On the Origin of Language By Means of Adaptation, or the Preservation of Meaning with Changing Object
Are our ideas innate concepts divorced from the language
needed to express them, or is the formation of an idea predicated by
limitations of existing language? Before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the word evolution referred to stages of
life for a single living being (Beer 11). However, after Darwin’s work,
“evolution was used for the first time to describe the development of the species rather than of the individual”
(11). Adapting an old word to a new purpose encapsulates Darwin’s theory of the
origin of species occurring through natural selection. By the metaphor of
applying a word regarding an individual to an entire species, Darwin’s
contemporaries were able to better understand his work.
An interesting fictional quandary related to this issue
arises in George Orwell’s 1984. The
totalitarian government (the Party) attempts to remove the concepts of freedom,
independence, and rebellion from existence by deleting these words from their
new version of the English language, dubbed Newspeak. Their logic states that if
a person cannot conceptualize the idea through language, they will be unable to
experience what the idea means. By removing all words related to rebellion from
Newspeak, the Party hopes to prevent a successful revolt from ever occurring.
The question that follows is this: could Darwin’s work have been
accessed without the underlying vocabulary? Without the old word evolution to
coopt to new meaning, would we have Darwin’s work as we understand it today?
My comment is only tangentially related to this post and Sarah's post, but I think it's an interesting point to make, especially because it ties in the geo lab. In class, Janelle commented that the geological surface maps show 3D objects in 2D, and so we are presented with only partial information... leaving us with the responsibility of "connecting the dots." Similarly, Darwin writes that fossils (geological representations of biology, of life, and of time) don't give us the full picture, and so we have to cognitively push ourselves to come up with the intermediate steps. Now, going back to what we discussed in class on Tuesday, Darwin seems to be simultaneously coming up with new ways of representing science and relying on interdisciplinary tools to do so. So, to get to the point, I don't think it's just language that's being employed in different ways here, although that's a big part of it! I think it's more the ideas and *ways* of conceptualizing, and not necessarily the words, that are important.
ReplyDeleteI have thought about these ideas in the context of translation: whether or not concepts can be divorced from the language used to convey them, and the relationship between language and thought. This is an interesting application of that essential question. The word "evolution" in this context added new layers of connotations to a pre-existing word with an established base of meaning. The pre-existing meaning of evolution is just as significant as the new meaning layered onto it. Without the pre-existing meaning, affording the comparison of lingual development and species development, I don't think we would understand Darwin's work in the same way.
ReplyDelete