Language

Language is a fascinating and multifaceted practice. As a student I use it meticulously, to describe ideas and analyze concepts. As an employee its use is functional, as a direct and precise representation of the facts. As an artist I will use language to portray mood and invoke emotion. When we speak and write we are constantly facing choices of not just what to say but how we say it, because in reality they are the same thing.

Lets think about the process. First there is a thought, unshaped by words and perfect in its contextual-less meaning. We then have to break down this thought into language in order to communicate it to others. Here is where having a fine tuned skill set of grammar and vocabulary will allow your thought to either be spoken fluently or lost among uncertainty. Communication is a process. Though it may seem as though our thoughts flow out into words on a page there is a step between.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems to find some limits here. Although it seems self-apparent that language influences culture and individuals, shouldn’t the hypothesis be reversed? After all we were not created by language. We developed language over the centuries in order to serve are own needs and it is still developing. As a society we must have realized and acted upon all of our concepts before there were words to describe them. Societies and individuals create languages not the other way around.

That said, language choice is extremely influential in determining meaning. Extreme examples of this are uses of doublespeak such as collateral damage and enhanced interrogation. The use of these terms is to deliberately shape the publics perceptions of the reality behind them, as when President Obama’s administration opted to stop using the term “war on terror”. The situation is the same whether we call it war or not. The difference is in how the public feels about the situation and in turn how they might influence it.