I had an interesting revelation this week: Human language is both liberating and confining to human ideas. This may seem highly esoteric and metaphysical, but as always, I'll ask you to bear with me.
This revelation was actually something that occurred to me while trying to write in some edits for my novel after I had been listening to a Japanese language CD.
So first of all, what do I mean when I say that language is both liberating and confining? Well, obviously language is what allows humans to communicate with one another. But how does it allow humans to communicate? By simplifying ideas into more manageable pieces that another person can understand. For example, examine the difference between these two sentences:
A person went to the market.
I went to the market.
The word "I" communicates that well, I, went to the market, and not any one of 6 billion others on the planet. Language is functional because it constrains ideas. It limits the way that we can communicate a thought so that the thoughts meaning (what we wish to convey to others), is not open to interpretation.
If it were, we would be unable to communicate ideas effectively, and human progress would stop. For fun, see if you can figure out what I am trying to communicate here (don't get overwhelmed, they're easy):
Me...Me, Twins
Eye, Anti-Diamond
Simple Apple Circle
Actually, it would be fun to see what people think in comments. It might give a clue to how differently people think. Come up with your answers and then leave a comment with your solutions. I'll put my answers as a comment.
So, are you finished looking at those? What is the point I am making? Well, here is the interesting thing: As a writer, I am often trying to do just the opposite. I want certain things open to interpretation. Characters and places feel more alive when the reader can inject their own thoughts into it, because our own perspective is the most real. Language allows us to understand others perspectives to a degree, but never to the same amount as our own constant internal dialogue (and let me tell you, after the conversations I've had with that Jon guy... man, he's nuts). This struggle to convey ideas while leaving them open to interpretation or escape the boundaries of language is the same problem that inventors, thinkers, and thousands of others face as well, especially when trying to convey a new and original idea. It is a fascinating balancing act.
But let's add a new dimension to this discussion, how does each language impact the thoughts and culture of the country or people it is used by? Each language communicates thoughts and ideas differently, changing the way both that those ideas are expressed, and how people think about them. French, Spanish, German, they all have masculine and feminine forms and words, conveying certain traits and ideas automatically. Take the word chair. In English, it has no masculine or feminine modifier. Do you consider the object differently if is la chaise (as in French feminine)? I think it is impossible not to. Why are certain words modified in a certain way?
And others languages are entirely different. Take Japanese, which relies on the simplest of syllables and sometimes using words in the same way I expressed them in the game above. An entirely different method of thinking is required to grasp and communicate in another language. And here is the most important part, at least for me - writers can often greatly improve their own writing by forcing another perspective upon themselves, either by having someone edit, or attempting to adopt that perspective themselves. How much can I improve my own writing by learning another language? We will just have to find out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
And here are the solutions:
1 + 1 = 2
See, it's not hard.
It's easy as apple pie!
Jon,
I am probably being too concrete; but, here goes:
1. Me...Me, Twins
a. Aye, Aye
b. Siamese
c. Me, too. (Me, two)
2. Eye, Anti-Diamond
a. iSoft
b. Eye-black
c. Pupil (black part of eye)
3. Simple Apple Circle
a. Pie
b. Π (Pi)
Also, writing as a friendly editory, you seem to be neglecting the possesive apostrophe in several instances in this blog. Clear communication requires precise language. Don't make your audience work too hard to understand you. Many people may not be able to write well or apply perfect spelling or grammar--but most are better at recognizing and appreciating good writing. While tapping the imagination of the reader to help complete the picture is valid and useful, the best authors "paint" a vivid, internally consistent (and therefore unconfusing) image in the reader's mental eye. Even the clearest written description leaves a thousand details to the reader's imagination. This is why the best books are rarely matched by movies--the director's screen possesses far fewer colors, "resolution" and details than does the reader's mind.
PS: "editory" is not really a word. I meant to type "editor". See what I mean about those typos adding confusion.
PPS: Famous Retractions from Journalism History:
"Last week we reported that Sean O'Leary is a defective on the police force. We meant to state that he is a detective on the police farce."
I am sorry it took so long for me to get around to abusing you on your blog. I shall strive to make up for my previous absence with copious amounts of perspicacious comments, or perhaps just obnoxious ones...
Post a Comment