There was a lot to think about in John Locke's An Essay on Human Understanding. I was particularly struck by Locke's position on what he deems "the abuse of words". Locke states, "First, Words fail in the first of these ends, and lay not open one man’s ideas to another’s view: 1. When men have names in their mouths without any determinate ideas in their minds, whereof they are the signs: or, 2. When they apply the common received names of any language to ideas, to which the common use of that
language does not apply them: or, 3. When they apply them very unsteadily, making them stand, now for one, and by and by for another idea"(825).
To start with, I love the idea of men speaking with no ideas in their minds. We've all done this - speak first and think later (or worse, don't think at all), so I love that this is perceived not just as a slip of the tongue as we might deem it, but rather as an abuse of language. Locke is not very forgiving in this regard.
Next, I have always been fascinated by word etymology and semantic change, so I am very interested in Locke's supposition that the change in the meaning of a word constitutes abuse of words. I think it is awesome that words like "awesome" have changed meanings so significantly over the course of time. Of course, from a rhetorical stand point, it does make sense to argue for the consistent use of language to effectively persuade an audience...
Mandy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say " it is awesome that words like "awesome" have changed meanings so significantly over the course of time." Even though the evolution of language can make things more complicated I believe it is a vital part of language. With the advancement of technology we not only get new terms for technology but we have gotten an entirely new form of writing with "text speak." Seeing the use of "ur" and "r" and the places we could potentially see these being used in as little as a generation is fascinating. While Locke considers evolution of definition and language "abuse of words" it can be interesting to see it as a growth instead.
It is interesting to think of his position on the evolution of our language and the change in meaning we see for many of our words. What would he think of us now, if her were here. We'll put aside the outrageous women he would run into if he were to magically appear in 2015 and simply focus on the words. What would he think of some of the regional dialects we have here in the United States, particularly from the deep south? I imagine that he would be quite disgusted by the way many Americans use language. But who is Locke to pass judgement on the evolution of language or to say whether a semantic change brought about by time and a changing common usage is good or bad?
ReplyDeleteHis own tongue, by the time he was able to use it had undergone so many changes, it is hard to look at his opinion of the evolution of language and not think him a hypocrite....