A plague o' both your parties!*
Stay with me. I have a point here.
I've been reading a lot of Renaissance literature lately. I really respect and envy the complexity of the language used then. The Renaissance author -- and person -- cleverly disguises his meaning with phrases that have multiple meanings and innuendoes.
There's a reason for this. The Renaissance period in England can be traced to roughly around the beginning of the 16th C.E. This was a little while after the War of the Roses and during the Tudor Dynasty. (Help me out if I'm wrong here, Genevieve.) The Tudor dynasty was characterized by vast executions, religious turmoil, and overall uneasiness in the political, social, and religious sectors of England. (All of these sectors were interrelated, so unrest in one sector led to unrest in EVERY sector.)
So people got really good at hiding their meanings. They camouflaged their speech so as not to be tagged as blasphemous or traitorous. But their peers were just as adept at deciphering the hidden meanings, so the point of the author was never lost. Several generations were brought up to understand this complexity of language, and the works of literature written in that era convey that intricacy.
In our day, in our country, we can say whatever we want. We have complete freedom of speech. (I'm sure people can argue that our freedom of speech has again become limited since September 11th. But there are no beheadings, being burned at the stake, or even arrests in our days simply for stating an opinion that is against government or church authority. And I'm sure that will be argued in the comments section.) Our speech has become plain. WYSIWYG, if you will. ("What you see is what you get.") There are political activists that blatantly criticize our president, government officials, and military officials. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are pros and cons to this freedom of speech. But our language is so simple and minimal now. There is no complexity of language because we can say whatever we want without severe repercussions.
When did this simple speech begin? When did we have to stop hiding our meanings behind allegories, allusions, metaphors? Was it the 60s? After McCartyism? Or do you think we still have a complexity of language? (It can be argued that slang is allegorical and a way for a younger generation to camouflage meaning from older generations.) What do you think?
*The title was the result of a joint brainstorm by Sara and me.
I've been reading a lot of Renaissance literature lately. I really respect and envy the complexity of the language used then. The Renaissance author -- and person -- cleverly disguises his meaning with phrases that have multiple meanings and innuendoes.
There's a reason for this. The Renaissance period in England can be traced to roughly around the beginning of the 16th C.E. This was a little while after the War of the Roses and during the Tudor Dynasty. (Help me out if I'm wrong here, Genevieve.) The Tudor dynasty was characterized by vast executions, religious turmoil, and overall uneasiness in the political, social, and religious sectors of England. (All of these sectors were interrelated, so unrest in one sector led to unrest in EVERY sector.)
So people got really good at hiding their meanings. They camouflaged their speech so as not to be tagged as blasphemous or traitorous. But their peers were just as adept at deciphering the hidden meanings, so the point of the author was never lost. Several generations were brought up to understand this complexity of language, and the works of literature written in that era convey that intricacy.
In our day, in our country, we can say whatever we want. We have complete freedom of speech. (I'm sure people can argue that our freedom of speech has again become limited since September 11th. But there are no beheadings, being burned at the stake, or even arrests in our days simply for stating an opinion that is against government or church authority. And I'm sure that will be argued in the comments section.) Our speech has become plain. WYSIWYG, if you will. ("What you see is what you get.") There are political activists that blatantly criticize our president, government officials, and military officials. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are pros and cons to this freedom of speech. But our language is so simple and minimal now. There is no complexity of language because we can say whatever we want without severe repercussions.
When did this simple speech begin? When did we have to stop hiding our meanings behind allegories, allusions, metaphors? Was it the 60s? After McCartyism? Or do you think we still have a complexity of language? (It can be argued that slang is allegorical and a way for a younger generation to camouflage meaning from older generations.) What do you think?
*The title was the result of a joint brainstorm by Sara and me.
posted by Lauren | 11:44 AM
15 Comments:
I think our language has lost much of its intricacy and beauty, but not necessarily because we are more "free." I think a lot of it had to do with the modernist movements in literature and poetry which emphasized plainness and stark writing, and mocked the supposedly over-wrought work of past generations; like children they rejected what had come before and proclaimed whatever seemed newest to be better and freer. This led to a debasement and degeneration of the language artistically, as people slowly hopped on the bandwagon. People think that past generations were restricted/confined by their conventions and that we are now liberated and capable of pursuing some nebulous ideal of "true art." The sad thing is, these people criticise something they can't even hope to reproduce. People no longer appreciate the beauty and complexity of the English language, seeing it as bricks and mortar for building rather than a loom on which to weave. My two cents anyway.
The Tudor period really is one of the most exciting in our history. in terms of politics it's still quite a brutal and unenlightened time, but that brutality of life is starting to give way to the wonders of early technology, new religious ideas, the influence of world exploration and the flourishing of the arts, and in England when it comes to "the arts" the pen is king. Whereas in Italy it is painting, sculpture and architecture, in Germany and Austria it is music, in England writing - drama, literature, poetry - has been our greatest gift to the world.
Thinking about the simplification of language... When you read a Victorian novel the language is not as complex as that which you refer to, but you still have to read it with your finger in the notes section so you can look up the footnotes explaining all the references to the classics, history, etc. Those books were written for popular consumption, and yet they assumed a significant amount of knowledge/education on the part of the reader. I think that much of what we read now is stripped not just of it's densely- layered language but also it's density of content. Little is expected of anyone. English is the simplist language on earth grammatically - that's part of it's great success as a world language. I think a need for simplistic language has a lot to do with the broad, often world-wide audience. Nothing can be assumed, everything must be as simple and universal as possible. There will always be people who write for a treasured audience of just a few, but that is not valued in our society. We have been seduced by the idea of reaching as many people as possible. That so many people can be reached is truly a miracle, but not all the results are positive.
Ian: Was the Modernist movement a biproduct of increased freedoms? (I think so, but you might not.) I hadn't thought about Modernism being a factor. Hmm. Interesting. I'll have to think about that a little more.
G: So do you think that the simplification of the language had something to do with globalization? It would make sense. I think that maybe it had something to do with the rise of the middle class. Maybe? I don't know. I'll have to think about that a little more, too.
Good points guys. That's exactly the kind of stuff I was fishing for. Goooood stuff.
Genevieve: I think grammatically there are languages simpler and more straightforward than English. In many ways it has been the complexities and seeming inconsistencies of English that define our verbal arts. In "1984" one of George Orwell's characters attributes the entire history of English poetry to the fact that so few of our words rhyme, which I think is a pretty fair assessment.
Lauren: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think I have a different understanding of artistic history. One could see Modernism as a product of increased freedom, but the proponents of those "freedoms" sought to impose their own values and orders on the very culture they claimed to liberate. Similar to the way Modernism, under the banner of liberating poetry and prose, began to enforce its own aesthetic ideals and impose its own vision of "true art". Just try submitting a sonnet in a contemporary poetry class, for instance! Or even something that rhymes! The modern and post-modern ideals have become as restrictive and tyrannical as the movements they claimed to be abandoning/freeing us from. I guess that's what I meant.
Ooh! What do you think about the assertions that improved technology has contributed to the decaying/degredation of our language? I hear that all the time; it's most often laid at the door of e-mail and Instant Messaging programs, but it could be applied to other arenas as well.
If true, could modern Western society's increasingly close relationship to "Science" as a whole be a contributing factor to the simplification and arguable degeneration of the language's artistic potential?
I'll think more about this after midterms.
English is definitely the easiest language to learn. That's according to my Dad, the linguist and English teacher. I could happily write for hours about the grammar, but this isn't the place for that. Just trust me. I'm getting shivers up my spine just thinking about all the exciting conversations we could have about grammatical constructs and language groups. Ok, I must restrain myself.
Yeah, maybe "modernists" impose their "freedoms" on others, as you say, Ian, but I think what Lauren means in this post, is that modernists would not have been able to do that if it weren't for the political/religious freedom we have. Modernism is a result of the liberties we have in our world today.
Also, I think a relatively small number of people have that "close relationship" with science. It is my experience that the general public does not have an understanding of scientific principles and language -- except that they use the products developed by the small group of scientists. And I think that small group has an amazing understanding of language. Have you ever read poetry and books by doctors? Some of the best scientists, in my opinion, are interdisciplinary -- they're brains are a wonderful blend of science and humanism. I think it's because both disciplines lend themselves well to each other. No, I don't think our scientific/technological world is a cause of poor language usage.
I see your point, though. Perhaps the laziness that often accompanies technology bleeds into a laziness of language. But I'm not entirely sure that is true. I think that for some people, technological advancement forces us to use our language in new ways -- some of them not so simplistic and/or incorrect.
I'm still thinking, though, and will post more later.
P.S. I REALLY liked Genevieve's first comment. It was delightful!
I guess I see the "liberties" we possess as the holdovers from the Enlightenment, when people tried to cram new ideas down the collective gullet ostensibly out of a desire to free humanity from the hold of superstition and ignorance. Like so many movements, its revolutionary concepts became normative and eventually replaced the dogma they were trying to overthrow. But that's all contingent on my own interpretation of history.
In regards to "science," I meant it more in the sense in which our culture has imbibed so heavily from past generations' approach to the sciences and reason. One can participate in a culture influenced by a concept without ever really understanding the concept itself.
And yep, Genevieve always rocks! Always, withour exception! :D
"That modernists would not have been able to do that if it weren't for the political/religious freedom we have. Modernism is a result of the liberties we have in our world today." Exactly, Sara. That's exactly what I meant.
I'll have to read your comments a couple more times until I comment on them. Which won't happen until after Wednesday.
Meh. Take your time. ;D I think I've identified the disconnect between our perspectives; I generally believe that any liberty is gained by surrendering or losing another. Sort of like the Law of Equivalent Exchange: "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost."
Sort of like the way in which Milton's Lucifer exchanges the bliss and goodness of Heaven for apparent independence and supremacy in Hell. Or the overall Christian belief that greater freedom is gained by abandoning the freedom to Sin.
I think I'm looking beyond the mark. Because I see modern liberties/freedoms as things we've exchanged OTHER freedoms to possess, I've been effectively blind to your point of view. If I don't apply that part of my cynical take on life THEN I get where you're coming from. :D
Yeah, I agree. Like increased freedoms from wiretapping and increased security. Gotcha.
Later.
So we exchange certain freedoms for others. That's still really beside the point. Lauren's point fits in nicely with that whole argument. That is, those freedoms (mainly the Freedom of Speech, I think) have resulted in people saying whatever they want, even if it isn't clever/subversive/secretive.
Hence the last paragraph of my post. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home