3.4.4 |
SOME DEFICIENCIES OF
TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE |
To be correct a linguistic variant should be consistently based on a
general rule or principle inherent in the language concerned.
But even if a language has several variants which are correct in this
sense, this does not mean that the linguistic system as a whole cannot be
deficient in one or more respects. Some might argue that correct language
is never deficient, because it would always be up to a 'normal' standard,
as actual usage is presupposed when speaking of 'correctness'. But this
would only hold, if there were merely linguistic rules in a narrow sense
that mattered, such as the rule inherent in the present language that the
plural in writing is formed by the suffixation of the letter s or
the letters es. In a wider sense, however, it is also a linguistic
rule that one should be able to express fairly easily what one believes to
be important, or what often returns in one's thought and conversation.
What has been called "the norm of good communication" requires that the
language user does not have to frequently take refuge to a clumsy
circumlocution to express the same thing every time.
It also requires that no distinction has to be made where this is believed
to be irrelevant, and that, conversely, such a distinction can be made
where it is believed to be relevant.
What is important or relevant, and certainly what is believed
to be important or relevant, depends on one's worldview, or
on extralinguistic principles. It is therefore the very combination
of the principle of good communication and one or more of
such extralinguistic principles which may render a particular
linguistic system deficient.
Nonetheless, as a product of society such a system may be very efficient
from the standpoint of a traditional, extant worldview or, as the case may
be, from that of an outmoded, former worldview.
In an era when and in a region where biological sex and/or cultural gender
is deemed important under all circumstances it does not bother men
or boys and it does not bother women or girls that they cannot speak of,
for example, persons, of sibs or of launderers, regardless of their sex
or gender.
A linguistic system which forces them to genderize is, then, not felt to
be deficient, because they are not interested in a person as a person but
as a man or boy or as a woman or girl only; not in a sib as a sib (or
person) but as a brother (male) or as a sister (female) only; not in a
laundry worker as a laundry worker (or person) but as a launderer (male)
or laundress (female) only.
(Incidentally, this is also why the cultural norms of such an era and
region convulsively stress the difference between clothes and ornaments
males ought to wear or not to wear and those females ought to wear or not
to wear, not only at times and places of procreation, erotic enjoyment
and/or sexual excitement but everywhere, night and day.)
Altho it is very useful
to have feminine and masculine pronouns such as she and he
when sex or gender is relevant, the distinction between persons and
nonpersons is so important and so often used that we could not do without a
special, personal pronoun (which is gender-neutral and -transcending
because it is personal).
This is the reason why we have introduced (in
Speaking person-to-person) the series
(')e, (')im and
(')er, parallel to the nonpersonal (and general)
singular it, it and its, and the plural
they, them and their. (In connection with the spelling
'e or e the consistent spelling for the first person pronoun
is i instead of I, unless the capitalization follows a
general rule.)
While 'e, 'im and 'er are very closely related to
already existing pronouns and adjectives, the adoption of these terms is
certainly more far-reaching than some older proposals which have confined
themselves to the unneutral use, not the irrelevant use, of
genderized terms.
It is relatively easy to come up with truly sex- and gender-neutral
linguistic conventions or decrees. As a reaction to the so-called
'generic' use of masculine terminology, which has been
exposed as a joke, it has been urged, for example, to always
mention both the feminine and the masculine equivalent, or
either the feminine or the masculine equivalent. From this standpoint
people will just have to say "he or she", "her or his", "man or woman",
and so on, and equally frequently the reverse, when speaking of
someone who may be either male or female.
They must take care too, of course, not to use derogatory, traditional
expressions such as spinster or (meter) maid, and they must
not speak of "a woman driver" or "a male secretary" unless also speaking
of "a man driver" and "a female secretary" respectively in a similar
situation.
Moreover, those insisting on gender neutrality in the language have
demanded that language users not only say "men and women" instead of "men"
but also "actors and actresses" instead of "actors", "launderers and
laundresses" instead of "launderers", and so on, unless the people spoken
about would definitely all be male or, for that matter, all female.
Unfortunately, by thus rejecting the unneutral use of traditionally
masculine terms, the irrelevance of the gender distinction itself
remains untranscended.
A joke is turned into a yoke, because everyone would now be forced to say
everything double, which is a disaster in languages in which all, or
almost all, nouns and pronouns of the type in question are (still)
obligatorily genderized.
Even in the present, written language no-one has ever managed, it seems,
to consistently use he or she and her or his, and equally
frequently the reverse, in all those cases in which the women and men or
men and women supporting this silly usage would like us to.
Quite often, a larger amount of relevant information does not
entail that we have to say more, because there is one word which
has the same meaning as, for example, a noun with an adjective
or adjectival subordinate clause.
(Take ice instead of frozen water in the form of lumps or
sheets.)
But it is a rule that a smaller amount of relevant information is not to
be conveyed by having to say more.
Nevertheless, in speech which is not gender-( and
age-)transcending, phrases such as the longer
authors and or or authoresses give less information than the shorter
authoresses, phrases such as the longer aunts and or or uncles
less than the shorter uncles in all instances in which gender does
not matter.
If authoress does convey more relevant information than
author, it should be because of the suffix ess, and the use
of author is then to be considered free from gender, that is,
gender-transcending.
Since males do not have their own appendage then, feminine suffixes become
sexually exclusive and ought to be discontinued in gender-transcending
usage.
(Note that any asymmetry in a traditional terminology will even make that
terminology unsuitable for gender-neutral genderized usage.)
If sex or gender is to the point, it is to be indicated by the adjective,
like in female dancer and male dancer: m./f.
bachelor, f./m. fisher, m./f. god, and so on.
(These expressions are symmetrical apart, perhaps, from the words
male and female themselves.)
The worst thing is not to accept that nouns which are traditionally
masculine and purportedly gender-neutral will in future refer to women and
girls as well, altho they are merely characterized by the absence of
any standard suffix to specify gender (as the absence of ess in
author).
(Thus, female king does not have to be substituted for queen,
unless a 'female king' is a female monarch, and a 'male queen' the
husband or widower of such a chieftain.) If there is no good alternative, a
new system which meets the requirements of those who refuse to accept words
without a genderizing affix as gender-transcending ones may be
gender-neutral (if truly symmetrical) but will be even more deficient than
the old system from the standpoint of easy communication and informational
relevance.
The deficiency of a traditional language that forces the speakers and
writers to make distinctions on the basis of sex and gender or age
regardless of context is a very important kind of deficiency, as it is
closely connected with, if not a form of, sexism and agism or —if
preferred— sex-, gender- and age-linked
irrelevantism.
These isms are, in turn, expressive of
exclusivist attitudinal
complexes and ideologies.
(This does not mean that such deficiencies of the language used could not
be of a purely linguistic character, and would necessarily be related to
a particular kind of ideological attitude or
practise.
Yet, even if they are not, they may be a nuisance or a cause of
confusion.)
Another kind of deficiency which is not purely linguistic is
due to the fact that unmarked terms such as big, old and
relevant have both an affirmative ('positive') meaning, and a
general dimensional meaning (designating the extension of both
bigness and its negation, of both being-old and its negation, of
both relevance and its negation). Marked terms such as small and
low often designate the
negativity of a
catena, whereas unmarked terms can
designate either the nonnegative predicates or all the predicates of
such a catena, that is, the
catenality in question. Since these
distinctions are taken care of in our
catenical terminology, we can live with
the double meanings of unmarked terms.
Where it comes in handy, however, we may distinguish the
marked ('positive') from the unmarked (general) meaning,
especially when there is no catena involved. Thus, we shall employ
relevance and consistence to designate the negation of
irrelevance and inconsistence respectively, while employing
relevancy to designate the whole aspect of being relevant or
irrelevant, and consistency the whole aspect of being
consistent or inconsistent.
Marked terms such as small, weak, low and
irrelevant have in general a pejorative evaluative meaning,
whereas the antithetical, unmarked terms have a meliorative meaning.
This phenomenon has been the basis of one of the criticisms against
the unmarked use of he, him and his (for both males
and females, and for males only) as opposed to the marked use of
she and her (for females only). In this light the
connotation of she is, at least on balance, inferior to that of
he, just like small would be of a lower value than big.
(This also explains the traditional use of the diminutive for women
and girls where it is not used for men and boys.) The evaluation
inherent in the connotation of unmarked terms is typical of
catenary 'maximalism' or
'extremism': the higher, the better; the bigger, the better; the
faster, the better; the louder, the better; and so on and so forth. It
is this lust for the most which definitely has much wider, if not serious
ideological implications.
Closely related to the question of the ambiguity and positive
connotation of unmarked terms is the absence of a word to denote the
neutrality of a catena. From an
extremist point of view this neutrality deserves no attention; only the
maximum or the maximum and the minimum do. Therefore those who want to refer
to neutrality (or
perineutrality) often have to put up
with roundabout phrases of the neither nor type in traditional
parlance. Strictly speaking, these expressions do not even denote
neutralities (or perineutralities) but
nonpolarities encompassing
noncatenalities. For example, speaking of the neutrality of the
happiness catena, people could only say "neutrally neither
happy nor unhappy"; and speaking of the neutrality of the
honoring catena, they could only say "neutrally neither honoring
nor dishonoring". Those given to extremist thought are merely interested
in as much happiness, and as much honor, as possible (and as ends
in themselves). Therefore they do not realize that a linguistic
system without a general device to directly denote the neutralities
of such catenas is deficient in this respect. Not
having such a device perpetuates catenary extremism or unneutralism, but
the question is, of course, whether this matters or not.
In the
Book of Fundamentals it will become clear
that it does, and there we will see how to go about it.
