Babies May Pick Up Language Cues in the Womb
I found this article while looking through NPR.ORG and I immediatley began thinking about it in reference to the class discussion today. The overall class discussion left me with a general so what impression about the whole thing; as an English major, I do believe that there is a perfect word to express every idea--it is all about finding it (even in translation, which is meant to maintain a functional feeling over form). With that in mind, language is not about borders but, rather, about exploration and innovation: particularly English, which is currently enjoying top billing. It is not an accident that many authors choose to write in English; English's "dominant" form is understood by millions, giving it the unique ability to speak to the subject and the object, the oppressor and the oppressed (it is wild, not limiting). Look no further than Chinua Achebe, who, while acknowledging English as the language of the colonizers, notes that it provided the colonized with "a language with which to talk to one another"(from his essay "The African Writer and the English Language"). While I realize that I am wandering away from the original link I provided, I am hoping to connect some larger points--mostly for my own sorting out--and at this point it seems that I've wandered back to Deleuze and Guattari's essay on "minor literature."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When you say: "language is not about borders but, rather, about exploration and innovation"...I wonder. How could we possibly explore and innovate *without* borders? Don't we, in fact, need constant borders against which to push (innovation), and over which to cross (exploration)? It seems to me that you are not necessarily refuting Anzaldúa, but rather that you are showing how English, too, can be understood as a 'border language'. "So what" is a good question to ask—and then answer. For English to be thought of as a 'border language' (in a sense), we might think about seeking and trying to find expression. Even in your idea of the "perfect word," that perfect word would never be the *final* word, right? As an English major, is the point to STOP writing (when you find the "perfect word")? Isn't the point, rather, to KEEP writing, to *never* stop writing, expressing, seeking? If we admit that language is *living*, then mustn't we admit that it is always necessarily subject to abrupt, dynamic, and potentially bewildering changes? There would be no perfect words, just words, endlessly moving outward, as long as we keep speaking, thinking, and writing. I am not saying 'there is no meaning'; I am suggesting that we should be open to the in-principle openness of language, and this has great potential, then, for communication, expression, interaction, conciliation—all the things we need (as a species) to keep living. This is a great post, and I really appreciate how you are grappling with the complexities of language here. I hope that others will pitch in to this conversation!
ReplyDeleteIf there is a perfect word for every idea, then why the Synonym (or even the antonym), why synonymy? Is 'so what' the perfect word (or set of words) to describe the general feeling of 'irrelevance'? Then again is irrelevance perfect for 'insignificance' or 'extraneous' or 'who gives a fuck'?
ReplyDeleteWho knows though Dr. Schaberg, what if what you are suggesting ('all the things we need to keep living') has passed its' due date? Do not even suggestions have their expirations?
Great points, Bryan! I wonder, too, about this question of the 'expiration date' of human/communications.
ReplyDeleteWhat type of human communication/interaction could pass its 'due date?' If we've always developed/inherited new ways to talk about things (the how) eventually there will be a point where the new structure of language will develop/inherit a new consciousness (the what). It seems that talking of a 'due date' on language only means that how we talk about something will be replaced with a new way to talk about it. I think its regrettable that 'Irrelevance' is replaced by 'fuck it' and that 'fuck it' can be utilized in a lot of ways, but in its application do we not frame it in a certain way to give it more specifications?
ReplyDelete"So what" would seem, to Bryan, to suggest a sentiment of 'irrelevance'. But taken literally, it is actually demanding a response—it expresses a desire for *more* explanation, more discussion. "Fuck it", it seems to me, can either suggest abandon, or indifference, or apathy, or aggression—yes, depending on the context or the 'framing'. Can 'fuck it' be understood in a linguistically generative way (beyond the strictly copulative)?
ReplyDeleteI think my question concerning Bryan's point has to do with the apocalypticism in the idea that maybe humans could pass a "due date"—and then be, what, 'late' creatures?
Mark I think you are right, 'the how' (or the form of communication is made present and operative) does bring forth 'the what' (or content). But this process would also be reversible I think, correct? 'The what' (or currently existing content) frames 'the how' (or form of communication) that is emerging.
ReplyDeleteI think that your question as also taken up by you, Dr. Schaberg, is worth consideration. I don't know if 'fuck it' and its signification would or could be generative. I think if it could be, then perhaps it would happen through a re-literalization of the metaphorical deployment of 'fuck it', which in turn would then be metaphorized? In other words, simply a renewed emphasis on the literality of words. For example, what if someone were to really 'fuck it'? What if I were to say, "You know what? Fuck it, this Theory stuff", and someone asked me in response, "well what if you did fuck it? What might 'come' about in the play between you and Theory? What offspring might result?".
*as a side-note: I cannot help but thinking the 'so what' response as an intransitive one (both parties can equally declare irrelevance and ask for clarification), whereas 'fuck it' still appears transitive. It's based on a doing-unto that leaves one side being-fucked rather than a mutuality where both are fucked. Is this a masculinist approach? If so, is it appropriate?
One small point I keep coming back to in Anzaldua’s text is how this blending of “border languages” creates a unique form of communication that is neither entirely one thing or entirely another. In a parallel situation, words take on different meanings depending on the context in which they are used, and the cultural context could pose difficulties in understanding for those not belonging to said culture. Communication is largely interpretation, with each individual interpreting what is said uniquely; perhaps remaining unaware of the fact that not everyone interprets even the simplest of communicatory interactions the same way. Culture and upbringing influence many things including how one uses languages and the meanings attributed to different words and phrases. Another good example of these gaps in meaning that we discussed in class are words that cannot be translated into English because the meaning is altered in translation. Basically what I’m trying to say is that I feel like a word is never the “final” or “perfect” fit to describe a situation because the institution of language is an act of interpretation, full of gaps in meaning and imperfections.
ReplyDelete