on history, language, and other things

Recently, a friend sent me this article from Brit newspaper The Observer on the importance of history. It was a well-written, nay, passionately-argued speech, written with verve and style by one of Britain's most versatile talents to launch a campaign promoting the study of history in the UK. Yet, for all my ability to appreciate his ideas at an intellectual level, i just could not connect with them at a deeper, emotional level. By that, i mean that the aha! moment, when written word and felt emotion come together to ignite that spark of mutual recognition, just never happened. The study of history just doesn't mean as much to me as it means to Stephen Fry.

In contrast, the following piece on the place of language in our world today had me in a swoon. Fry's speech is better-written, and maybe even more coherent - his use of language, ironically, more creative and more fluent than that in the article on language. Yet, the language article has resonance - speaks about something i feel strongly for, so that even though i don't actually agree with much of what it says, it at least elicits a definite and immediate response from me.

(Perhaps all the things we care about, we care about without reason. In the final analysis, all our loves defy rational explanation - try as we might to give them a name and a face that will somehow validate them in the eyes of the wondering world. So Stephen Fry has an unreasonable conviction that history matters, just as i have an unreasonable conviction that language matters. And perhaps that is as far as we will ever get to really understanding the people around us - accepting that what we do and what we love stems from something beyond reason, beyond logic, and that this is as far as our shared humanity will ever extend.)

Here it is. Let me know what you think, either about this article, or the one on history. It'll be good to hear what other people have to say.



.........................................Re-Making Language


Samuel Johnson called language "the dress of thought". Like a dress, the choice and use of language reflect much about the user. Language hints at a person's history and suggests what he is oging to be in the future. Looking at and touching a person's carefully tailored dress, or better yet, a wardrobe of clothes, is an intriguing experience because it casts light on personality, attitude and intention. In our language is revealed how we see ourselves and what we want ourselves to become.

Language in all its variety and complexity is the tangible manifestation of human thought. Sadly, language is fast becoming something that people take for granted. The rise of postmodernity brings new attitudes: preferences for instant gratification, voracious, indiscriminate consumerism and quick disposal. Taking time to consider the meaning of a word, the potentiality of words arranged together in a certain way - all this appears impractical and slow. Yet surely, even in our prompt new millennium, making or re-making anything worthwhile and meaningful requires deliberation. The careless use of language reflects a lack of coherent and rigorous thought. More insidiously, it implies a lack of concern for what we are communicating and the person we are communicating with.

Yet postmodernity and its technological advancements need not only be seen as destructive. One example of how it offers us new possibilities in communication can be seen in the integration of different languages in on-line diaries, or blogs. Reading a well-maintained one can be a fascinating experience for the senses, often combining the written word with voice, music, art and photography. Another example is the creation of different text types as language is transformed in the technological age. Globalised shorthand, newly-coined words, emoticons, new ways of using punctuation marks - these are the postmodern innovations of written language. As the children of a brand new millennium, we are presented with the special opportunity to consider how technological advancements can enrich language, and to chart directions for this continued collaboration.

We have already begun the process of making our old dress into a new one. We have realised that it is threadbare in some places, that its once vibrant colours have waned. Now, as we consider how we will wash it, dye it, alter its style, or add a new neckline, we are also exploring who we are and who we want to be. It is time to re-make our dress. It is time to re-make language.

To re-make language, we have to know the power of language. It is no mere tool for the expression of ideas. Beyond this, language is both a repository and creator of a society's knowledge, history, culture and politics. Language shapes identity. There are many exciting questions to explore: How does a dialect or a pidgin, once marginalised, metamorphose to become a representation of a nation's unity and independence? We have inheritance from the east and west, from past and present, from the written word to the gesturing hand. What shall we preserve, re-invent, re-create, add to, appropriate? How shall we fit into language our sensibilities, reflecting within it our perceptions of our place and time in human history? As we re-make language, we re-make ourselves and our society.

Language is not limited to words alone. Equally communicative, rich, exciting and beautiful can e the language found in the sweep of a dancer's arm, an actor's tremulous expression, an impressionistic dash of colour on a canvas, a single piano note. Whether we speak the language of words, art, dance, mime or music, this language should be meticulously considered and powerful in its delivery - astonishing even, but never ostentatious, exclusionary or self-absorbed. It can be inspired by past wisdom or be radically new. Re-make language so that it can once again touch and change lives. Restore its power not only to express, but actively define experience. In turn, let it re-make a thought, a person, a people, a nation.


(from the opening speech given at the Creative Arts Seminar 2006, Singapore)



[Geeky editorial comments:

i don't agree with all of this. Firstly, the idea of re-making language needs more careful consideration. It is so Singaporean to want to re-make things. Perhaps we need to give some thought to understanding and preserving what is of value before rushing headlong into changing the world as we know it. (i mean, emoticons? SMS shorthand? Save us from the day when these become legitimate forms of 'language'.) Also, this clearly sees language as a means to an end - in this case, the not-so-hidden agenda seems to be that language should help in nation-building: an assumption that carries its own implications. i am also rather dubious about that attempt in the last paragraph to include the 'language' of other art forms in the scope of this argument. Perhaps it was necessary to do so - this was, after all, the opening speech given at the Creative Arts Seminar, and i suppose the speaker had to bring in the other art forms somehow. It does strike me as rather contrived, though.

End of geeky editorial comments.]
...
...