Peter Trudgill argues that overtime the meanings of words have been changed by society in order to fit the general understanding of a word. He defends his argument against people that claim the definition of a word should come from its origin. However, Trudgill illustrates the transition words have undergone throughout history, and how those affects are arbitrary to when it comes to communication now. First, Trudgill demonstrates the transition of the word “aggravate”. Aggravate come from the Latin word “aggravare”, which means ‘to make heavier’. English borrowed this word and the definition became ‘to make more serious’. Now the common definition of “aggravate” is to ‘irritate’. Trudgill goes on to give another example of the word “nice”. “Nice comes from the ancient Indo-European word “skei” meaning ‘cut’ (skei” came from the Latin word “scire” which is ‘to know’ or to ‘be able to distinguish one thing from another’) and “ne” meaning ‘no’. The two words were combined into “nescire” which meant ‘to be ignorant of’. From “nescire” the word changed to “nescius” meaning ‘ignorant’, and then changed “nice”, which at …show more content…
Also, many of his examples seemed more like he was trying to compare synonymous words, such as, “disinterested” and “uninterested”, and “borrow” and “lend”. Maybe this difference is because language has already changed enough to make the words synonymous in nature since this book has been written. With that being said, it would have been nice to see examples of language change that were more commonly used today in everyday speech, such as the word “solid”. Where “solid” could mean ‘not hallow’, ‘doing a favor for someone’, ‘dependable’, or ‘awesome’. Overall, I agree with Trudgill’s concept of language forever changing to fit what society agrees upon as correct
1 Wilson Follett, in the article “On Usage, Purism, Pedantry” from Modern American Usage, promotes how two parties view the rights and wrongs concerning the usage of language.
“I also knew that, while I had many things to say, I did not have the words to say them. Painfully aware of my limitations, I watched helplessly as language became an obstacle. It became clear that it would be necessary to invent a new language. But how was one to rehabilitate and transform words betrayed and perverted by the enemy? Hunger-thirst-fear-transport-selection-fire-chimney: these words all have intrinsic meaning, but in those times, they meant something else” (p.
As the English language was beginning to develop, words were being borrowed from the French, Latin, and Scandinavian. Majority of the words used in the diary entry are words from each of these countries. For example, the lexis ‘Admerall’ was of a French origin. The lexis ‘gunnes’ was of a Scandinavian orgin and finally the lexis ‘nobull’ was of a Latin origin. All these words are commonly used in Present Day English, however, the spelling of the words are dissimilar. Large-scale borrowing of new words often had serious consequences for the meanings and the stylistic register of those words, but, various new stylistic layers emerged in the lexicon, which could be employed for a variety of different
A wedding band can mean love or it can mean bondage. In Gloria Naylor’s essay “The Meaning of a Word,” she goes in-depth about the essence of the meaning of words. The main idea is that words must mean, and its meaning will change based on the use and content. Some words are so hateful in the English language that it should be banned altogether. Even though some words should be omitted I fear that it will not happen because once a word is introduced it cannot be taken away, freedom of speak, and society has given their own meaning to several words which will impede the process of removing any words in general.
Treichler, Paula A. “Language and Ambiguity.” The Awakening, A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Margo Culley.
Regarding the motion of the English language, Tocqueville states, “Democratic nations, moreover, like movement for itself. This is seen in language as well as in politics. Even when they do not have the need to change words, they sometimes feel the desire to do it” (453). In analyzing current American English, one can see that a need really does not exist to create words or give old words new meaning, yet words like “hype” develop new meanings. The word “hype” formally meant to “intensify,” but now it is used in everyday speech to mean “excited.” Even though the word “excited” was sufficient enough to cover the subject, younger Americans sought to transform the word anyway. Tocqueville also notes that Americans “sometimes placed together words that in the language of the mother country were customarily kept separate” (453). One cannot deny that the English language often combines words for convenience and efficiency of speech. This phenomenon especially exists in “text speak” with words such as “chillax” and “brunch.” The word “chillax” combines the separate words “chill” and “relax,” and the word “brunch” fuses the distinct words “breakfast” and “lunch.” The notion of making words more efficient developed from America’s taste for industry. Tocqueville remarks, “the heart of democracy tends, on the contrary, to renew constantly the face of language like that of business” (453). Americans are preoccupied with industry, so their language serves as a reflection of their habits and even provides a means of promoting business. Though the English language seems to be increasingly adding words and phrases to the dictionary, some words and concepts are actually falling into disuse. On this subject, Tocqueville writes, “The language will constantly stretch in that direction [towards industry], whereas on the contrary it will abandon little by little
The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, “Making Peace in the Language Wars”, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that of the prescriptivist.
In Johnson’s preface to A Dictionary of the English Language, Johnson argues the importance of preserving language. Other dialects had a produced their own dictionaries, such as the French and Italians. Various writers of the eighteenth century were alarmed at the fact that there was no standard for the English language, since there was no standard it could easily become extinct. Johnson explored many points, such as how and why languages change as well as how many words are formed.
Living in a world where the smallest misuse of words can lead to someone feeling offended; the use of certain words should be kept to a simple meaning. In the pieces the biggest arguments that were used was the fact that people disliked the use of certain words leading few of the writers to feel offended. By simplifying the meanings or limiting words to have a specific meaning, the English language would be more easily accepted by people from different aspects of the language.
As an amateur linguist, I am fascinated by words. Their origins and meanings help me to better relate to my surroundings and specific concepts. Many would say that one can not begin to understand a word or concept until a meaning is agreed upon. John Locke wrote in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1977) that words signify ideas, and furthermore that if a person can not identify the idea behind the word then the words are lacking in meaning (Kemerling, 2001). This agreement in terminology regarding key concepts is a culmination of my research into word origins, and as defined by Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn in the text Organizational Behavior (2005). Once a concept is defined I can learn from its application in specific situations or experiences therefore; giving the word significance.
We as humans express our opinions, personalities, and emotions through language but language is not merely verbal. We express language through writing and through our body movements. Through our language we innovate and share our ideas and because of this our societies continue to change and progress and as society changes and progresses so do we. For example, when the industrial revolutions occurred in the United States there were many new inventions and along with these inventions came more manufacturing and more factories. People began to move into the larger cities to take advantages of the work that was available in these new factories. People began to discard the agricultural way of subsistence and replaced it with industrialization. Along with the new innovations of the Industrial Revolution there were also new terms that were coined in various are...
—. Language: Readings in Language and Culture. 6th ed. New York: St. Martin's, 1998. Print.
According to Anne Curzan, a language historian, it's important to note that humans make dictionaries, therefore a dictionary only provides the opinions of the most commonly used meanings of a word. It's not a set list of “right definitions” because people use them differently for how they see fit. Words’ meanings can evolve over time due to slang usage and the influence of other languages and cultures. When a bigger group of people discover a slang version of a word, it might become popular, which could make that the most common meaning for the word. Also, a word in one society might mean something completely different in another society. If languages or cultures intertwine with others, then the common definitions used might change with it. All of this can contribute to the evolution of a word's meaning, and this is acceptable because even though words may change over time, so does the language as a whole
Curzan, Anne and Adams, Michael. How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006
Baugh, A.C., & Cable, T. (2001). A history of the English language (5th ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.