no one will know how to converse properly with one another.
Don't get me wrong -- I am in favor of technology, but it should be an assistant, and not the replacement.
@Sam I definitely agree, you are right on, that words are only as valuable (or powerful) as the context we give them.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I wonder if the symbolic code of a "txt" word will be able to have significant (or non-significant) contextual meanings or if this new kind of language will fall "flat?" I definitely don't have the answer, but it is interesting to ponder...
@Skotf9 You make a very interesting--and perhaps very scary--sociological point. Our decling in human interaction, be it over the phone or in person, will most likely have an adverse effect on youth today and socialization for generations to come.