BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Words Reflect The Value We Place On Relationships Between People

  
 
All Acting Regiment
19:27 / 20.07.05
Trudgill, in Sociolinguistics, says that the creation of a special word to describe a relationship- it's lexicalisation -shows us that we as a society place value on that relationship.

When we talk about a child of our parents, we say "Sister" or "Brother" (or in some circumstances, add the "Half-" prefix). This is a word. "Child of my parents" is a phrase, and we don't often use it, because the realtionship "Child of my parents" has been lexicalised into "Brother", "Sister" etc.

This can also be seen in Russian, he says, citing an example from the mid 19th century, when the relationship "Wife's Brother" was considered highly important in that country. Because it was valued so much, it was lexicalised: the word shurin was used.

However, after the turbulence of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the old way of living in extended households was gone, and people tended to live in nuclear families. Thus, in modern Russian, the phrase brat zheny is now used, because the relationship is no longer valued enough to require it's own single word.

There are yet more examples: King or Shah instead of "Head Of State"; or Pope instead of "Head Of Church".

Do you feel that this could in any way limit society; or conversely could it help society to grow if we take charge of the trend?

Do you feel there are any relationships or things that deserve a special word? Do you think this lexicalisation could cause a positive change in society?
 
 
werwolf
06:22 / 21.07.05
intriguing approach.
but i doubt that this process can be 'reversed'. if i understand correctly, it is assumed that objects/relations/etc. that are of any importance to any society will be rewarded with a specific word that clearly denotes that object/relation/etc. - so, we can safely assume that this object/relation/etc. is already well known within that particular concerned society (or cultural group or whatever you might call it) so that the introduction of that special word describing this object/relation/etc. would be instantly recognizable after the first explanation/definition.
what i'm trying to say: in your example from russia, the russians obviously already held the relation to their wife's brother in high regard and the importance of that relation was already established within society. when the word 'shurin' was introduced to denote that particular relation it didn't seem awkward or displaced to anyone, because it was a welcome way to precisely and efficiently talk about a widely accepted relation.

now, what would happen if you'd try it the other way around? say, for instance, you want people to get better awareness of the consequences of capitalist gloablisation and start calling the resource-draining symptoms of globalized import/export ventures 'resygex'. (yeah, silly word, but bear with me...) now, when you introduce that word into, say, any western european society, you'll probably get wondrous looks and, in the best case, people not only asking you what that word means, but what you mean at all! since that particular relation is not really at the forefront of that particular societies thoughts and actions, the word will get rejected, because it is not evident how and why it should be use - a direct consequence of the relation that it describes not being og high importance to most people of that particular society.

in other words: i don't think that you can shape language in a way that will affect a society's values directly. that's also why i think that 'p.c. speech' is a load of bollocks.

language, i think, is what gives form to whatever it is that we perceive and experience. but it does not create perception and/or experience. i don't think that you can make people see things differently by changing language, but you can most probably follow the shifts in perception by following the changes of language. it's a one-way street...

% unless of course somebody finally stumbles upon that condensed meme-speech that we can use to alter reality... %
 
 
lord henry strikes back
08:15 / 21.07.05
%...that or we give Orwell's New Speak project a solid bash%

If this sidetracks the thread too much then please say so and I'll go away, but I think this is an interesting case in point:

We do not, in English at least, have a word for a long term relationship outside of marriage. For a number of reasons more and more people are now not getting married in an official sense, but live together in basically the same fashion. Without recourse to the husband/wife paradigm what other terms can be used?

'Partner' is too imprecise. It fails to define the gender of the person to whom you refer, and it also has connotations of other types of relationship such as professional partnerships. 'Boyfriend/girlfriend' lacks the gravity and sense of permanence of these relationships. The only other word I can think of is 'lover' but this suffers many of the problems of the other two along with somewhat sordid overtones.

So what does it say about our society that this term is lacking? Is it simply a case of language catching up with the times or is it a reflection of the resistance that still exists in some quaters to the legitimisation of these relationships?
 
 
hoatzin
09:13 / 21.07.05
I think that yes, words reflect what we think, and so words will not appear unless we [ie society] need them. Anticipating a need and supplying the word won't work- it has to be a 'ground-root phenomenon'. So a word for partner, lover or significant other, will soon emerge. Words are like grains of sand- they emerge, retreat , change as they are needed. For instance on hearing the word 'mobile' most of us would immediately think of a phone, and does anyone remember the original meaning of 'gay'? [How did that come about?]
 
 
skolld
13:20 / 21.07.05
I think we need a word for people's relationship to their computers. For instance we call the 'dog that lives us' our pets, so what short snappy word could we come up with for our computing machines?

Seriously though i think on the whole lexicalisation can lead to a breakdown in our perception of the original relationship. The pope for instance has taken on a more ambiguous role that just 'head of the church'. I think we begin to attribute more and more extra associations, but the problem becomes that not evereyone holds the same associations and so divisions arise.
Marriage for instance is a big one right now,
Or what if we referred to our President as our 'elected head of state' would that change our view of him/her. would it demystify some of the fringe associations we have.
Or even words like 'Rock Star'. would we be likely to approach them if they were just call musicians.

This is an interesting question
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:37 / 21.07.05
Werwolf: "i don't think that you can shape language in a way that will affect a society's values directly...language, i think, is what gives form to whatever it is that we perceive and experience. but it does not create perception and/or experience."

I can see what you're saying. I would argue that language can create perceptions, though. Bush called Iran and North Korea the "Axis Of Evil"- this must have given some people a certain perception of these places? I think if you have enough power and enough people listening, your language can alter society. Granted, it would be hard for any of us here to do it.

I agree with you when you say "for instance, you want people to get better awareness of the consequences of capitalist gloablisation and start calling the resource-draining symptoms of globalized import/export ventures 'resygex'...when you introduce that word into, say, any western european society, you'll probably get wondrous looks and people not only asking you what that word means, but what you mean at all!.

However, what if instead of using a new (and meaningless) word such as Resygex, a more emotive and striking one was used, that everyone knows such as "Devilbreath", or simply "Doom"? And if this was introduced by major politicians and celebrities, people almost everyone listens to?

Lexicalisation doesn't have to involve making up a new word, it could be a compound, or an existing word could be broadened. This happens a lot: many of the words used for food previously only referred to one kind, for example. The word sex has come to mean more than "gender".
 
 
werwolf
06:56 / 22.07.05
[quote Legba Rex] I can see what you're saying. I would argue that language can create perceptions, though. Bush called Iran and North Korea the "Axis Of Evil"- this must have given some people a certain perception of these places? I think if you have enough power and enough people listening, your language can alter society. Granted, it would be hard for any of us here to do it. [/quote]

ah, yes. that's right, of course. i agree: being in a position where your phrasing, the words you use and how you use your language in general will be scrutinized and becomes of almost symbolic quality, then of course you can use language to replicate your own perception onto others.

[slightly threadrotting: but then again, on the same token, being in such a position might also superimpose other experiences than your own on you and your language.]

[quote Legba Rex] Lexicalisation doesn't have to involve making up a new word, it could be a compound, or an existing word could be broadened. This happens a lot: many of the words used for food previously only referred to one kind, for example. The word sex has come to mean more than "gender". [/quote]

oh, in that case i misunderstood. i was under the impression that 'lexicalisation' involves creating new words. my bad.
this of course makes me wonder about the general problem of definition. if you take a word that already exists and already has a definition (however concise or vague it may be) attached to it, isn't it going to be hard to... how to put this... 'generalize' or 'standardize' the 'new' meaning, so that everyone is talking about the same thing? i'm thinking about musical genres for instance, where that problem is crassly evident. many talking about music these days uses the term 'emo' - everybody associates something else with that term, because it has been stretched and broadened, since it first came into use, to encompass more and more different meanings, so that by now 'emo' is close to meaning nothing at all anymore. a problem of definition.

skolld has brought this up as well:
[quote skolld] Seriously though i think on the whole lexicalisation can lead to a breakdown in our perception of the original relationship. The pope for instance has taken on a more ambiguous role that just 'head of the church'. I think we begin to attribute more and more extra associations, but the problem becomes that not evereyone holds the same associations and so divisions arise. [/quote]
i agree. a discrepancy in defintion will lead to misrepresentation.

-----

[quote hoatzin] I think that yes, words reflect what we think, and so words will not appear unless we [ie society] need them. Anticipating a need and supplying the word won't work- it has to be a 'ground-root phenomenon'. [/quote]

fully agree with that.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:03 / 22.07.05
So, we've ascertained that it'd be hard for any of us to lexicalise anything, unless we had plenty of power: political or media-based. Agreed. Also agreed is that any linguistic trend happens very gradually. Further, even if we did introduce new language for something, it wouldn't neccesarily catch on.

However, if you could lexicalise something, and this could make society value (care about) it more, what would you choose, and what word would you use for it? Remember that both good and bad things can be lexicalised.
 
 
Broomvondle
17:28 / 22.07.05
what words could we come up with for our computing machines?

I think 'Mac' short for Macintosh is already an example of a short affectionate term for a computer - equivalent to the use of the word 'pet' for certain animals. Apple has consistently in its marketing and design attempted to show that its products have a unique relationship with the consumer - this is evident in the use of various humanising symbols, the MacOS's smilely face icon for example, an icon that contrasts strongly with the arbitrary, inhuman windows symbol.

The word Macintosh is quite a lengthy word for a computer, 'Mac' has developed as convienient shorthand for regular users but has also come to suggest a familiarity with Apple machines.

'scuse me slightly drunk...
 
 
werwolf
06:35 / 25.07.05
[quote Legba Rex] However, if you could lexicalise something, and this could make society value (care about) it more, what would you choose, and what word would you use for it? Remember that both good and bad things can be lexicalised. [/quote]

well, if i could then i would lexicalize the 'objectifying' that humans do. and i'm not only talking about the materialist view of measuring the world's worth by quantity and commercial value. i's also include what i have personally experienced to be a general human trait: treating other people as objects to either turn them into a commodity or assert more control or any other reason that any human would have to depersonalize his/her surroundings. and i would call that process 'thinging'.

on one hand it can become the cue-word for a counter-attitude, where personal relations are valued and 'thinging' will become a derogative term. on the other hand of course it could backfire and become this season's newest 'it'-word for marketing strategies and brand-customizing.
 
 
skolld
15:32 / 25.07.05
I think 'Mac' short for Macintosh is already an example of a short affectionate term for a computer -

I hadn't thought of that, I have a Mac and, come to think of it, i do refer to it as 'My Mac' and not 'my computer'.
Wow, Apple's good at the old 'let's get into their heads' marketing, aren't they?
 
  
Add Your Reply