Neologisms in Films and Televison - Essay Example

Purists, the guardians of language, are up in arms. Neologists, they claim, have waged an all-out war against language. Not only are they constantly inventing new words and forcing them upon a vulnerable public through a complicit media but are engaging in the deliberate and premeditated deconstruction of language. Language has always had to contend with neologisms but, never with the active deconstruction of the foundations of spoken and written language, the rules of spelling and grammar.1 Language, from the purist viewpoint, is close to becoming endangered. No language, as the French purists claim, is as threatened by nonsensical neologisms as is the French. Formerly the language of high culture, the French language has been unjustifiably and violently reduced to meaningless neologisms.2 In support of their rather emotive arguments, purists cite passages from a current bestseller among French teenagers. Written entirely in neologisms, the book is replete with sentences such as this one: "6 j t'aspRge d'O 2 kologne histoar 2 partaG le odeurs ke tu me fe subir"3 (what if I were to spray you with cologne so I can make you suffer with the smells you make me suffer from). If this is what language has been reduced to, the purists contend, spoken and write language are in crisis. Neologists have largely dismissed the purists' critique as the "hyper-ravings of ultra-conservatives." 4 Were it up to the purists, they claim, populations would be speaking in Biblical tongues and language's failure to evolve, expressive of its unremitting stance against the very phenomenon of evolution, would have functioned as an obstacle towards scientific and technological progress. The development of language, often spurred by the neological imaginations, or "hallucinations" as purists would prefer to call it, has long functioned as the primary motivator of technological development and scientific invention.5 Neologists' capacity to imagine and name concepts and phenomenon before their actual materialisation has immeasurably contributed to technological evolution. In defence of their seemingly unwarranted claim to contribution to scientific development and technological progress, neologists have presenting rather persuasive evidence. William Gibson, the author of Neuromancer, a science fiction novel written almost entirely in neologism, is a case in point. Gibson's envisioning of cyberspace and virtual reality, his invention of a myriad of concepts to describe them, preceded the popularisation of the internet and the invention of much of that which has accompanied it. While it is difficult to make a case for Gibson's having inspired the development of the internet, there is no doubt that he gave us the language of virtual reality and cyberspace before either were definitive components of civilisation and human life.6 As Fischer recalls, the publication of Neuomancer sent shock waves through the purist ranks. In unison, they accused its publishers of having betrayed the sanctity of language, of being party to Gibson's obvious disrespect for, and ignorance of, the English language. The coinage of a few terms, only when needed and as long as their semantic roots were accurate, was acceptable but the invention of a virtual dictionary for phenomenon which did not exist, for lifestyles that bore nothing in common with that which was known, and for realities which were non-real, was untenable.7 Interestingly, those very neologisms which Gibson invented two decades ago and was stringently attacked for daring to do so, have been included in English language dictionaries by the purists themselves and are popularly regarded as legitimate English words. These neologisms, cyberspace, cyberpunk, hacking and wired, to name but a few of those contained in Neuromancer, have not only established their legitimate presence in the English language but have been translated into, and embraced by, countless other languages.8 Neologisms, irrespective of the purist perspective, are an evidential reality of any language. Neologisms do not just maintain the vitality of language by preventing its atrophy but sustain language through cultural changes and evolutions. Language, as Bassnnett and Lefevere explain, reflects culture, is produced by it and, by definition, encapsulates a people's heritage, memories, experiences and legacies. Language draws life from culture and remains in circulation only as long as it can serve and express that culture. Once language looses that capacity, once it atrophies, it dies and joins the ranks of the dead and dying tongues.9 Neologisms, contrary to the purist claim that they wreak havoc upon a language and function to deconstruct and destroy it, protect a language from death. A language's capacity to absorb neologisms is a mark of its dynamism and a testimony to its synergetic relationship with its culture.10 Neologisms, as linguists contend, are not only symbolic of the dynamic relationship between language and culture but are the means by which language evolves at a pace consistent with culture and remains relevant to the cultural context within which it is used. As may be determined from the above articulated definition of neologism, they are linguistic responses to changing culture. In his analysis of the nineteenth century Spanish purismo movement, the lingo-cultural scholar, Antonio Rubio remarks on the futility of any, and all, efforts to halt cultural evolution and to repel the neologisms which develop in direct response. Culture is a flexible construct, innately vulnerable to the influence of change factors, because it is a medium of interactive communication and representation. It is within the cultural matrix that the new' emerges, whether from within or from without and it is within the parameters of culture, and its unique historical memories and current experiences, that language responds to the new' through neologisms which capture and define it.11 Neologisms are, thus, not only expressions of the imagination, articulating that which is yet to emerge, as earlier stated but, are strategy by which language responds, and lays claim to culture's novelties.12 Consequently, linguistic purist movements are bound to fail insofar as they are opposed to cultural progression, on the one hand, and seek the disconnection of language from culture, on the other. While neologisms are expressive of language's acceptance of cultural evolution and change, culture's acceptance of neologisms and its integration of them, representative of legitimisation, is more problematic. As Beck notes, to attain cultural acceptance and legitimisation through integration into that fluid cultural body, neologisms have to make sense. Not only must they be semantically irreproachable and phonetically familiar but they need be easily comprehensible. When used within the context of a particular cultural and linguistic tradition, the receiver, providing that he/she is a native of that lingo-cultural tradition, should be able to deduce its meaning and integrate it into his/her vocabulary.13 Once a neologism satisfies the semantic, phonetic and comprehensibility criteria articulated, it attains cultural acceptance. From the perspective of linguistic theory, only five, of the existent six, types of neologisms fulfil the criteria for legitimacy. As Algeo asserts, linguists have identified loanwords,' shortenings,' composites,' compound forms,' blends' and shifts,' as the types of neologisms which satisfy the stated criteria.14 The sixth type, of which one may mention pizzazz' as an example, is simply referred to as neologisms of "unknown etymology," and therefore, deemed by linguists as of questionable legitimacy.15 Loanwords, identified as products of intercultural exchange, are defined as one language, or culture's adoption of the vocabulary of another. Among the most popularly used loanwords in English are the Spanish, macho, the Italian, al dente, and the Arabic, artichoke, to name but a few. In Spanish, popular loanwords, immediately traceable to the Arab conquest of Spain, are algodn (cotton from the Arabic alcotn), alcalde (mayor from the Arabic alcade) and basta (enough from the Arabic bas). Loanwords, as defined and exemplified, are a product of persistent and extended cultural interactions and, insofar as they fulfil the stated criteria (persistent interaction lends to phonetical familiarity and generates comprehensibility, in addition to which, semantic roots are irreproachable) attain lingo-cultural acceptance and legitimacy. Translation theorists have determined loanwords to be the least problematic type of neologisms insofar as the task of translation is concerned. As Liu mentions, loanwords, insofar as they are, arguably, non-neologisms within the context of their mother language and, to the extent that they have, not only been embraced by the receptive culture as legitimate but have been integrated into its language as a popularly used words, both in high and low culture, pose no more of a translation-problem than do on-neologisms.16 Concurring, Bassnnett and Lefevere add that, in recent years, television and film have played a profound role in the popularisation and legitimisation of loanwords. They have further functioned to facilitate the expansion of the volume of loanwords within most cultures, especially pertaining to English terms.17 The popularity of the English-speaking entertainment media has lent to a quasi-global familiarisation with English phonetics and, insofar as the words spoken are accompanied by an enactment of their meaning, have generated the degree of comprehensibility requisite for the subsequent adoption of English words by other linguistic traditions and their later nativisation of them.18 From the perspective of linguistic scholars and translation theorists, therefore, loanwords are not problematic insofar as the task of translation is concerned. Quite simply stated, when translating the Spanish algodn' into English, or the English cotton' into French, translators do not need to reference Arabic, or even be aware that the two are loanwords from the Arabic alcotn' or cotn,' because, as is the case with the greater majority of loanwords, they have become an accepted part of the borrower-language's vocabulary. If loanwords are rarely problematic insofar as translation is concerned, other forms of neologisms can pose problems. As Liu asserts, shortenings, compounds, blends and shifts, consequent to cultural reasons, tend towards the problematic. As an exemplification, one can reference the English composite, jet-setter. From the specifically American historico-cultural perspective, jet-setter, derived from the American slang for aeroplane, jet, and the neologised adjective for the verb set. Put together, this particular neologism references the rich and trendy elite who set fashion trends, define taste and compel lifestyle changes. The neologism itself immediately derives from the evolution of commercial travelling and the fact that it, itself, led to the phenomenon of the rich and famous travelling from one country to another in search of seasonal festivities and fashion styles, returning to their countries and bringing those fashions with them and, thereby, setting the fashion-trend The historical, cultural and native linguistic implications of this particular neologism are what endow it with meaning. Those meanings, those historico-cultural implications, do not withstand translation insofar as they are products of national experiences and imagination.19 Consequently, when confronted with compound neologisms, the only options before a translator are transliteration, often culminating in the formation of a nonsensical compound neologism, or to undertake the introduction of a loanword neologism into they language they are translating to.20 Within the history of neologisms, translators have traditionally played a fundamental role in the proliferation of loanwords but, their role has been rendered inconsequential compared to that played by the television ad the film media. 21 As has been implied in the above, translators have played a dual role in the development and proliferation of neologisms. In the first place, and when confronted with neologisms which have peculiar historico-cultural significance and, thus, do not withstand literal translation, necessitating a focus on the texture of the meaning, and not on the text of the word, they have often coined equivalent neologisms in the language being translated into. That is, they have drawn on their own cultural and historical knowledge of that language to invent a comparable neologism in lieu of translation. In the second place, and when faced with word which simply cannot be translated as there exists no equivalent in the language being translated into, or cultural knowledge of the concept/phenomenon referenced, they have transcribed the word as is, effectively lending to the proliferation of cross-cultural loanword neologisms.22 However, as some have argued and as shall now be discussed, the role which translators have traditionally played in this regard has effectively been overshadowed by that which is currently being played by television and film. Spanish linguists have credited the media of film and television as not only giving rising to an entire plethora of unique neologisms over the past five years but of also contributing to the evolution of a mongrelised form of the language, popularly referred to as Spanglish.23 In reference to the first, among the more interesting of the Spanish shift-type of neologisms which evolved through the cinema are fasciitis and Islingtonistas. The first is an adjective used in specific relation to the popular press' predilection for the exposure of the private lives of the rich and famous, their subsequent destruction of them as national symbols or role models, and the fact that they leave these symbols as dead/dying corpses while they, the press, grow fat and rich as a result.24 The referenced neologism derives from the word fasciti, a form of parasitical bacteria which spread across a number of Spanish villages in the late 1990 and culminated in the death of seven people. This particular bacteria eats away at the infected person and, if left untreated, leads to rapid decline, loss of weight and eventually, death. 25 In 2003, the Spanish film Dup Dol Sip, itself a meaningless neologism of uncertain etymology, introduced the concept of fasciitis" and popular cultural acceptance of it and its immediate comprehensibility, ensured its integration into the language.26 As for Islingtonistas, the neologism was created and introduced into the language by day-time Spanish soap-operas, and refers to English summer-time tourists. More specifically, it references their tendency towards cultural arrogance vis--vis all that is Spanish and sarcastically pits that perception up against the popular Spanish conception of the English as uncivilised and uncultured. This particular neologism, created by some unnamed Spanish soap-opera script-writer, and popularised through daytime television, received such popular cultural acceptance that within the space of just two short years, it has become such an integral part of Spanish speech about the English that its neologistic origins are rarely recalled.27 In other words, it is perceived of as a legitimate Spanish word by all but the purismo movement. The role played by television and cinema in the creation and popularisation of neologisms is hardly confined to the Spanish language. To the dismay of Larousse, the self-appointed guardians of the French language, French cinema and TV have imposed changes upon the French language and forced their inclusion in French language dictionaries. One of the more interesting examples of the cinematically-created and imposed French neologisms is "boing-boing."28 An American neologism of unknown etymology in origin, boing-boing was nothing other than a reference to gaming gear introduced by the Happy Mutants Corporation and, defined as "wonderful." 29 While, in this instance, it is arguably a loanword, its adoption and use by French cinema has endowed it with a very different meaning. This particular neologism has come to symbolise a generation, the wired-generation of French adolescents and the infinite world of possibilities which technology has opened up before them. This particular neologism has been popularly received by the French youth and has been integrated into the French language.30 As one linguist remarks, the word may sound "senseless but it communicates such a wonderful image of optimistic youthfulness - of teenagers embracing life and of jumping up and down with joy," that pop-culture has accepted it.31 Senseless as it may sound, as disconnected as it may be from French semantics and phonetics, boing-boing has become a part of contemporary French language. Larousse, debating on its inclusion in French language dictionaries, have decided to resist for the time being. However, one may recall, as does Beck, Larousse had earlier insisted on referring to computers as machine a calculer but in response to television and film's persistent use of a frenchified pronunciation of computers and society's obvious preference for the former, Larousse was left with no option but to include computer' in its French language dictionary.32With that, it legitimised this loanword neologism and established it as an accepted French word. The guardians of language may, therefore, resist the acknowledgement and legitimisation of neologisms but when confronted with cinema and television's persistent use of them, are left with no choice. Within the context of English film and television's contribution to the language, no neologism has attained the widespread popularity that supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has. There is not one English language dictionary or word-processing spelling correction option that does not acknowledge this word. As Algeo mentions, this "nonsense" word actually predates the Mary Poppins film.33 However, the word was viewed as such "utter rubbish," not to mention impossible to spell or even pronounce properly, that the unknown songwriter who had first created the word was never able to sell the song in which it appeared. 34 However, when Rogers and Hammerstein used it and when it was used by, and popularised through the cinema, it instantly became a "hit" word. Culture did not just accept it, but unrestrainedly embraced it.35 When neologisms have the power of Hollywood behind them, it is futile for linguists to resist them or to debate their inclusion in the language. If they have been spoken by Hollywood, they are part of the language, irrespective of the opinion of linguists and purists.36 The neologist project is a work in progress.37 Neologisms are constantly being created and popularised through the cinema and television, whether through the actual invention o new words or through the borrowing of those existent in other languages and their imposition upon the receptive lingo-culture. Purists may react to the phenomenon with alarm and translators may constantly bemoan the difficulties inherent in the translation of neologisms. How can they be expected to translate words which carry such rich cultural and national connotations and which, if removed from their contextual culture, would loose much of their meaning They ca do nothing about it, many claim, expect devise neologisms which carry equivalent, or comparative meaning within the matrix of the langue or culture being translated into.38 In that case, the purists sadly remark, we are doomed to live with diglossia, not language and, as they doggedly maintain, cinema and TV have killed language, as in high culture.39 Bibliography Algeo, John. "Where Do All the New Words Come From" American Speech, 55, 4 (1980). Bassnnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. Translation, History and Culture. London: Cassekk, 1990. Bassnnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. Constructing Cultures, Essays in Literary Translation. Toronto, Clevedon, 1999. Beck, Jonathan. "When Dictionaries Disagree: Notes on Neologisms and Linguistic Methods, The French Review, 73, 3 (2000). Blume, Mary. A French fair, The Paris Beat. NY: Free Press, 1999. Fischer, Roswitha. Lexical Change In Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Study Of The Motivation, Institutionalization, And Productivity Of Creative Neologisms. Tubingen: Nar, 1998. Herron, Jerry . "Popular Culture and Critical Popularisation," boundary 2, 15, 3 (1988). Liu, Lydia H. Tokens of Exchange: The Problems of Translation in Global Circulation. Durham: Duke University Press, 1999. Liu, Lydia H. Translating Practice: Literature, National Culture and translated Modernity. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1995. Marso, Phil. Pa Sage A Taba. Paris: Polar Livre, 2003. Picone, Michael D. Neologisms and Dynamic French. London: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1996. Rifelj, Carol. "False Friends or True Semantic Anglicisms in France Today." The French Review, 69, 3 (1996). Rubio, Antonio. "Comments on 18th Century Purismo, Hispanic Review, 3, 4 (1935). Smith, Paul Julian. Contemporary Spanish Culture, TV, Fashion, Art, Film. London: Polity Press, 2004. Read More