A New Intro
An Intro Essay
A helpful visitor to this site recently suggested that I add an intro to this section: the writing and podcasts on language here, taken from the simplest viewpoint, are intended to represent a bridge between the two current, general assumptions about language held by modern academia, and, by extension, most of the rest of us who ever think about the subject, however formally or informally.
These two views hold that a) language is primarily if not entirely socially constructed (that is, words get created by people to mean whatever they do more or less arbitrarily, depending on whatever social, political, situational, or just plain whimsical conditions prevail at the moment);and b) language learning is, to some substantial extent, if not wholly, prewired in humans on a genetic level, which goes a long way toward explaining why even very young children can pick up lots of new vocabulary and speech patterns very quickly.
Skipping over some of the possible incongruencies of holding to both of these ideas at the same time—remember, the point here is keep things relatively simple—it’s not too difficult to assume both have merit, and particularly where they overlap into what ought to be a general agreement on the importance of social influence upon language. Obviously, most significantly, language as we almost always practice it evolved in large part out of group interactions, etc.
The genetics argument per se does not hold up quite so well--to our common sense, at least—since we might tend to think the extent and variety of our vocabulary or gift of gab would originate from a different set of variables than our height or eye color. Nevertheless, the notion that the key “organic” components of human language somehow reside in our DNA continues to hold sway over academia, and thus, however peripherally, over the rest of us.
The bridge between these two orthodoxies I am trying to provide here is what we might call the “psychophysiological.”
I think everyone would agree that, no matter how much “language” is determined by our social lives on one hand and our genetic predispositions on the other, words still must process through each and every one of us as individuals, no matter how much or how little time or thought we put into what we are going to think, say, or write, or how long or deeply, quickly or shallowly we ponder the meaning of what we have heard or read. And it is exactly this area of language activity that our two orthodoxies fail to shed any light upon at all. The orthodoxies, in fact, leave myriad interesting and important questions unanswered.
Let’s mention just a few. Why do certain words mean so much to us, and others hardly anything at all? Why do the same words impact us so differently at different times? Why can some sounds and words have universal impact and easily elicit universal recognition, while many others don’t? Why can the same rhetoric sway whole crowds one minute and leave them cold the next? Why do so many words and parts of words (i.e., letters) seem to do little, but fill up space (e.g., the h in rhubarb)? Most important, why and how do each of us often chose specific words and expressions to use at any given moment? What makes one such choice more likely or more desirable to us? Is it all just simply a matter of DNA and social influence?
If you think so, then the bridge I am attempting to supply you with here would probably make no difference to you, since you already think you understand, in general at least, all the key components that go into language use and development. If you think otherwise, though, as a subject of study, I would point you in the direction of your own body, and all the effects words and their sounds have upon you [tip:psychophysiologically=and often subliminally and with lightning speed], as you think, speak, listen, and read.
In my view, these effects perpetually engage our physical sensations, our emotions, our ideas and ideals, and ultimately, often greatly determine our behavior. If so, it just makes good sense that the more aware we are of how all this works, the more in charge of our own lives we will be, no matter how great the concurrent influence of social pressure or our genetic predispositions.
If you are still reading this, and at all intrigued by this idea of getting a better “handle” on how language works, in ways far more accessible to most of us as individuals than if we were to apply just the prevailing notions of social construction and genetic inheritance, I strongly suggest you take a further look at/listen to the essays and podcasts on the subject of language analysis on this website. And keep an eye out for much more on the subject of this “[tip:bridge=Including at least a couple of reasons why we might not spell it "brigge."],” and how it might relate to many other aspects of our lives—to which language of course has been and will continue to be so central.
(And please feel free to join in conversation on the subject, whether or not you agree or disagree with an entry--or have some idea of your own you think might augment whatever is being discussed there. To do this is simple: all you have to do is click on the “Add new comment” link at the bottom of the page and fill in the appropriate boxes. If you have any trouble adding your comments, let me know by email or by using the forum, with a way to contact you.)