Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Language Dilution is a Crime

Language dilution, language pollution: pick your term. For too long this practice has gone on unchecked, unabated, laying waste to our precious words, our finest finite natural resource. It has many learned defenders who cry ‘language drift!’ arm-in-arm with the less learned who cry in turn, ‘who gives a shit!’. Fools.[i]

No, it is not language drift, it is laziness.

As well as the obvious meaning, Google gives a definition of ‘literally’ as a word that can be “used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.”[ii] I weep. Google, the arbiter of knowledge, has metaphorically caved in, figuratively given up the fight, and literally offended me.

But it isn't Mr. Google’s fault, nor is it the OED’s or any other organisation like that. Nope, it is your fault, dear reader, if you have ever used literally when you don’t literally mean it. Dictionaries do not set language, they document it: Fiona MacPherson of the OED says, “If enough people use a word in a particular way […] it will find its way into the dictionary.”

Using literally when you don’t literally mean literally is language abuse, not language drift. Wikipedia lists the reasons for language change as:

a)      Economy: Speakers tend to make their utterances as efficient and effective as possible to reach communicative goals. Purposeful speaking therefore involves a trade-off of costs and benefits.
a.       the principle of least effort: Speakers especially use economy in their articulation, which tends to result in phonetic reduction of speech forms (going to > gonna)
b)      Analogy: reducing word forms by likening different forms of the word to the root.
c)       Language contact: borrowing of words and constructions from foreign languages.
d)      Cultural environment: Groups of speakers will reflect new places, situations, and objects in their language, whether they encounter different people there or not.
e)      Migration/Movement: Speakers will change and create languages, such as pidgins and creoles

I am fine, for instance, with the way my generation uses the word ‘like’ all the time as a way of introducing reported speech because it is a shorter and more fluid way of saying ‘he/she said’ and makes it clear you are paraphrasing, or giving the gist of what somebody else said. ‘Like’ is also used as a filler word, and that’s fine too. In general, it’s best to try and remove fillers from your speech, because they make you sound less intelligent and confident, but that’s super-difficult so it’s fine, really. I am also fine with people saying ‘PIN number,’ even though technically speaking you are saying ‘personal identification number number’, because I feel PIN itself has come to mean the combination you put into the thing to validate your cashcard.  

I am not fine with people diluting ‘literally’ (and ‘genuinely’, to a lesser extent) because we only have one word for literally, and if literally no longer means literally then we've lost a word, and a useful one at that. If there was a replacement – and I know a lot of former literally-abusers that have moved onto ‘genuinely’, ruining that, too – I possibly would be okay with it. It falls into none of the above categories, and in fact reduces economy. If you use literally when you don’t mean literally, for instance in, ‘omg I literally love Mary Berry,’ you are not only adding an extraneous word, you are also devaluing it, so when the time comes for ‘literally’ to be used in its proper meaning it is no longer up to the task. (I've seen the tragicomedy of ‘literally literally’ before. Again, I weep.) It also raises the issue for serial literally and genuinely abusers that if they make a statement without using one of the two, it could give the impression that they are being insincere.

Parroting a word over and over again in inappropriate contexts robs a word of its power. Take swearing for instance. People that eff and blind as part of their regular speech patterns devalue swearing, so when they’re really angry, they haven’t got the vocabulary to express themselves. When/if I’m a parent, I imagine I would tell my children not to swear unnecessarily, but if they’re really, really angry about something it would be okay. It’s important that we can be rude to each other. It seems strange to me, for instance, that in Australia (and other parts of the world, too), people call each other ‘cunt’ in the same way that I would use the word ‘mate.’ If you really want to call someone a ‘cunt,’ which is just about the worst word we have, what do you do?

So please, put some thought into the words you use because words are vulnerable and synonyms are exhaustible.



[i] http://www.buzzfeed.com/billypeltzer/10-crutch-words-you-literally-need-to-stop-saying-ecuv This ‘listicle’ is mostly on the money, and the comments illustrate typical moronic defences perfectly.
[ii] In between starting and finishing this article, Google has CHANGED IT BACK!! Yes!

No comments:

Post a Comment