|
|
ive him free reign,
the student writes, and I grit my teeth. What's wrong
with this kid, anyway? Doesn't he know about horseback
riding: how sometimes, rather than hauling right or
left on the reins, you let the horse choose the route,
giving her free rein?
Well,
no, this student doesn't. And come to think of it,
neither did I at his age, in any direct sense; my
knowledge of horseback riding came mostly from reading
Westerns, together with large quantities of "horse
books," vaguely descended from Black Beauty
and urged on me by my older sister, such books being
to us at one stage what videogames and DVDs are to
kids today. But the agrarian world in which so much
of our language is rooted had already vanished
for the most part, dooming to slow (almost excruciatingly
slow) extinction many idioms that had done good service
for generations. The day had passed when people kept
either pigeons or forty-pound grindstones in their
sheds, and so the day was coming when otherwise bright
youngsters would say hone in on, not home
in on, mishearing it, oblivious to the underlying
metaphorical logic. John Deere tractors had long since
replaced oxen in the spring fields, so it was fated
that a passionate letter writer would one day denounce
"the yolk of tyranny." The rules of boxing
had long since changed, and no doubt a significant
minority had already begun to conceive of good behavior
as a matter of towing the line. Unlike these
whoppers, free reign at least makes good operational
sense; the difference between leaving a king free
to rule and leaving a horse free from
rule will not be crucial for most purposes.
The
wonder, really, is how long such usages survive the
metaphorical and linguistic logic that first produced
them: how long and how usefully. We still speak of
reckless driving, knowing perfectly well what
we mean, even spelling it correctly, without the slightest
sense that reck once meant "obey,"
or that the underlying meaning is "disobedient
driving." We say that such driving is "beyond
the pale," registering only the faintest suspicion
that the idiom has something to do with fence slats.
If the DA chooses to prosecute it ruthlessly,
we still understand, but unlike Milton we can no longer
"melt with ruth" in the opposite mood. We
complain of a spouse who wants us to be at his
beck and call, but no longer realize that beck
means a commanding c'mere-you gesture with the finger:
a bit of vocabulary that has vanished quite unaccountably,
since there seems to be no adequate replacement. When
someone writes beckon call, a rather plausible
misreading that replaces the dead word with an etymologically
related live one, most of us still somehow recognize
this as a mistake, resisting the folk etymology that
tries to reintegrate the phrase into active paradigms.
In such cases, it is solecism that has logic on its
side, while correctness is the irrational passion.
If English were logical, every child knows, reckless
driving would be safe driving. The past tense
of go would be goed, there would be
daymares to go with nightmares, and
half the lexicon would be spelled differently.
But,
of course, the justification for all those senseless
spellings that children must memorize one at a time,
in sadistic languages like English and French, is
historical. Through is spelled as it is because
the word once was pronounced quite differently, and
those letters in that order really were the best approximation
to what people heard and said. The problem with proposals
to reform English spelling is that they would only
begin the cycle of change all over again. Throo
might work for a while, but by 2050 the solecistic
troo might be more accurate, while the grammarians
of 2200 would have to anathematize the seductive,
because perfectly accurate, dreh. On balance
it is best to leave spelling alone for centuries at
a time, condemning each new generation to much rote
memorization of words whose spoken and written forms
have drifted apart.
In
just the same way, the lexicon swarms with semi-archaic
usages that have outlived the linguistic logic that
first produced them, but that persist as stubborn
singularities, like stone outcroppings from an earlier
geological era. Irregular verbs are the obvious example,
preserving the remnants of a transformational logic
that once applied much more broadly. The stem-changing
paradigm that takes you from drink to drank
once governed much of the domain of Old English. These
days it still applies tolerably well to sing
(sang), run (ran), sit
(sat), and so on, but apply it to blink
and you get blank, to glint and you
get glont, to think and you get thank
— or thunk, as the common joke has it, compounding
the faulty past tense with a failure to distinguish
the past participle. In the case of a highly irregular
verb like be or go, the forms are so
different that at first no logic at all seems to apply,
but that is not quite right. Stroll from present-tense
be to past-tense was and you seem to
have lost the stem, but keep on going to the past
participle, been, and there it is again, cooperating
with a basically familiar rule that forms the past
participle by adding –en, as in broke/broken,
spoke/spoken, see/seen. Go/went/gone works the
same way, with the same odd combination of lawlessness
and vestigial orthodoxy. The reason, as Steven Pinker
explains in Words and Rules, is that a kind
of tectonic collision, in late Medieval times, fused
entirely separate verbs. Many particular forms were
obliterated in the cataclysm, and those that were
left reorganized themselves into colorful hybrid forms,
of decidedly mixed ancestry.
Clearly,
like bones, trees, and fingernails, words do a great
deal of useful work after they are mostly dead. We
consent quite cheerfully to being disgruntled,
inept, and uncouth, though almost no one
can tell you what we were when we were gruntled,
ept, and couth. We gird for battle,
determined to give tit for tat, but only English
teachers, ill-bred fellows that we are, giggle at
the image of a jockstrap in the first case or hear
a hint of bawdry in the nonsense syllables of the
second. Our vocabularies are chock-full of expressions
that, like chock-full, we understand less than
perfectly, often using them in just one or two particular
phrases. The memory of how they have been used before
is sufficient to guide us in the next usage and the
one after, without significant recourse to the derivation
or root metaphor. One speaker in ten pauses to notice
that the fury of a thunderstorm really is like the
sudden swirling hostilities of a dog and cat fight;
the rest of us say It's raining cats and dogs
simply because that is what you say in such cases.
No one likes to be left in the lurch, and on
TV recently, I heard a Texas congressman, speaking
of Iraq, insisting, "We will not leave a single
American soldier in any lurch." But who really
knows that lurch, in such cases, refers to
a losing position in the game of cribbage?
A
few years ago, someone spoke of the need to jump-start
the economy, and the phrase has gone on to a slightly
annoying vogue. These days, just starting is never
good enough: if you are to start something at all,
you must jump-start it. One suspects that the well-groomed,
busy, New York-y commentators who are the chief culprits
know rather little about cars, and no longer understand
or clearly picture the concrete series of events that
first made the metaphor so effective: one vehicle
stalled, another driven carefully up alongside, long
heavy jumper-cables used to connect the two, the charge
from the second reviving the battery of the first,
the first car now able to proceed without further
assistance. But what the commentators do preserve,
mostly, is the basic abstract meaning: the idea that
something can be stalled and yet need only a brief
and easy rescue, after which it will go on just as
desired and intended. What began as expressive art
persists as behavioral convention, at least for a
while; we know how to use the phrase even when we
don't quite get it. But with no clear image left to
ground it, no nourishingly clear connection to paradigms
operating elsewhere in the language, the precision
of the abstract phrase is somewhat fragile and tenuous.
This
state of affairs is worrisome, and we English teachers
make our livings (such as they are) urging students
to discover what words "really" mean, to
use the dictionary, to attend to underlying metaphors
and derivations. I have an exemplary lesson of that
kind that involves Wilfred Owen's great poem, Dulce
et Decorum Est. A soldier who has not been able
to fasten his gas-mask in time is dying, horribly,
at the front in World War I. The poet exclaims:
In
all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
After
the students and I have talked a bit, sometimes quite
a bit, about the historical context and the poem's
general drift, I sometimes ask, "By the way,
what exactly does guttering mean here?"
It quickly emerges that the students do not really
know; the pure sound of the word, in which
one hears the boy's desperate coughing, seems enough
to justify its place in the line. Quite right, I concede;
but to get the full force of the image, you have to
imagine a time when people are more used to staring
at candles than we are. You have to picture what happens
when a candle has burned steadily for a long time,
but then a gap forms in the thin rim holding in the
melted wax. Suddenly wax leaks down the side of the
candle — a gutter, get it? — and the flame flickers
wildly or even goes out: just like the young soldier's
life. What lovely precision!
Past
a certain point, though, the hunt for real meanings
becomes a fool's errand, ending in pedantry and etymological
fallacy. Even here, we do not want to go all
the way back to the root sense of "to form a
gutter"; it is the more generalized metonymic
extension of that meaning, "to flicker and die,"
that is truly apt. I had a professor in graduate school
who once lamented that no one, these days, seemed
to understand that the root sense of ecstasy
was "standing apart," that is, out of oneself.
This for him was an instance of that old bugbear,
"the decay of language," a calamity that
never happens or always happens, depending on your
vantage point. But surely this was too pessimistic.
Given that the abstract sense of ecstasy has
remained stable, clear, and current for centuries,
the attenuation of the image seems a normal tradeoff,
a bargain price for the increase of conceptual range
in a word that can connect such diverse experiences
as a religious vision, a Super Bowl victory, a bite
of fudge. In his brilliant recent book, The Unfolding
of Language, Guy Deutscher argues that all
languages are characterized by a continuous "flow
from the concrete to the abstract," with names
for things and actions gradually turning into names
for ideas. Words do eventually die in the process,
but the stream is constantly replenished, and the
overall process is not a breakdown but a normal cycle,
the way the work of language gets done. The tools
that wear out are the ones that have been most useful.
Saussure
famously asserted the separateness of language in
its "synchronic" dimension from the "diachronic"
or historical dimension. What a word means now,
Saussure insisted, is in principle a separate question
from that of the word's history or origin. Meaning
is determined not by where the term has come from
or what it did before, but by its atemporal relationship
to the "field of signifiers"; it is langue,
the snapshot of the lexicon in a frozen instant, that
counts. Fiercely abstract and ultimately problematic,
this formulation is nevertheless illuminating in all
kinds of ways, and rough confirmation is never hard
to find. If someone leans over to you at a party and
whispers, "I think he's gay," knowing the
pre-1960 sense of that term takes you farther from
the intended meaning, not closer to it. If someone
says you are nice, you know that you have not
been called fussy. Frederick Pottle offers the example
of the word fruition, which derives from the
Latin verb for "to enjoy," and first enters
English with the meaning "enjoyment." Once
situated within the force field of English signifiers,
however, the word becomes irresistibly associated
with fruit, people begin saying things like
fruition of our plans, and before long "completion"
or "realization" is the accepted meaning,
much to the grief of traditionalists. In the same
way, the French chaise longue, on loan to English,
gets hammered into "jayz long" or "shezz
lounge" as we struggle to pronounce and make
sense of it.
If
the divorce of synchrony from diachrony were ever
adopted as a prescription for usage, however, the
result would be madness and anarchy. Part of the problem
is that English (or any language) is no single integrated
system, but a huge palimpsest of overlapping, partial,
warring, half-destroyed systems, a site on which countless
cities have risen and fallen and contributed to the
wreckage. But even if we still spoke the language
of Adam and Eve, single and pure, the intramural relations
of words to each other would never be enough or nearly
enough to determine meaning in particular cases. One
needs, in addition, context, a working hypothesis
as to intention, and abundant precedent. A hubcap
is not a kind of hat, a parkway is not a place
to park, and extra virgin olive oil is not
Popeye's girlfriend tagging along on someone else's
date, but there is no special reason they could not
be. If we really experienced language as a
timeless field (not that this is what Saussure is
saying), the relative certainty of what phrases do
mean would be swallowed up in the phantasmagorical
vistas of everything they could mean.
Indeed,
something like this does happen in each generation
with children, who absorb language so quickly, in
such huge quantities, with so few repetitions of so
much of it, that for a while they really are like
little ideal Saussurians, struggling furiously to
squeeze meaning out of words in and of themselves.
The consequent difficulties are often hilarious. I
can remember believing that "ambush" meant
to spring out from behind a bush, specifically, to
attack someone. When I was younger still — too young
to remember — I got jammed into a restaurant booth
at a big family gathering, and as usual needed to
go to the bathroom. I pulled my grandfather's sleeve
(so the family tells the story) and said, "Grandpa,
I need to go potty and I can't get out." He pointed
to an available escape route and said, "Just
go under the table." We ended up changing booths,
and the waiter was not happy.
Three
decades later, when my son was six, I instructed him
one day to go fill our tub with lukewarm water
so that we could bathe our large docile German shepherd.
My plan was to get in the tub with her, the better
to scrub and shampoo. I had put on my swimming suit,
and I held her chest-high as I stepped barefoot into
the tub — then leaped back out, screaming in pain.
The terrified animal vanished; my son stared at me
with deep dismay. "Dad, you told me to!"
When
I could find my normal voice again, I said, "Jay,
what does 'lukewarm' mean?"
"Really
hot!"
Well,
who could blame him? He was doing his best to get
with the program, but the language offered no help;
English does not describe tea as luke sweet
or drab weather as luke sunny. There is no
luke anything elsewhere in the language, but he could
not have known that. Without realizing it — for such
things happen unconsciously and instantaneously —
he had taken his best guess, which turned out to be
that luke was a prefix meaning "much more
than" or "not just." One moral of the
episode is that langue, that gloriously Platonic
construct, is never really available in the existential
sense: we all must work from our own experience in
the language, which means a constant struggle to intuit
the larger vision from insufficient data. Small wonder
that we must cheat, inventing cultural helps like
printing, dictionaries, mass communications, universities,
cults of elocution, and English teachers, all working
in one way or another to stabilize the meanings of
words. Combining all these with our uncanny natural
aptitude, we succeed so well that we can understand
Shakespeare, separated from us by four centuries,
though his contemporaries could not have understood
Chaucer, separated from them by a mere two centuries.
Even
so, there is a constant tension between what words
do mean or have meant, and what I want them to do
in this next utterance and the one after. One of the
papers in the batch I am just now correcting uses
the word gutturally to mean "courageously,"
by way of a bizarre derivation from "gut."
Another author speaks of "the captain's maneuverability"
in The Secret Sharer, meaning his skill in
guiding his ship. These oddities will never catch
on, but every so often, in the larger arena, an insurgent
malapropism unseats an established correct meaning.
"Beg the question" used to mean — as in
formal contexts it still does — "to assume the
point in question," that is, to argue tautologically.
But these days, to my pain, the phrase is widely used
to mean "raise the question" — nearly the
opposite of what is still the dictionary meaning.
The problem seems to be that we Americans no longer
much use "the question" in the British sense
of "the issue we are debating," so we hear
not "begs [for rather than honestly wins] the
question," but something like "begs [one
to ask] the question." We have other idioms —
dodge the question, evade the question — that
are operationally so much like the original meaning
that its loss is not felt, while raises the question
is so drably unemphatic that the new, solecistic sense
of the old debate-club formula fills a real need.
Like fruition, the phrase lost the anchor that
once held it in place, then drifted till an opportunistic
scavenger tied it up in a new location. The ambiguity
of words, the very thing that makes them so adaptable
and inexhaustibly useful, also creates constant openings
for misappropriation.
Over
the centuries, poets have often claimed to be the
creators of language, a madly presumptuous assertion
if taken literally. Yet nearly everything in the phrasebook
of English seems to have been somebody's bright idea
at some point, and there is great pleasure to be had,
often enough, in rediscovering the core of poetry
in what we think of as literal speech. Deutscher's
book shows very powerfully how all aspects of language,
even grammatical systems, can be built up over the
millennia by the steady accretion of worn-out metaphors,
as if language were a great reef. Everything, it seems,
has its brief poetic phase, when Speaker A captures
some piece of the unsaid and delivers it to Speaker
B, in a blaze of light. But this is followed by a
much longer phase — a zombie phase, a fossil phase
— during which we repeat the trick more or less unthinkingly,
and creation dims into convention. During most of
the new invention's service life, it is not expressiveness
that stabilizes meaning, but habit and mimicry, our
excellent unconscious memories for usage and our slavish
disposition to follow suit. In this phase, it is not
the poet we have to thank, but his or her dark double:
the eternal curmudgeon, the gloomy Gileadite, the
bilious knight of the red pen, guarding the threshold
against the false poetry of solecism, keeping back
the chaos of indeterminacy that always threatens.
|
|
|