Every individual group on some level has their own language. These group can be as broad as various generations, to groups based off of geographical location, or even just a group of people who use a specialized vocabulary due to their job. These various sets of jargon can be a small part of the language or can be so large that they act as an age which excludes outsiders from being able to to easily understand or communicate with members of said group. An are where this specialized use of language is very common are during times of war. Armed forces themselves use a separated lexicon for various operations, but the general public also has to come up with terms to identify and deal with what is going on around them.
In an article by Keith Woods, “Take Back the Language” this dividing line of language is addressed. The focus of the article is about how journalist must be careful of how much military jargon the use while reporting. This may seem like a fairly acute group of people who need to be concerned with how they use a language that is mostly foreign to them, but the language is filtered through the journalists to the public. Therefore, if they miss use a word, the public will then take it and run with it.
Woods states, “The language of the military, like that of the local police department or civil court, can be muddled in obtuse, euphemistic jargon that has the seductive quality of making journalists sound like they’re in the know. But language has always had a power that tilts toward those who define the terms.”
The problem highlighted in the article is not the development of a specialized language, its the use of this lexicon out of context. The words don’t have the same meaning when you remove them from a combat situation. And when the are implemented by the public without noting that they are from a specialized set of language, their use and definitions become even more confused.
“The trouble comes when journalists adopt the language, take it out of quotation marks, remove the modifiers that tell viewers and listeners that this is someone else’s language. Then the patriotism, the nobility, the testosterone-infused terminology slip insidiously into the cracks of our independence and erode one of the profession’s cornerstones.” (Woods)
This article reminded me of a section of a text we’re reading in my War & Peace literature class, Survival in Auschwitz: If This Is A Man by Primo Levi. However, on top of their being certain language developed inside of the camp, a hybrid of all of the languages spoken among the prisoners,
the basic “meaning in the Lager of the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ ” (Levi 61) have been altered to be subjective to one’s situation.
Also, Levi sees that there is something lacking in all of the languages.
“Then, for the first time, we became aware that our language lacks words to express this offense, the demolition of a man.” (Levi 16)
This implies that amongst the various languages spoken within the barbed wire fences, there is no word that can identify the atrocities committed there. The things that Levi and his companions went through is beyond the comprehension of language. As for myself, I’m not sure I’d want to know of the word that could be created to easily convey what happened in Auschwitz.
I think that you bring up a good point here. Language does need to be looked at within its context. I really enjoyed the quote you used that said taking military language out of its context ruins one of the cornerstones of the profession. I must say that I agree with that statement. It is impossible to know what a solider in combat is going through and to think of the language they use without paying special attention to why or how they are using it does them discredit. I like how you tied that into Levi’s use of language. I think it attests to the fact that language is often a victim of circumstance. It is created out of the situation in which it appears. Also, I agree, if there is a word that can encapsulate the reality of Auschwitz I would not want to know it.
Comment by brenbernard — October 29, 2009 @ 6:17 pm