After writing my previous post, I was thinking about the power of words. However, the meaning is not embodied in the word itself, but rather the concept behind the word. According to linguistics, words are (almost always) arbitrary. Therefore, the word itself does not hold any special meaning, but rather connects with a specific idea separate from itself.
"Welfare" is a word that carries with it a lot of emotion and many different perceptions. I found it incredibly interesting that the term "welfare" was adopted in response to negative connotations with the words "charity" and "philanthropy." New Keywords states that these words were, "saturated with associations of patronage, discrimination, and scrutiny of the poor by their 'betters'" (371) Like "stewardess" and "waitress," these words were deemed unacceptable. (Wikipedia actually redirects searches on "waitress" to "waiting staff.") However, unlike stewardess and waitress, there was nothing within the word itself that housed the negativity (like the feminine "-ess" suffix). Though gender was removed in the feminized terms, and their neutrality corrected the associated negativity, it was impossible to remove the discrimination of the poor inherent in "charity" and "philanthropy." The feelings then associated with them simply transferred to the new word, welfare. Today, charity and philanthropy are very positive words, and bring to mind pleasant ideas of generosity.
Though this train of thought is definitely abstract, I think that it is useful to keep in mind in our study of words. Like the idea of word "theory" discussed in class today, words just portray an idea of something and are not really concrete in themselves. Their meanings can shift and evolve to the times, continually transforming the language and culture that they describe.
1 comment:
"However, the meaning is not embodied in the word itself, but rather the concept behind the word. ... Therefore, the word itself does not hold any special meaning, but rather connects with a specific idea separate from itself." I am curious about the physicality and spatiality assumed in these sentences of yours. Are concepts really 'behind' words? Can words actually 'hold' things? How can a word be both 'connected to' and 'separate from' a "specific idea"? For that matter, what is a non-specific idea, and how would a word relate to such an idea? These are complicated linguistic conundrums, for sure, and my point here is merely to raise awareness as to how we use spatial and physical terms to describe both how language works, as well as perform its limits. I especially like the way you use the Wikipedia example to back up your point; that helps your post be clear and convincing.
Post a Comment