1. The impact of increasing cognitive load by muddying language. Thinking and speaking (or writing) are not really separate tasks. Increasing the cognitive load by introducing neologisms makes it harder to think unless one dispenses with them immediatel…
1. The impact of increasing cognitive load by muddying language. Thinking and speaking (or writing) are not really separate tasks. Increasing the cognitive load by introducing neologisms makes it harder to think unless one dispenses with them immediately.
2. The younger generation will inherit a muddied lexicon, thereby making clear and articulate thinking on this issue next to impossible. I've experienced this myself many times as a student--things I had already thought but hadn't been able to articulate suddenly became easy to express once my vocabulary expanded. Reducing or destroying the lexicon doesn't prevent us from having thoughts, but it does prevent them from being articulate.
In other words, the extent of the power of language *itself* isn't the main (or even most pressing) issue. It's the other elements that hitch along for the ride.
I would also differentiate between the deliberate obscurantism at play here with the euphemism escalator* (re: "colored" vs. "Negro") argument as they are fundamentally different things.
*Euphemism *treadmill* is the term, I believe. My bad--I'm up past my bedtime, ha.
Very interesting conversational thread, thanks.
Two missing elements, by my estimation:
1. The impact of increasing cognitive load by muddying language. Thinking and speaking (or writing) are not really separate tasks. Increasing the cognitive load by introducing neologisms makes it harder to think unless one dispenses with them immediately.
2. The younger generation will inherit a muddied lexicon, thereby making clear and articulate thinking on this issue next to impossible. I've experienced this myself many times as a student--things I had already thought but hadn't been able to articulate suddenly became easy to express once my vocabulary expanded. Reducing or destroying the lexicon doesn't prevent us from having thoughts, but it does prevent them from being articulate.
In other words, the extent of the power of language *itself* isn't the main (or even most pressing) issue. It's the other elements that hitch along for the ride.
I would also differentiate between the deliberate obscurantism at play here with the euphemism escalator* (re: "colored" vs. "Negro") argument as they are fundamentally different things.
*Euphemism *treadmill* is the term, I believe. My bad--I'm up past my bedtime, ha.