A philosophy of language
- Ruth Johnson
- Mar 1, 2022
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 1, 2022
What is the purpose of Language? If you tell me it is to make pretty noises, I say that it is not. If you tell me that it is to conform one's mind to a universal unchanging standard of grammatical law, I say that it is not.
Words are a means unto an end, and not an end in and of themselves. Language is a method of conveying meaning. It is a means, a beautiful and complex means no doubt, and yet none the less a means, of transferring thought from one mind to another. As words are recognized in this position, only then can they be truly appreciated and enjoyed. In fact, only then can they be truly beautiful. One cannot appreciate something by turning it into something else. A man cannot say that he appreciates language if, in his professed appreciation he distorts its purpose. Though it seems more appreciative perhaps, to exalt language above its station, it is possible to exalt something so high that it has no longer any station remaining. It is possible to make a frame so large that it conceals that which it is framing. To think a word more precious than the meaning it conveys, or perhaps even to the detriment of the meaning it should convey, is as foolish as to make a frame so large that it hides the picture. And yet, how often do we find that words are used in this exact manner. They are used perhaps as a great gold frame might be used upon a bad painting, in an attempt to validate or magnify, or somehow beautify a foolish sentiment.
Ah! but what of poetry? Surely this is a case in which words themselves take supremacy. Or in the very least, are of equal import? I say again, if we exalt language to this station, we exalt it to its own detriment. How empty is poetry that spends its greatest energy and effort in conforming to rhyme or metre? Or, as in much modern poetry, poetry that attempts with all its might to sound romantic and sophisticated, mystical and profound, and forgets that its point is to be romantic and sophisticated, to express mystic truths and reveal what is profound.
I think Mr M. Maeterlinck justified in saying;
La parole est trop souvent, non comme le dissait le Franςais, l'art de cacher la pensée, mais l'art d'étouffer et de suspendre la pensée, en sort qu'il n'en reste plus a cacher.
Words are too often, not only as the French say, the art of hiding thought, but the art of stifling and strangling thought, until at last there is nothing left to hide.
It is comfortable and easy to smother ones thoughts in jargon or ambiguity. We may experience all the joy and glory of appearing intelligent and elegant of mind, without the trouble of actually being so. It is possible to stifle our thought so consistently with a great army of glorious words, that the neglected thought shrivels and fades, until only empty sound remains.
I am tempted to compare this to washing the outside of a cup, but forgetting to clean the inside. It does not matter how shiny and polished the outside of a cup is, if the inside of the cup is dirty, it is utterly useless for its purpose. Now, to have a perfectly clean cup is best. Beautiful and complex words should be used to express beautiful and complex thoughts, and yet we must not forget which is most important. The outside cleanliness is to reflect the inside cleanliness. Do not misunderstand me, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the dedicated and vivacious scrubbing of the outside. Once again, we cannot communicate effectively if we care naught for the medium used for communication. If we care so little for language that we are unable to speak or write correctly, we again defeat the purpose of language. Once the inside of the cup is clean, and we understand what the cup is to be used for, then we may, and indeed are bound, to clean the outside. It is only when we forget the inside that all our cleaning becomes mere vanity. I can even say that if the inside is dirty, it is perhaps more honest to leave the outside dirty, yet if the inside is clean, it is shameful that the outside remains dirty.
This puts us on our guard against two opposite extremes rampant in the world, both of which I believe, end in the disregard of true and useful language. The first is the exaltation of language above its station, those who forget that language is not an ultimate, immovable standard, who forget that language is organic and changeable, in the sense that human minds and customs are organic and changeable. And secondly, those who forget that language is something of uttermost importance in human existence and should therefore be respected and studied. Those who suppose that because human language is subject to society, it is therefore subject to the individual.
In the first case, I would assert that language is not, as the laws of Mathematics; always objective. Language, as an expression of the mind of man, is subject to the mind of man. It changes and grows with society, it is subjective to humanity. The English fanatic will tell me that 'agreeing' is correct and 'congreeing' errant, I answer that Shakespeare did not think so. He will tell me that 'nice' means 'pleasant', I answer that Sr. Walter Raleigh did not think so. He will perhaps tell me that the word 'sweet' does not end in an 'e', I answer that Geoffrey Chaucer thought that it did . My point is merely that the laws of grammar are not comparable to the laws of logic. And to think of them as such is to bar oneself into a small cage of imaginary correctness, rendering oneself incapable of understanding anything outside of one's own pompous prison. In effect, rendering any communication outside of one's own, useless and thus rendering any language outside of ones own, vanity.
But hold! Do not you and I, and all that can understand each other, conform to specific laws of grammar? How then can you say that language is subjective? And herein lies the confusion; Though language changes with society, it is something outside of each individual that must be learnt and obeyed. It will not bow to an individual's whims, and to make it do so is to once again defeat its purpose and change its nature. Language is subjective, yet its subject is society and not the individual.
Though human language is subject to the mind and customs of man, it is not subject to the mind and customs of a man.
Comments