People tend to use language as a surrogate for other issues, but sometimes language is the actual issue (or appears to be at least.) I thought of writing a post facetiously against language itself. After all, without language we wouldn't have insulting words at all! Instead, a brief list of what people (some people) don't like. Not everyone will dislike everything here, but this is what I hear the most frequently in recent days.
Change in general. People aren't happy about unfamiliar language, or about things changing. There would be a bias in favor of whatever they perceive to be the stasis, or what they are used to.
Neologisms and acronyms / initialisms. This could come under the category of change, as well. STEMM, instead of STEM. DEIB. Generally, they are seen to be bureaucratic or ugly.
Euphemisms can be disliked. This might come under the category of change, as well. There is a shift from homeless to unhoused. Same meaning, but a shift to soften or euphemize the term.
Language that is cowardly or mealy-mouthed, used out of fear of calling offense, or in order to strike an attitude. A kind of performative use of language designed to mark the speaker as part of the right side of history.
Language that is obfuscatory or blatantly dishonest, like "right-to-work" for anti-union laws. Orwellian language that makes us call things the opposite of what they are.
Some don't like terminology that seems verbose or fussy, using more words that necessary, or making fine distinctions where none are needed. The objection here is to the attitude behind the speech, the kind of person who would use language that way.
People (some people) don't like concept creep, where a term takes on new meanings. Violence (for things not literally violent), trauma (for things milder than older ideas of trauma. White supremacy (for just about anything, no longer tied to KKK ideas.) Triggered.
People don't like trivial or patently absurd objections to words, like the supposedly dehumanized phrase "the French," or recent questioning of the word "field" as tied to slavery.
People don't like the obsessive focus on language itself, the idea that a linguistic hygiene will resolve real issues. On the other hand, people do like to obsessively focus on language and force others to use it how they like it, or curtail certain usages that seem unobjectionable. You can't say the debate is trivial because it is merely linguistic. After all, we are symbolic creatures.
That's only a partial list. There's also jargon, minor grammatical peeves, and other categories I'm sure I'm missing.
No comments:
Post a Comment