Language needs to be used sensibly

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Among slushies and not-quite-opiate power shots, I realized that in this… ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Among slushies and not-quite-opiate power shots, I realized that in this convenience mart language had become shipwrecked somewhere between stupidity and senselessness. Propped above the cash register was a sign that happily reported, ‘We do not charge a premium on credit card purchases. However, we do offer a 35-cent discount for cash purchases, which is already factored into the prices displayed.’ After saying a short eulogy to language, I purchased my candy bar with all nickels, sadly countenancing my seven-nickel discount. ‘ ‘ ‘ At first glance, there seems to be nothing terribly egregious about this dancing around merchant agreements that prohibit an extra charge for customers using a credit card. In fact, such use of English is barbarism which pries language from its roots. ‘ ‘ ‘ The simple assumption that this semantic sleight of hand rests upon is that one merely has to pay lip service to words as dictionary meanings rather than treat words as they are used. ‘Discount’ may be defined, simply, as ‘paying less for something than someone else pays,’ but no one actually uses the word in this stripped-down way. ‘No sir, you are not getting a speeding ticket. You have just lost your right to participate in the discount that non-speeders pay to the government.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ The simple lesson thus far: If we imagine words to have some meaning outside of normal practice, we will soon run afoul of sensible usage. ‘ ‘ ‘ Consider a less trivial scenario: gay marriage. Obama steadfastly disavows gay marriage. However, he supports allowing gay couples to engage in unions that have all the legal rights of marriage. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, no matter the drake-on-drake action. If we allow language to be used in this highly artificial manner, the stakes here are higher than our quick-e-mart illustration. ‘ ‘ ‘ And in this case, not only is language being abused, but the government is asserting a right to rule how we use language. The government only has the right to see things as they pertain to law, not to language. In governmental logic, two things that are identical in the eyes of the law should be identical. ‘ ‘ ‘ So what’s the remedy to these ridiculous abuses of language? We need a return to the idea that meaning only exists in context, that meaning is the result of the system of language rather than its components. Otherwise, we will continually be the patsy for these semantic shell games. ‘ ‘ ‘ We accept the asinine convenience store tariff and language legislation because we have developed a view of language that allows words to have meanings completely by themselves. Rather, ‘discount’ only makes sense in a situation where there is some pre-established price in excess of the discount. ‘ ‘ ‘ The manufacturer’s price printed on the store’s wares suggest that, unless the mart contacted the manufacturer and requested they mark 35 cents off all of its marketing, the discounted price is actually the base price. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘Marriage’ is thornier as it means different things in different contexts. In a political context, it refers to the way in which taxes, hospitals, censuses, etc. see you. In a religious context, it means … well, lots of other things. However, to use the religious meaning of marriage in a political context is not being slippery, it is being meaningless. ‘ ‘ ‘ Now, I am sure someone is objecting that language changes over time, and that maybe ‘discount’ can mean something independent of base price and ‘marriage’ can mean the same thing in politics and religion. This is true. However, the linguistic nonsense that is going on right now works precisely because these words are not currently used in this way. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ It might seem extreme to call these uses of language meaningless. After all, I know exactly what to do when I punch debit and fork over three and a half dimes. I understand the words the candidates say about gay marriage, so what is so meaningless? The nonsense of these constructions comes precisely because we don’t really know what these uses of language mean or how to respond to them. This gray area keeps the credit card suits off the mart and the voters in Obama’s stall. ‘ ‘ ‘ Whereas in meaningful language, we are taught how to respond. These meaningless farces leave us paralyzed. We need to demand a return to context. Else, we will be hogtied by nice arrangements of letters and sounds. Babble with Erik at ech15@pitt.edu.