The talk speaks about writing being a ‘lateral invention’
and that there is a recurring ‘bleed between speech and writing’. The more
language develops, the more it is unified with the way we speak; we begin to
speak as we text and communicate over technology. It used to be that ‘when
someone gave a speech, it was common to speak like writing’. It is only logical
that you might write like you speak. This transition has been generated over a
long period of time and was by no means predictable. Material didn’t allow the
transition so easily, it slowed the transition as it was harder to write, type
and communicate the way in which we speak. That said, our spoken language has
evolved too, which allows us to text as we would speak. It is synergy between
both language and written language which has created these new forms of
communication. Now we have phones, which allow us to write like we speak, with
speak and commerce in conversation that is easy.
However, there is an overarching idea that this transition
of language feels like something has gone wrong, that text speech is wrong. Perhaps
this is a good thing, language changes under the radar and constantly. At what
point did language such as ‘lol’ become integrated into both written and spoken
language? It’s core meaning being ‘laughing out loud’, but if you are aware of
the substrate of texting, lol no longer means laughing out loud, it is subtler.
NO ONE LAUGHS, we aren’t laughing when we use it, it has been our own thing
over text conversation. LOL – it’s like a marker of empathy – ‘Pragmatic
particles’. It has adapted and become its own meaning which is indescribable.
These conventions are actually quite sophisticated, linguistic
breakdown of how to explain words such as ‘lol’ and ‘like’ is far more
difficult than any other word to explain. The language we are using in texting
is linking back into our everyday language. A brand new layer of language will
only continue to grow with the development of technology, is texting going to
interfere with real life communication? What aspect of the social effect of
texting is most concerning? Does the distance of the phone allow for meanness
to be easier? For bullying to be more accessible as the conversation doesn’t take
place face to face?
What we are seeing is a new way of writing, the writing of
how we speak, as well as people still writing like expected. Texting is
evidence of a balancing act and expansion of bilingual language, how it can be
beneficial to learn multiple languages. Most people nowadays understand how to
write like spoken as well as more traditional writing. Where did this
linguistic miracle happen? How did the youth of our population create this
linguistic brilliance in which we now write and communicate? Homo sapiens are
the only ones ever to evolve language. A
complicated argument put forward by Mark cable suggests that “other animals
don’t have anything to speak about”. Language allows for trade and was crated
for this purpose. There are thousands of different languages – 7-8 thousand
languages universally. Yet the greatest variance of language is where people
are most tightly packed together. Papa New Guinea has 800 different languages.
We use language to draw rings around our groups, to protect
our knowledge, wisdom and skills. We evolved in a way which wouldn’t allow us
to communicate with each other. It is instinctively a marker of identity and
homeland. We have created language to allows us to communicate, yet by created language
we have built more barriers between the world. When meeting new people, we
initially ask: are they part of our group? Or an out of group member? It is hard
to learn a language to the extent at which we can pass as fitting in to a
group. This just doesn’t happen. The accent, idioms and colloquial terms vary
too often to keep up with knowing the language like anyone else. As soon as we
move outside the tribe, we treat people wrong, as sub human. We have a tendency
to treat our kind well.
Globalisation now raises a burden; these languages create a
barrier for co-operation. Why is it that there are some forms of universal understanding?
Time measurement is universal around the world – seconds, minutes, hours. Yet
language is not. Will everybody also speak English in the future? 10 languages
account for 50% of all speakers on earth. We are losing our linguistic
diversity at an increasing rate. We lose 30 languages every year. 2 billion
people speak English as their 2nd language. Inevitably there will be
a single language universally at some point. At where English is at now, we
have to bet that English will become the only spoken language at some point in
the future.
Still thinking about the English language, there is one key
aspect which makes it difficult for other language to understand. That is the subjunctive
mood. It is a tool to be used like a pair of glasses, when used at the right
time can be focused, when the wrong time can be blurry.
The subjunctive allows us to see in to the future, as well
as the past and imagine what could have happened - a time space machine of
could and should. Other cultures believe it is a pointless exercise in pondering
what could have happened.
This lack of the subjunctive was part of a resilience and being
able to meet the world head on. But looking forward has potential to move the
world forwards, and think about things which don’t exist, and are able to
propel progress forward.
An interesting piece of history involved the naming of George
Washington and his title as the leader of the US. The title ‘president’ was put
forward as an option to make sure the title did not connote an immense power,
but more an opportunity to create reason and sense in the world. The word was
designed almost to humiliate him, and not show his power. But whatever title he
has, it would have acquired the same reputation it has now. The title doesn’t
sound that humble at all, reality and history have endured the title with grand
stature. 147 nations have a president because they want to sound like the US. Reality
changes words far more than words can have change reality.
We shape language more that it shapes us. History changes
language – when you find out what a word used to mean you treat that word
differently, after knowing the history of where that word derived from.