Finally got round to writing something for the weblog. I could make all sorts of excuses but it all comes down to lack of time: or rather wishing to devote more time to other things. It doesn’t mean I’ve got nothing to say but I find myself posting my opinions on Facebook rather than on here. I suppose the reason is that one can get an instant response and in this soundbite world, that somehow seems more gratifying. I know that some people write screeds on Facebook but I don’t think that’s what it's for and so I very seldom read and almost never write long posts.
So why am I blathering on about this? Well, I have a thought. It concerns the use of language and the way an ill-constructed soundbite phrase can influence people in ways that the speaker/writer did not intend. Of course, some soundbites are very carefully constructed and repeated ad nauseam to try to influence people’s views and I lay before you the well-worn term “hardworking families” which the Tories have been intoning almost as a catechism at every opportunity (although it's paling a little as commentators point out that no matter how hard families work, they never seem to get anywhere).
A throwaway term I heard on the radio the other day had me pondering the importance of word placement. Reference was made to a “young homeless man” and I wondered why the speaker had not chosen to his adjectives in that particular order. Why was the subject not a “homeless young man”? This would have been technically correct but what the speaker was putting across (possibly not even intentionally) was the idea that “homeless man” is a thing. The semiotic impact of the term is unmistakable: A young homeless man is someone in a shop doorway; a beggar; a dog in a string; a beard; ragged. A homeless young man is not necessarily any of these things. Hearing the phrase does not have an immediate semiotic effect upon us. We may see a young chap fresh out of university or in his first job, searching the classified for a bed-sit; walking along a street alternately peering at door numbers and perusing a paper on which is written an address. The phrase does not signify.
We all take on roles which define us at any given time. I may be a driver but within seconds I can become a pedestrian, a shopper, a customer, a client, a passenger. TV news when interviewing people, likes to categorise: A weary-looking interviewee is named: Jim Bloggs (subtitle) FLOOD VICTIM; Janet Smith (subtitle) POST OFFICE USER; Lucy Jones (subtitle) PATIENT. Most of us, however, don't keep our labels and nor are we identified by them. But some of us are.
How easily a simple thing like adjectival order can unleash our prejudices. Perhaps if we all listen more carefully, we might not jump to so many conclusions.
So why am I blathering on about this? Well, I have a thought. It concerns the use of language and the way an ill-constructed soundbite phrase can influence people in ways that the speaker/writer did not intend. Of course, some soundbites are very carefully constructed and repeated ad nauseam to try to influence people’s views and I lay before you the well-worn term “hardworking families” which the Tories have been intoning almost as a catechism at every opportunity (although it's paling a little as commentators point out that no matter how hard families work, they never seem to get anywhere).
A throwaway term I heard on the radio the other day had me pondering the importance of word placement. Reference was made to a “young homeless man” and I wondered why the speaker had not chosen to his adjectives in that particular order. Why was the subject not a “homeless young man”? This would have been technically correct but what the speaker was putting across (possibly not even intentionally) was the idea that “homeless man” is a thing. The semiotic impact of the term is unmistakable: A young homeless man is someone in a shop doorway; a beggar; a dog in a string; a beard; ragged. A homeless young man is not necessarily any of these things. Hearing the phrase does not have an immediate semiotic effect upon us. We may see a young chap fresh out of university or in his first job, searching the classified for a bed-sit; walking along a street alternately peering at door numbers and perusing a paper on which is written an address. The phrase does not signify.
We all take on roles which define us at any given time. I may be a driver but within seconds I can become a pedestrian, a shopper, a customer, a client, a passenger. TV news when interviewing people, likes to categorise: A weary-looking interviewee is named: Jim Bloggs (subtitle) FLOOD VICTIM; Janet Smith (subtitle) POST OFFICE USER; Lucy Jones (subtitle) PATIENT. Most of us, however, don't keep our labels and nor are we identified by them. But some of us are.
How easily a simple thing like adjectival order can unleash our prejudices. Perhaps if we all listen more carefully, we might not jump to so many conclusions.
RSS Feed
