Some speak of language as if it has an elegance that transcends human understanding. As subjectively appealing as this position might sometimes be, it is false. Language cannot possess this quality because it inherently requires one or more minds for its existence and interpretation. Since this is the inescapable nature of words, spoken or written, it is foolish to treat them as if they are grander than their status dictates.
Personal fondness for language spurs some linguiphiles to act as if language is something more than a useful tool that is far from rigid. It is not rationality that convinces people that words have this imagined inflexible, non-arbitrary meaning, but assumptions. When such people are pressed for an explanation of why they act like their fondness signifies anything more than a subjective infatuation with words (usually words considered more sophisticated), they have nothing but preferences to appeal to.
Human language is a strictly utilitarian construct in spite of the affection some people have for it. There is no higher or other purpose of language than that of communicating or documenting thoughts, for words mean only whatever the user means by them, even if the intended audience associates those same words with alternate meanings. They have no significance apart from the beings that create and use them.
Words do not have any mind-independent metaphysical purity to be distorted, but this does not throw all communicative endeavors into complete futility. Linguistic norms are still genuinely useful to the extent that they allow their users to communicate the intended messages. However, this is the extent of the value of linguistics; there are no words without beings capable of rational thought, and there is no intrinsic meaning to any written or spoken word.
No comments:
Post a Comment