Read on Twitter
What George Orwell got right (and wrong) about language. A thread.
If I weren't a Latter-day Saint I'd be drunk right now, maybe.
1/24
If I weren't a Latter-day Saint I'd be drunk right now, maybe.
1/24
2/24 It's late and I'm reminiscing about the linguistics degree I got 10 years ago and never used once.
Should I start with the linguistics or the history? Let's get the homework out of the way and then get to the fun stuff.
First, linguistic determinism is garbage.
Should I start with the linguistics or the history? Let's get the homework out of the way and then get to the fun stuff.
First, linguistic determinism is garbage.
3/24 LD means the structure/vobac/whatever of a language sets the limits of ideas for that society. False.
"but the Inuit have 57 words for snow! That's how they can understand snow so well!"
I shouldn't have to explain this, but the Inuit understand snow bc they live in it.
"but the Inuit have 57 words for snow! That's how they can understand snow so well!"
I shouldn't have to explain this, but the Inuit understand snow bc they live in it.
4/24 The Inuit have 57 words for snow bc they need those words. If you needed those words, you would find them, too. Your language's lack of words for snow does not condemn you to an eternal lack of understanding of snow, but your geography and culture might.
5/24 All evidence suggests humans of equal IQ can understand the same ideas once you explain it to them. When they don't value the idea or talk about it as much it's bc of culture, the common cause of both belief and language. LD misdirects the round robin of causes and effects.
6/24 The only way a nation's speech reverses the pressure on thoughts is when certain thoughts are off-limits, and thus when certain words signal the presence of off-limits thoughts. More on this later.
7/24 Let's jump over to the history for a second. A thousand years ago a Frenchman conquered England, and replaced the entire English ruling class with his French relatives and friends. None of them spoke English, or bothered to learn it.
8/24 The impact of Norman Conquest on English cannot be overstated. English almost died as a written language bc for 200 years virtually only illiterate Anglos spoke it. As a result, in our common speech, French/Latin origin words are "high class" and Anglo words are "low class."
9/24 The most famous example (some of you will know this): our words for animals vs. meats. In the past, peasants raised the animals that only rich people ate, so living animals have Anglo (Germanic) names, but their meats have French names.
10/24
Swine v Pork
Cow v Beef
Calf v Veal
Sheep v Mutton
Anglo (Germanic) on the left, French (Latinate) on the right.
Swine v Pork
Cow v Beef
Calf v Veal
Sheep v Mutton
Anglo (Germanic) on the left, French (Latinate) on the right.
11/24 This high/low language split permeates absolutely everything. "smart" and "intelligent" are basically synonyms, right? Then why don't we talk about testing Smarts Quotients, or or a world-wise person's Street Intelligence? Smart = Anglo, Intelligent = Norman
12/24 We could do this endlessly; a pretty fun thread all its own. But we need to get back to Orwell. Just accept the fact that in the subconscious of every native speaker of English is the fact that Anglo-origin words are trashy and French/Latin-origin words are fancy.
13/24 Ok one more:
I can politely say, "don't get hysterical," but I can't say, "don't be a c*nt," even though these are a Anglo-Franco synonym pair.
I can politely say, "don't get hysterical," but I can't say, "don't be a c*nt," even though these are a Anglo-Franco synonym pair.
14/24 Orwell understood that language is control. Language represents ideas, and if you control language, you control ideas, sort of.
Orwell saw a future that denied free thought bc people would not have access to the necessary words. but that's linguistic determinism, so no.
Orwell saw a future that denied free thought bc people would not have access to the necessary words. but that's linguistic determinism, so no.
15/24 Rather, language controls thoughts by signaling some thoughts as unacceptable, rather than denying their existence.
First, start with a cultural taboo like racism, and give it a name, like NAZIism
Then, expand other ideas to fit under it, labeling them as off-limits, too.
First, start with a cultural taboo like racism, and give it a name, like NAZIism
Then, expand other ideas to fit under it, labeling them as off-limits, too.
16/24 Suddenly a whole host of ideas are off-limits, with people policing themselves through the use of polite, correct language.
This is sort of Orwell, but he got a major component wrong. Like Enoch Powell, he failed to foresee how feckless the Anglo working class would become
This is sort of Orwell, but he got a major component wrong. Like Enoch Powell, he failed to foresee how feckless the Anglo working class would become
17/24 Orwell had propagandists trying to appeal to the linguistic sensibilities of working folk; dumbing-down (anglo-style) the language as the propagandists worked to curate the umbrellas of good and ill-meaning words. Everything is eventually goodthink or badthink.
18/24 Instead, we see the opposite: the working class ever striving to please their betters, to prove they are not prejudiced, or biased, or raciste, or whateveriste: just tell me the words so I can show you I'm not like the rubes who make 10k less than me down the street.
19/24 The vehicle is the Anglo-Normal language split. The more Frenchy/Latiny the better. Academic papers, newspapers, marxist theorists (oh ---, the marxists and their made-up words...), a whole host of fancy words to mean everything and nothing all at once...
20/24 Just like Huxley better understood that we would not fall for the restriction of feeling, but its dilution, so we will not lose our words, but instead will see them lose all meaning.
21/24 Can you tell the difference between "social" & "societal"? It seems that "societal" means some ineffable network of civic institutions best understood with advanced diplomas, and "social" just means something mundane like "the people you love and see every day."
22/24 Why not "clan"? That's what we'd say if we were on the outside looking in, like anthropologists. The answer is bc "clan" is for naked peoples without a New York Times. It's no coincidence that the Klan took this name for themselves, nor that the NYT loves it for them...
23/24 So here we all are, saying "societal" instead of "social", trying to *sound smart* lest anyone think we had this idea at Walmart.
Meanwhile we all lose the notion that anything "societal" should be viewed through the lense of family and community.
Meanwhile we all lose the notion that anything "societal" should be viewed through the lense of family and community.
24/24 So Orwell was right that language ceases to communicate *new* ideas, but simply communicates the *acceptability* of ideas, but,
rather than through the over-simplification he envisioned, it has been through the over-complication furnished us by the credentialists. fin.
rather than through the over-simplification he envisioned, it has been through the over-complication furnished us by the credentialists. fin.
