John Locke, in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," finds language - specifically, words - problematic. To him, the use of words in communication is only as efficient as a speaker (or writer). Particularly words that are made up of compound ideas are difficult to utilize properly. In cases "where the signification of the word and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same...[it is difficult to] excited in the hearer exactly the same idea they stand for in the mind of the speaker" (Locke 818).
I wonder if Locke would reevaluate these notions if he experienced the English language today. In Locke's time (1632-1704), it is possible that he simply lacked the range of vocabulary we now enjoy. He did live in an era when vocabulary was being cultivated strongly; a century previous, William Shakespeare was inventing the words he needed. About a century after Locke's death, a William Webster was compiling his dictionary as a Dr. Peter Mark Roget crafted the first thesaurus. This manuscripts have since been invaluable in assembling and disassembling meanings of words, finding more accurate substitutes for them. Mixing nuances of meaning to produce new synonyms is something of an alchemy performed with language. From these exchanged words, one's chance of success in communication increases.
Perhaps Locke was disadvantaged by his place in history, for after his death, the crisis of word comprehension which he addresses in his essay was certainly lessened.
Roget's Thesaurus (http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/rogetdis.html) Accessed September 26, 2011.
Vanessa-
ReplyDeleteI like your point. The history you included was helpful, too. I didn't realize until the discussion in class that the meanings of some more abstract words were still being formed in the time of Chaucer, and so spellings weren't standardized, either. It's all the more helpful to realize dictionaries and the first thesaurus were being put together at about the same time.
What you wrote definitely puts things in perspective for me.