Editor for this issue: Elaine Halleck <elaine
linguistlist.org>
In reply to:List 7.890 (which I have just noticed was raging two years ago. The machine will give my name as "Teruko", whereas it is in fact Michael Sandeman). David Harris observes, "If your speech partner doesn't know the other language, you make the attempt to stretch the functionality of the language s/he does understand in order to say as precisely as you can what it is you want to say". However, having found some points of interest in an article dealing with dignity in shougi, published in a Japanese newspaper, I wrote to the author seeking their clarification. In the reply I received there was a particularly puzzling passage, this was explained to me, by a friend, as having been inserted to make the meaning "more vague". There is a function of language, that may be instrumental in it's genesis, concerned with direct and simple communication. This seems to persist as the distinguishing factor in the growth of technical languages and perhaps also of slangs (though exclusionism is perhaps more important in the majority of the latter). The greater portion of spoken language, on the other hand, would seem to be recreational in function. The feeling one hopes to express is only approximated to by the language employed, communication is further distorted by one's interlocutor's relationship with the language and the ideas generated in them by it. This involves both parties in a distortion of their perceived realities amounting to intoxication. To my mind this distortion and it's accompanying intoxication is likely to provide a greater spur to originality than does the direct transfer of concepts. Whether or not it is more suited to the production of "bullshit" is another question. One is left with the image of a Japanese addressing a non-japanese speaking english speaker and trying to make, in english, the meaning as vague as possible.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue