Mind your language!

'Does it matter what we call things?'. This is a question that has been occupying us in the Representation and Language part of AS English Language for the last couple of weeks... and much of what we've discussed has led us to conclude that the answer to this question is 'YES!'. As you know, we've been exploring the hypothesis that the langauge we use to represent (or label) something influences our perceptions of that thing. This is a view that seems to be supported by this article that ran in The Financial Times a couple of days ago.

The writer of the article discusses the language that is currently being used by politicians engaging in the debate about government spending cuts. According to a recent survey, voters are more likely to support proposed reductions in spending if they are talked about in terms of 'controls' rather than 'cuts'. This is not just anecdotal either - the survey claims that 76% of people would support 'controls' as an alternative to tak rises, while only 64% favoured 'cuts' over increased taxes. More fool Nick Clegg, then, for his comments about 'savage cuts'! The article goes on to explore some of the other terms being used too.

The issue of linguistic representation has cropped up in another recent article too. In what some might see as something of a regressive move, a new publication of the popular New International Version of the Bible is seeking to move away from some of the gender-neutral language used in the earlier Today's New International Version publication:

For instance, in some cases where original texts were not specific, the TNIV uses "children of God" instead of "sons of God", or "sister and brothers" instead of simply "brothers". Critics of the TNIV call its gender neutral pronouns inaccurate interpretations. However, others say such modifications can be more truthful to scripture's original intent.

The debate surrounds the issues of 'truth' and 'meaning':

One's interpretation of "Truth" may not be as simple as literally translating a text word for word. "People on both sides could argue their translation is more literally accurate," said UT Religious Studies Professor Christine Shepardson. "The difference comes much more so when you're talking about the meaning of the text." The "meaning" of the text refers to the intent of the original authors. "Do you want the most literal translation? In which case, if you're translating the English phrase 'break a leg', then you'll end up with the wrong meaning," Shepardson said. "Or do you want the most accurate meaning of the text? Then you're opening it up to the person's interpretation of that meaning."

It's an interesting argument, the key element of which is the notion that the manipulation of language can alter people's perceptions of meaning and ultimately, perhaps, their view of 'truth'.. and this is what Representation and Language is all about.