Sometimes the simplest words can actually turn out to not be simple at all. We only see them as simple because we use them every day, but we don’t realise all the complexity that is involved.
There is something humans do quite effortlessly, which is work with commonly held ideas without even realising they are doing it. Language is one such example. People learn words from hearing them around and they then use those words because they know they have meaning to people they meet in the day. There is an idea amongst a lot of people that language is taught only in the classroom.
Language is taught first on your mother’s knee and then in the playground. Language is all around us. We are so immersed in it that we often don’t even thinking about it, a bit like nothing really looking at the screen of the PC or cellphone you are reading this on, but rather the words, stories and pictures displayed on it. The screen is a mechanism for transmitting messages, whether they are written, or through pictures.
Now language is much the same. Language is not just the thing you find in Shakespeare or Chaucer. It is the “lol”, “y u no?” and “YAASSS” you see on the internet, the “I had to go to the doctor today”, the “Four score and seven years ago” and everything in between. It reflects the kaleidoscope of human experience. Language is culture, through and through. To try and take culture out of language is like trying to take hydrogen out of water. Taking culture out of language would leave you with nothing but dead words of little significance.
People often don’t say what they mean, and they do this for a variety of reasons. They may want to soften their words to prevent offending someone. They may want to safe face. They might also just want to cheat someone. Sometimes people are just playing the social game.
One example of this is the following
“Hi. How’s it going?”
“Fine. And you?”
“How’s your leg?”
“It’s not doing well. It’s very painful”
Why did the person respond “fine” if they are in pain? The start of a conversation often follows a formula. The technical term for these types of utterances is “phatic communication”. You can read more about them here
The point is that both people know this formula and it performs a few functions that would otherwise take a lot of words
The conversation would otherwise have gone like this
“Oh, it’s you. I want you to know that I see you and that I want to greet you”
“I want to return the greeting in the same way you gave it to me to show that I want to speak with you”
If the formula isn’t followed then confusion or annoyance can result, such as
That’s funny, but it violates the common formula. With a friend it would be amusing, but with a stranger, they might get annoyed.
One interesting example of how social expectations fit into language, in English in particular, is the use of “yes” and “no”.
At face value, they look like quite simple words. One expresses an affirmative, the other a negative. But English does something quite interesting with these words.
Here is a simple question
“Is it raining?”
Let’s make it negative
“Isn’t it raining?”
“Yes it is”
Both questions have the same answer, even though if looked at purely logically they should be opposites. The truth is that English does not treat negative questions as actually negative. The negative expresses an attitude, or expectation
Maybe you were sitting inside all day and just as you head out you ask “Is it raining?”. You ask this to decide if you should get an umbrella or not. It’s winter and the rainy season, but you are not sure if it’s actually raining today, so you ask a simple question.
Let’s say you see someone heading out wearing nothing but a vest and shorts. “Isn’t it raining?” You ask this to communicate the idea that you know that it’s raining and are asking if the other person knows this. You do this because you don’t expect someone to go out in the rain wearing a vest and shorts because it is cold outside.
This is basically short hand of
“I am going out”
“But it is raining outside”
“I don’t care. A little rain is good for me”
So “isn’t it raining?” is a bit like saying “Why would you go outside wearing a vest a shorts when it is raining?”
It can get more complicated though
What if there is a commonly held idea in your area, city or country that chocolate is a delicious snack and that everyone eats it
You could just say, “I don’t like chocolate”. Maybe you would get some raised eyebrows, but otherwise no one intercedes because they are busy or it’s just not important.
Let’s say you do actually like chocolate and your friend says “I don’t like chocolate”
You could respond, “But I do”
People often shorten things, so this would often be shortened to, “What?” or “Huh?” (both with a surprised intonation)
The interesting thing to note here is that the person didn’t respond, “Yes” or “No”, because it would be a bit ambiguous. Are you saying “yes, I agree with you”, “yes, I know you don’t”. People opt for something unambiguous such as a expression of surprise which shows they obviously are of a different opinion.
But what if you actually don’t like chocolate either?
You could reply “I don’t either”. But why don’t we shorten that?
In English people often just shorten this to “no”. Why do they do this? Because they are actually rejecting the commonly held belief in the same that the original person is. They might then add something on just to spice it up a bit now that the stage is set
“I don’t like chocolate”
“No, it’s horrible”
This is a short interaction but a lot is going on. The long version is
“Lot’s of people like chocolate, but I actually don’t like it at all”
“If people were to ask me if I like chocolate, I would say no. I hate it. It’s horrible”
What’s funny about this is that other languages might handle this interaction in a completely different way
German uses “Ja” and “Nein” (yes and no) to affirm or deny the statement itself, not the underlying comment on their opposition to or approval of a commonly held idea.
So it can lead to the humourous situation where the English will be “no” but it is translated as “yes” because in context that is the intended meaning.
And that is part of what makes writing about language so fun 🙂