Barack Obama's Campaign Language

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said, “There are moments in American history where there are opportunities to change the language of politics...and I think we’re in one of those moments” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 97). Obama fully took advantage of this moment and used language to propel himself from the position of an unknown senator at the Democratic National Convention to the President of the United States. His speech at the Democratic National Convention was filled with language of hope, unity, and passion. His popularity skyrocketed after this speech, and he soon won the primaries and entered the general election stage. At this point, Obama recognized the need to communicate to the citizens with more direct, plain language to ease the tension from the economic crisis, among other national crises. Before long, Obama’s language was associated with great speakers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln. He often referenced well-known speakers and popular presidents to draw a connection between himself and them. Now that the campaign is over, Obama’s language can be analyzed and dissected to discover exactly how he reached the highest office in the United States and how he gave the country hope during some of the biggest struggles of the century.

Obama’s Connection to his Audience

Obama’s language electrified audiences unlike any politician had done in years, but what made his language so stimulating and inspiring? TIME magazine (2009) noticed that Obama fed off the crowd’s excitement and applause to enliven his speeches (p. 65). He used the audience’s emotions to give a more enthusiastic performance. Also, Grady (2008) recognized Obama’s use of various language styles: “Sometimes the words were glorious and lyrical as a jazz solo in a 2 a.m. nightclub. Sometimes they were practical and mundane as a carpentry manual. They were delivered in a confident, edgy cadence that reminded some of us of Jack Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr.” He created a different language depending on the audience he was speaking to and the impression he was trying to convey. Despite the differences in language, however, he consistently spoke in a conversational style with a distinct confidence. He was comfortable with improvisation, and he did not always rely on a teleprompter like other candidates. Speaking directly to the audience allowed him to have an open, comfortable conversation with his audience, and he drew them in as if he was speaking to each person one-on-one.

Dixit and Kristal (2007) wrote of a study that Psychology Today did with experts on the 2008 candidates, working to discover the candidates’ unspoken traits and messages. A body language expert noted that Obama’s gestures made him seem open and loose in front of an audience. His charisma showed especially when he spoke with individual people, for he gave each person his entire focus, direct eye contact, and he leaned in to fully engage with them (p. 75). Beyond his verbal language, Obama used inviting body language to connect with people.

Obama’s language also incorporated certain rhetorical devices, which gave his language a certain beauty that attracted listeners. Grady (2008) described Obama as a “president who can use language precisely as a concert violinist playing a Back sonata.” He used metaphors and imagery that invited the audience to attentively listen to his words. Grady (2008) noticed that his speeches always had “rhythm, repetition, alliteration, [and,] balance.” The composition of his sentences created appealing language that drew the audience to his speeches. Obama’s various language styles, rhetorical devices, and welcoming body language contributed to the connection he formed with his audiences.

The Personal Side of his Language

Obama often told his own story in his speeches, allowing people to get to know him as a real person and understand where he came from. He then made his story into America’s story (Grady, 2008). For example, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he told his personal story of growing up without a father and with a white mother. Neer (2008) remembered how Obama began his speech: “Let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely . . . In no other country on Earth is my story even possible” (p. 40). In this way he was able to describe his life story during his campaign, but he did not just tell personal narratives in order to win the sympathy vote. Instead, he used his own story to connect with America’s story, explaining the great struggles and triumphs in his life and also showing his deep patriotism for this country. TIME (2009) wrote, “[Obama] presented himself as an orphan and a child of America” (p. 65). People could relate to his story, and they began to view him as a normal citizen, not an elite or pompous politician. Obama became an ordinary person who had risen up through his hardships and, through this process, formed a strong relationship with his country. He continued this meshing of his story with the country’s story to the very end of his campaign. The night he was elected president, Obama gave a speech in Chicago and revoked the memory of his speech at the Democratic National Convention: “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible . . . tonight is your answer” (Grady, 2008). In this sentence he reminded people of his personal story as an African-American coming from an unlikely presidential background. He simultaneously showed how America was the reason he could be as successful as he was. Obama’s choice of language when talking about his past showed people a deeply personal side of the candidate and demonstrated his strong devotion to the country.

Hopeful Language or Empty Rhetoric?

Obama’s language throughout his campaign has been noted for its expression of hope and inspiration. During the campaign, Americans were worried about their own futures, the future of their families, and the future of their country. People did not know if they would be laid-off from their jobs, if they would be able to afford to send their children to college, or if they would be able to pay their mortgages. There was great uncertainty, especially in the economic future. Obama was able to transform people’s uncertainty and concerns into hope. Kennedy-Shaffer (2009) cited the work of George Lakoff, a linguist, who explained that Obama used a technique called framing to change the citizens’ views of politicians, the government, and the country as a whole. Lakoff pointed out that Obama relied on a new type of language to produce new frames that would appeal to people’s emotions and project positivism (pp. 93-6). People moved away from their fear of the future and found a renewed hope for the months ahead. During a time of war and economic recession, Obama gave his listeners faith that the government would help the citizens. At the Democratic National Convention, he said, “Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the fact of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead” (Neer, 2008, p. 42). His exhilarating performance energized the audience with its optimism and encouragement. TIME (2009) wrote that Obama was “testing the country’s capacity for audacity” with this speech, and he discovered that people were open to his message (p. 65). Beginning with this early speech, Obama evoked the message of hope in his campaign language.

However, Obama’s early, optimistic campaign language was often criticized for only serving to appeal to listeners and lacking substance. TIME (2009) criticized him for making grandiose promises to the citizens without backing up his ideas with concrete plans for the future (p. 24). Tolson (2008) remembered his speech at the Democratic National Convention, where his words inspired listeners with hope and change but also may be considered “fluff:”

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us…. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America…. The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states…. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an 'awesome God' in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

His language in this speech elevated Americans to a level above “the pundits,” and recognized them as the people capable of unifying the country. He sent the message that he will represent all Americans, regardless of party preference or individual beliefs. TIME (2009) recognized that “his calm thoughtfulness and even-keeled explanatory style was an antidote to our polarized, overhead politics” (p. 6). He transcended typical politics and portrayed himself as a new kind of politician, one that was unconcerned with party politics and regarded the nation as a whole. The problem lies in the fact that politics is near impossible to change, and although he may have viewed himself as this new, bipartisan politician, he was still functioning in the old type of politics. Even though his language was positive and hopeful for change, his words could not promise that a real change in politics was coming with his presidency.

Obama’s African-American race sometimes created heated debates during the campaign, but these instances provide a perfect example of his use of uplifting language. Many people did not believe the country was ready for an African-American president, and his supporters worried that people would not vote for him solely because of his race. Those who were against him ridiculed, insulted, and degraded him because of his race, hoping to end his chances of becoming president. However, Obama did not fight back but instead took this opportunity to again express hope in a new future, a future that would include a black president and overcome a history of discrimination (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 97-8). He reframed the issue of race by using positive language, and soon the idea of a black president became a symbol of the change his presidency could bring. He responded to the criticism and setbacks, “So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” but he recognized that change was possible because of “the next generation—the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 98). Obama’s language instilled responsibility and hope in younger Americans to bring about lasting change to the nation. He gave the country encouragement that the future would lack racial inequalities and injustices. His inspirational words were inclusive of the next generation, bringing young Americans into the heart of the campaign and relying on them for a different future. Tolson (2008) recognized this common tactic that Obama used: “Barack Obama's oratory, at its best, is a kind of mirror, turning the people's gaze back upon themselves and forcing them to ask what they want their nation to be.” In this speech, he challenged the next generation to create the change that they desire. Nevertheless, as hopeful as Obama may be, eliminating the issue of race is an idealistic and improbable goal. This hopeful language would not last through the whole campaign, and Obama needed to start giving people some concrete solutions.

Language for the Times

Although Obama’s hopeful language inspired millions of Americans, they still yearned for real change from the past administration, from the failed policies, and from the economic downturn. Obama realized his language needed to change to be responsive of the citizens’ concerns. Obama’s two books, which were published before the campaign, along with his early speeches all relied on big, encouraging language. Lacking concrete plans for change, Obama lost early primaries largely because people did not know how he was going to tackle the country’s largest problems, like Iraq and the economy (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 118-9). After the primary season, his language became more “simple, direct, and pragmatic” (TIME, 2009, p. 89). To give a more detailed picture of his plans, he began using “statistics, anecdotes, and policy proposals” that explicitly described the changes he planned on making (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 116). The economic and political situation required that he begin planning for years ahead rather than months ahead. It became clear that in the coming months, he was going to have to give people bad news they would not want to hear. Consequently, he adopted a new maturity and calmness to his language that would sustain people’s faith in the government and their participation in the economy through these hard times (TIME, 2009, p. 89). He openly told people that there would be continued tough times ahead instead of avoiding the truth. He then followed his admissions of the harsh truth with confidence that he was the best candidate to handle the crises. His mature and calm language proved to people that he would effectively use his past experiences and maintain his composure through the difficult times ahead.

By the time Obama won the general election in November, his language had significantly changed from when he first announced his candidacy. His Inaugural Address was “sharply worded” and “coherent,” with an “unflinching philosophy of government.” His tone was “resolute, suffused with sobriety, reflecting a tough-minded realism” (TIME, 2009, p. 110). His language had fully evolved into more direct, simple statements that were necessary for the people to understand the current situation. For example, Obama said, “Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits and do our business in the light of day” (TIME, 2009, p. 110). His language spoke to all people, not just highly educated professionals and other politicians. He used language that common people could understand so that they could comprehend his plans and understand what changes he would support. The language of his Inaugural Address showed the distinct change from the language with which he began his campaign.

The Language of Past Presidents Reflected in Obama’s Language

Obama borrowed language from past successful presidents. He used historical references in his speeches to remind people how far America has progressed and show people how much farther we are still capable of progressing. Many of his speeches drew inspiration from Lincoln, who was also a young senator from Illinois running for president. At the 2008 Convention Obama said, “The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have no served a Red America or a Blue America—they have served the United States of America” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 100). These lines echoed Lincoln’s language when he faced the challenge of keeping the Union together. At the Republican Convention in 1858, Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” while in his Second Inaugural Address he said, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other . . . With malice toward none, with charity for all, . . . let us strive on to finish the work we are in . . . to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves.” Obama does not face the problem of succession, but he faces the problem of political polarization. Democrats and Republicans are finding the challenge of working together becoming more and more difficult, with each side refusing to compromise. Obama reflected on Lincoln’s language to give the country hope that he will be able to bring both parties together in these times of economic uncertainty and lengthy military engagements.

Obama also looked to Thomas Jefferson to remind people of the hopefulness of the American Revolution, to Andrew Jackson to remind people of the “collective sacrifice” of defeating the British at the Battle of New Orleans, and to Franklin Roosevelt to remind people of the hope of the New Deal even during the worst depression in history (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, pp. 102-3). He wanted to make people associate him with these presidents so that they would also relate these presidents’ successes to Obama’s future successes. Similarly, Obama’s language that inspired people to overcome fear with hope stemmed from Roosevelt’s famous quote, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Kennedy-Shaffer, 2009, p. 103). By using language that reminded people of these great past presidents, Obama convinced people to have hope in him, just as these past great presidents gave the necessary hope to Americans during so many of the country’s struggles. In his speech entitled “The Audacity of Hope,” he recalled the past and connected it to the hope for the future: “This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations . . . And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, independents, I say to you, tonight, we have more work to do” (Neer, 2008, p. 40). Obama elevated the nation’s past by describing it as a “legacy,” implying something great to live up to. He then compared it to the present and found a shortcoming. However, he proceeded to inspire all Americans with the hope that if we work together, we are capable of creating a future that is as great as the past legacy of the country. Obama used the success of past presidents along with references to past successes of the country to give hope to people that there will be future successes during his presidency even in light of the grim situation.

Presidents’ abilities to convey language in a way that inspires the country contributes to their perceived abilities to govern. Obama’s language made people believe that he had the capability to better the nation even in light of his race, youthfulness, and limited years in the Senate. However, politicians’ language can also have a significant effect on their reputations once they leave office. Grady (2008) recalled Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill’s abilities of combating the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the bombings of Britain, respectively, with their speeches. Their language inspired America and Britain to continue fighting and not give up hope for more peaceful days ahead. These leaders restored faith in the country, and now Obama has to do the same thing with the worsening of the financial crisis and the crises in the Middle East. However, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Churchill are remembered for their language because they were successful at bringing their respective countries out of each crisis. Similarly, Obama’s language will only be remembered for its greatness if he can successfully handle the problems the country now faces (Grady, 2008). Tolson (2008) also cautioned that Obama’s language may be at a level of “loftiness that is in danger of soaring beyond this world.” It is possible that Obama used too much inspiring, big language to ever live up to. If this is true, he will only be remembered for his false promises and unsubstantiated hope. Interestingly, Obama used the word “humble” or implied humility in many of his speeches and interviews. Obama has said, “I don’t expect that simply because I can move people in speeches that automatically qualifies me . . . I have to earn this job” (Dixit & Kristal, 2007, p. 75). He recognized that he is a gifted speechwriter and speaker, but he also recognized that he is going to have to prove himself once in office. If he is to join the ranks of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” then his actions must reinforce his language (Grady, 2008). On the other hand, if Obama does not succeed in helping Americans through these crises, his language will be disregarded as the empty rhetoric his opponents accused him of from the beginning.

A president’s language undoubtedly affects all aspects of their campaign and time in office. Obama was immediately recognized for his inspirational and optimistic language. He altered his language into more simple but concrete words to ease people’s fears of the future. His talent for language was compared to some of the greatest speakers in history, but Obama still has to live up to the standards he has set for himself with his promising language. Tolson (2008) reflected on the many uses for a president’s language, “Even more than explaining policies or setting new directions, a president's speech shows how well he hears the people--their hopes, their fears, their best and worst angels--and, most crucially, how he uses what he hears to achieve his goals.” The country knows that Obama can listen to people’s hopes and fears for the future, for he proved that during the campaign. The real test, however, is his ability to sustain that hope and resolve those fears now that he is in office. His language may have gotten him into the White House, but his actions will decide if he is reelected for another four years.

References

Dixit, J., & Kristal, M. (2007, July-August). Reading between the lines. Psychology Today, 40, 74-79.

Grady, S. (2008, November 19). His words will matter. USA Today, sec. News: p. 13a.

Kennedy-Shaffer, A. (2009). The Obama revolution. Beverly Hills: Phoenix Books, Inc.

Lincoln, Abraham. (1858, June 16). “Address to the Republican Convention.” Chicago.

Lincoln, Abraham. (1865, March 4). “Second Inaugural Address.” The White House, Washington D.C.

Neer, B. (2008). Barack Obama for beginners: An essential guide. Hanover: For Beginners LLC.

TIME. (2009). President Obama: The path to the White House. New York: TIME Books, Time Inc.

Tolson, J. (2008, October 27). The two rivals as men of their words. U.S. News & World Report, 145, 47.

Meaningful Conversations Boost Kids’ Language Skills

A new Dutch study found that parents that have meaningful conversations with their young kids boost their children’s language skills. It may seem obvious that parents who speak with their kids are advancing their language acquisition, but this study is unique because it studied “serious conversations...dialogues that permit them to make meaningful contributions to the subject at hand.” The study included children from Turkish, Moroccan-Berber, and Dutch backgrounds.

Teachers use more complex sentences and conceptual language, and children must learn to follow along. Having prior experience with adult conversations allows these children to begin understanding their teachers faster than other children. Reading to children and telling them stories also has the same effects.

This article reminded me of the conversation we had in class about cultures in which the parents do not speak to their children until they are able to have an intelligent conversation. According to this study, those children will be behind once they get to school and immediately have a disadvantage. These parents may not believe they are harming their children, but they do not realize that they are not progressing their children’s academic abilities. Is it fair to the children that they are behind their peers because of a cultural difference? Are the parents depriving the children of the chance to excel academically? Like we talked about in class, could this be considered child abuse?

Similarly, parents who do not read to their children are depriving them of greater academic ability. The United States Department of Education has confirmed that children who are read to when they are young acquire language and literacy skills more effectively and perform better at reading comprehension and academics in general.

Full article about Dutch study here. And Department of Education article here.

Welsh assembly translation decision backed by review

Recently, there was a debate in Wales because certain speeches were not going to be translated into Welsh from English any longer. A third party review panel was brought in to consider the plan and decided that translations will be stopped and effectively save £250,000 per year. The Welsh Language Board opposed this and may propose a legal challenge. The Welsh do not believe they are being treated as equal citizens and worry that this is the beginning of the decline of their language. The review panel wants to support the Welsh language in other, more meaningful ways that will spread the use of the Welsh language. They do not see this decision as harmful to the language and have requested that money be spent in other ways to promote the language more effectively.

(Full article here.)

Another article from the BBC website from a couple years ago discusses a revival in the Welsh language in the rural south. There is concern that the growing strength of the language could create a divide between Welsh speakers and English speakers. The article starts out with an interview with a native Welsh speaker. He says that being a Welsh speaker gives you an advantage in the workplace. After reviving the language, the Welsh speakers have gained a strong sense of nationalism. Now, the Welsh Assembly Government wants to create policies to further promote the language. The man believes that these policies have gone past an acceptable level. On the other hand, some people view the Welsh language as a necessary part of their identity and are embracing the new sense of nationalism. Other people are learning the language to set themselves apart from the norm and find meaning in their lives. No matter the reason, there is a concern that the language will cause English speakers to have a bitter attitude towards the Welsh or vice versa.

Britain presents a unique case because Wales is an specific area within Britain that speaks a different language than the rest of the country. More people speak English, of course, but Welsh is still prominent. Is it prominent enough to spend money translating documents? Would they then have to translate the documents into other languages as well? This new regulation may create the resentment that so many Welsh speakers are worried about. The Welsh seem to want to be a part of Britain and not separate themselves, but they worry their language could ruin this unity. It also seems that the Welsh government is going against many people’s wishes by promoting policies that benefit Welsh speakers only and isolate English speakers. With such a large debate among the Welsh people themselves, this will be a difficult debate to solve.

Language lessons for Democrats, from the political brain of Drew Westen

This article discusses the way Democrats use rhetoric as opposed to Republicans. Drew Westen is a new addition to the team of Democrats working on next fall’s campaign. He is a psychologist and neurologist rather than a politician. Westen suggests that the Democrats are using facts far too much instead of appealing to emotions. The examples he gives include using “the air we breathe and the water we drink” rather than “the environment” and “people who’ve lost their jobs” instead of “the unemployed.” As a psychologist and neurologist, Westen is basing his ideas on science that proves that people are more receptive to emotional appeals. The Democrats need to depart from their traditional list of facts and focus on “people’s core values and concerns.” John B. Larson, a Democrat Representative from Connecticut, has realized that constituents do not feel a connection with their representative, and this may come from the factual, unappealing language the Democrats use.

This all sounds contradictory to the messages of hope and change that Obama inspired voters with during his campaign. Obama may just be the exception, for he has a way with words that inspires, challenges, and motivates people like no politician has in years. However, the Democrats in the House and the Senate may need to change their rhetoric if they would like to see more votes in the fall.

It seems as though Obama has abandoned his message of hope and trust in the future since getting elected. His rhetoric has become realistic, addressing the crises that we are facing. His language has become more urgent, and he has been calling for “dramatic action” from Congress. He has been upfront about the problems the country is facing even if he must send a darker message than he did during his campaign.

There is a very good reason politicians use the inspiring, although less realistic, language that they do: people like to hear positive statements. People do not want to know that the economy is ruined, we are in the middle of a war, or that unemployment is rising. They want to think that there are better times ahead. But is it healthy for citizens to receive and believe false hope and false promises? Shouldn’t people know the truth, no matter how grim, so that they can prepare and take action? But when politicians are honest, they often do not win votes. Politicians’ sole purpose is to win elections, so they have no choice but to use hopeful language. Until citizens choose to elect politicians with a real, direct agenda, politicians’ speech will only cater to the public.

Obama article here.

Turkey’s fading linguistic heritage

Turkey is a country with diverse immigrants and, consequently, diverse languages. However, many of its languages are starting to die out, and some people criticize Turkey for not saving them before it’s too late. On the other hand, some Turkish people are not fond of the different dialects or languages in the country and see them as “a threat to the integrity of the nation state.”

The language of Laz is given as an example in the article of a language that is spoken in the mountains and is just now being rediscovered. However, many children do not speak Laz anymore and are instead learning Turkish. They say that the Turkish language is “perceived as the language of commercial success and modernity.” Younger generations are only exposed to Turkish, even in the classroom where teachers must stick to the Turkish curriculum.

The article closes with an unfortunate truth. In Turkey, people who speak Laz were humiliated in the past and have been looked down upon because of their language. Now the challenge is for people to start accepting and embracing their language again to ensure its survival.

The full article is here.

This YouTube video shows footage of Northeast Turkey. Laz has no relation to Turkish and does not sound like Turkish. There are fourteen other language in Turkey that are currently endangered. When asked, the speakers said Laz is spoken fluently today but younger generations are not speaking it, and that worries them. Language and cultures in Turkey have become more and more assimilated, so Laz has become less and less prominent. The first Laz dictionary was created recently so that the language will not be completely lost. Other publications have been brought to court on the basis that it spread “separatist propoganda.” Laz is not allowed to be taught in schools nor are Laz schools publically funded. Laz television cannot be funded either, although other languages are.

This case brings up a lot interesting ideas. First, it is hard for me to understand how people can be ashamed of the language they speak. I know this is because my first language is English, so I have never experienced shame or humiliation for speaking it. But I find it so unfortunate that other cultures are able to dictate which languages will be prominent and which should be wiped out. When I relate this to America, however, we are probably doing the same thing without realizing the effects English has on other languages. America is not as strict as Turkey seems to be, for we do not have an official language, and we encourage bilingual education for the most part. But what can people do that live in places that suppress languages? Is it possible for a small group of native speakers to fight against a strong government? The government is actively trying to stop the spread of Laz and is at the same time destroying a culture. Hopefully the Laz can embrace their language before they lose more of their speakers. But if not, their language as well as the fourteen others, will be assimilated into Turkish, and the Laz may lose their identity.

New Ideas About the Origin of Language

The University of Rochester has done a study on the origin of language in humans. They wanted to find out if a part of the human brain “gives humans advanced language capabilities over other animals.” To do the study, they were going to “determine if different brain regions were used to decipher sentences with different types of grammar.” The order of words is vital to the English language, while in Spanish, inflection and suffixes are necessary to give a sentence a certain meaning. Sign language uses both of these systems, so researchers studied sign language and found that the separate areas of the brain processed the two forms of sentences.

Researchers have found that there are only miniscule differences between the neurology of humans and animals. The significant difference is the size of our brain, which is bigger and allows for more advanced communication. The brain more than tripled in size about 200,000 years ago, and language developed at the same time. Researchers believe the brain may have increased in size so that language could develop.

The article then cites a book called The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley that claims that trade among different groups of people who speak different languages required the brain to evolve to understand different sentence structures. If this is true, the brain’s capacity to understand languages is much more modern than once believed.

Full article here.

Another article called the “History of Language” claims that communication is universal to all social animals, but one part of the brain, the cortical speech centre, is unique to humans. This section “organizes sound and meaning on a rational basis.” It is impossible to know when exactly language developed, but it was most definitely an extended process. Now, there are about five thousand spoken languages, but they all belong to about twenty groups. Each group is believed to have been derived from a common ancestor. Some experts believe that the original language developed as recently as a few thousand years ago. The article discusses language as an evolutionary process that is not so different from human evolution. The more useful a language is, the more it will spread. This evolution is ongoing even today.

The study of the origin of language is still incomplete, but researchers form new, interesting hypotheses constantly. Each new finding sheds light on the history of people and their interactions with each other. The findings also bring up many more questions and debates. The debates are still relevant to the present day because language is constantly evolving. Without always realizing it, we are in the midst of an evolutionary change. Language changes from century to century but also from generation to generation. Even writing as recent as Shakespeare’s in the 17^th century seems like a whole different language than the English we know today. What will our languages sound like in 50, 100, 300, 500 years? How are we contributing to these changes? Will the evolution of language ever stop? Which languages will survive the evolutionary trends?

Are we becoming a nation of potty-mouths?

Inappropriate language has become common in many areas, including politics, television, and everyday life. The article points out that in the past, profanity was not allowed on television or in newspapers but has recently been everywhere. The big question now is will our newly adopted language change people? Some experts say that this new language is a normal evolution and will not affect culture. Popular magazines, singers, and movies are using words like “suck” and “ass” all the time, but these used to be extremely rude, taboo words. The problem comes when people’s language starts to represent them. When this happens, people can get offended by language and judge the speaker as an offensive person. The article points out that the Internet has greatly contributed to the increase in profanity because the Internet is not censored. The article comes to the conclusion that language is circular. Words appear and then disappear and appear again. This does not mean our society is getting more profane, but rather that it is in one phase of the cycle.

The full article is here.

Those are multiple examples from many different kinds of people using inappropriate language. Clearly, profanity is everywhere, and it is becoming less and less taboo. Kids are learning words younger and younger. However, I don't think this a sign that our society is becoming more informal or more disrespectful. Teenagers tend to cuss because they think it makes them cooler and because they know they shouldn't use those words. The words become more attractive because they should not be used. I probably hear a greater amount of profanity because I am in college, where students are at the age that uses profanity the most. I notice that adults use this language much less and only when they are in the company of people they know well. Of course there are some exceptions, but for the most part, I find that it is my age group that uses these words so much. We will grow out of this stage, just as other generations have. We may carry a few words with us, but I do not believe our culture or society will be corrupted by foul language.