The manipulation of language is the manipulation of thought. People largely think in words, particularly when it comes to beliefs/system, i.e. conceptual choices. They can think in other representations and approximations - the links between smells and memories for example are well documented. But they tend to think in words, because words are the first language that we learn.
So, the attempt at reducing language, at simplifying language, is a propagandist effort aimed at simplifying and reducing thought. Were our dictatorship in this world a benevolent one, this wouldn’t be so bad. After all, there are no given rules as to what language should be, as to what we should be thinking. But the dictatorship is not benevolent, so I interpret this attempt to simplify my thoughts, essentially to render them redundant (in both the linguistic and political senses of the word) and utterly predictable, an assault on my liberty and that of those around me.
Even the phrase ‘dumbing down’ is a dumbing down, for what is a more complex and vicious project with much greater implications than merely an increase in human stupidity. Humans are stupid to begin with, but we can survive that so I’m not sure how much it matters. What matters is the death of imagination, of the spirit of conceiving otherwise, which is the motive for all political radicalism, subversion, revolution, and just plain ordinary progression. If it isn’t possible to conceive of a better world, or even just a different one, then history truly does end, and we become the last men, concerned only with their own survival. And those in power, remain in power until we all die.
As to allowing for more information to be exchanged - this is a multiform matter than cannot be reduced to the mere number of words spoken over a given period of time. Your comment about rap music is way off the mark. The quality of the receiver and the channel, in particular its efficiency since all tranmission is temporal, makes a lot of difference.
One thing you’ve really got to appreciate is that there are literally hundreds of conceptual models of communication and language. Yours is only one in a huge minefield. I say ‘yours’, but again, it is something you have received, been taught, learnt to repeat.
It is a easy fluidity of belief that allows one to remain as free as humanly possible from the influences of propagandists.
I would say that ILP and indeed, the whole internet is a promoter of fragmentation, but it depends on the scale one wishes to address. Consider: On almost all discussion boards, the posts are rarely longer than 3 or 4 sentence glosses. Look at all the posts where people are talking past one another as if they know from a few sentences what the other person is really saying. This condensation of language fosters almost more misunderstanding than “I got it”. On the other hand, there is a transparency in words not seen before. No matter what one says, there are those who will disagree, and “pulling the wool over eyes” is far more difficult.
Still, the willingness to dash off a few sentences as if we know something only serves to isolate us. At this point, I can’t tell if the shrinking of language is more negative or more positive, but it certainly is different.
As Siatd points out, language affects the way we think, and that is troubling. Given the world situation right now, we haven’t proven ourselves great thinkers. I’d hate to think that our thinking abilities could get worse…
I for one am saddened by the current trend for soundbytes and the strained gnomic terseness exemplified in posting along the lines of:
"[i]It is this
Because it is
so there.[/i]"
Examples…? Metaphor…? Persuasion…? Rhetoric…? No one gives a shit about the reader, they just want to sound like they have a clue: “I know”. Maybe it’s the teacher in me, but I always feel it is not enough to simply tell it how (you think) it is, but to explain sufficiently well so as to allow the reader to follow you along the trail you took to get to that point of ‘knowing’.
My degree is in English (I know, just about as practical as a philosophy degree, right?), and I have a deep appreciation for a well-turned phrase. Language is an art when thoughts and ideas are expressed carefully and deliberately. That doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be flowery - most well-written songs and poems pack an enormous amount of meaning into a frugal minimum of words.
There is a time and place for shorthand - a text message doesn’t need to be sonnet, for example, so that’s all well and good. Abbreviated speech serves a purpose in today’s world.
But I’d hate for us to lose that thought process of putting consideration into what we say, before we say it. Who would be the next Dorothy Parker, the next Chaucer? Really, who wants to read an anthology of text messages?
Alright, here’s my contribution to this topic, so hold on to your ass-cheeks…
Language itself evolves along with humanity. This observation of fragmentation is a good one and actually one that I have not had before. It is correct.
Pat on Nano’s back
Now, why is this happening?
It is happening, because conceptual knowledge has been increasing with respect to global population growth, epitomized within the American culture.
Since conceptual knowledge is increasing, the human mind has been physically adapting itself to (male) word-content. A single word has more meaning…
Since a single word now has more meaning, it is more “compact” than ever before. English is the leading force of changing language throughout the world.
There is a very specific reason why language is trending in this manner. Furthermore, it’s a discrepancy of a rise in global intelligence…
Words are going to get even more fragmented. Reciprocally, metaphors (and philosophies) are going to become more brilliant.
Language is a tool. Like any tool it evolves to be more efficient. There are places that well crafted words and thoughts are needed, entertainment, persuasion of an idea. But, in common comunication, brevity can put more simple thoughts and ideas in a limited space or time.
A single word doesn’t mean anything. It is only in a nexus of deferring difference with other words that a word means something. And only then if it actually used.
Or so Derrida would have me believe.
How do you mean, ‘more fragmented’. I would have thought language was either fragmented or whole. One might compare several vases and say one is more fragmented. But language isn’t a vase. Just like a chimp isn’t an agricultural worker, no matter how apt the metaphor might seem to some people.
Do you know how much meaning is invoked in the word “is”??? Seriously, do a google search right now on “is”. Try to find a word that appears more often in history…
I would try “God” in comparison… (I don’t know.)
It is “more fragmented” in the sense that less words/phrases are being used to convey meaning.
Take “LOL” ( ) for example. This phrase says a lot, contextually and conceptually. It means “laugh out loud” of course…
And what message does “laugh out loud” convey? It implies that something is so funny that in-person (outside the internet), somebody just laughed.
All in three letters…
The appearance of fragmentation is dubious, I would grant that.
Language is still “whole”, but its usage is becoming “shortened”. That is why it appears to be cut up and “fragmented”.
Grammar and semantics are also changing in a similar fashion.
The word alone means nothing. It’s just a dot and a couple of lines. It’s only in a nexus of other dots and lines that meaning can be established. This is why the metaphysics of presence fail, because the non-presence of absence as part of the discourse is inescapable.
Google isn’t a valid measure of use in history. And just because a word is used more doesn’t mean its meaning is any greater or lesser. It depends on the nature of the use.
‘I’ is probably up there too.
That’s not ‘more fragmented’, that’s just ‘smaller’.
It says little, because it is so frequently used so as to have become redundant.
Although my guess is it is usually used when someone hasn’t just laughed. Ergo…
Which imply three words, which have to be interpreted as those words and not other words also implied by those letters, which is only possible if the person already knows other words to distinguish from the ‘correct’ words they should be using to interpret the three letters.
Single words, or acronyms, are meaningless.
I couldn’t give a damn about the appearance, it’s about trying to get people to use effective metaphors.
Abbreviated, rather than fragmented.
I’m still unsure as to what ‘fashion’ you are talking about. Seriously, I like this conversation so it’d be cool if you could elaborate. I’m not trying to knock down what you’re saying. I’m trying to get you to say it in a way I can understand.
Exactly, but you and I have estimations … one of us is more “accurate” than the other. Measuring this accuracy is the bait-and-switch of philosophy.
Symbolic power–is there any other kind? Implied meanings often have greater meanings. Archetypical women understand this better than any men.
Yes it is. The history of humanity is “front loaded”. Just look at the population explosion.
The frequency in the use of a word implies its practicality, not its meaning. However, the meaning correlating to its practicality is a good measure for reasonability…
Very nice observation. “I” is almost guaranteed to be #1. Thank you for this insight “S1”.
Let me clarify what I mean. To say that language is becoming more fragmented means that it’s “breaking apart”. My thesis is simply this: it is going to evolve and trend towards fragmentation. I have my reasons for believing this. I see that [smaller] is a bad concept or metaphor. How does language or any word get “smaller”? Do word meanings have a “size” that I’m unaware of??? Meaning is measured through practical usage. That is why measuring the occurrences that “I” comes up on Google measures the practical application of the meaning behind a word…
This idea of mine I have labeled the Concept Calculator…
I disagree–it says a lot. Redundancy does not take away meaning of a word. In fact, it reinforces it. That is how subliminal messages are drilled into people’s head through television… Like that “free credit report dot com” commercial. It annoys the living fuck out of me for a reason. It is an effective method of drilling an idea into a mind that tries to tune it out. That song is so fucking annoying that I must listen to it. And it pisses me off…
The meaning is enhanced, not reduced.
Ergo what? The meaning stays relatively the same.
On the contrary S1, tell that to the little girls texting each other all day long…
The metaphors are changing!!! Philosophers need to see this–quickly–because it’s happening exponentially. If you don’t stay ahead of the game, then you will be left behind. That’s just the way that it is. People risk becoming obsolete if they can’t keep up with the metaphors.
“LOL” is a new metaphor. I’m sorry to burst your bubble if you don’t “like” or “enjoy” it… I don’t “enjoy” it either, but despite my likes or dislikes, I’m aware that my effort to change this trend will likely be futile against 100 million little fucking girls. That doesn’t mean I can’t change the trend or completely overpower it (it is still possible), but the point is, doing so is rather stupid. Go with the flow of the raging river. Fight it only when necessary (life or death).
Perhaps you and I have different concepts of [fragmentation]…
Basically, what I’m saying is, language itself is trending towards “fragmentation”. This trend is exponential. It coincides with all language content: words, grammar, abbreviations, semantics, sensical cues (picked up by females), etc. are all growing exponentially.
In other words, language is evolving along with the human specie. The human specie’s evolution may be measured by its population size. Similarly, the human specie’s language may also be measured with regard to its population size. The measurement though, have yet to be put into effect, but they will be shortly.
) for example. This phrase says a lot, contextually and conceptually. It means “laugh out loud” of course…