C.S. Lewis’ At the Fringe of Language
C.S. Lewis’ At the fringe of language tries to explain the evolution of language from legitimate words that induce emotions to words that merely release emotions.
One of the most important functions of language, he argues, is to stimulate our imagination to produce emotional effects, rather than act as merely an emotional outlet. Poetry does this best with indirect associations.
Rather than say “mysterious", why not conjure up the scene that will cause us to feel this mystery? By stimulating the imagination?
Later he discusses “abusive”, “swear”, or other maligned words.
Initially, he says, they were there to evoke our imagination, associate it with some image which will cause us to feel negative emotions.
Swine, in its damning sense (there is nothing inherently wrong with swine), refers to a dirty, gluttonous pig and is meant, contemptuously, to evoke humiliation.
The same with phrases like “Go to Hell”, where the person receiving that attack may be seen as evil incarnate and not worthy of redemption, or the everlasting love of God. Anger may be the motive, but fear and trembling the emotional effect.
Yet, such language soon deteriorates to emotional eruptions, without this metaphorical or imaginative part to communicate.
No-one really cares about Hell anymore, so why should “Go to Hell” hurt them? And the gluttonous “pig” becomes just another sound like “ughhh” or an angry retort, so why should it cause humiliation and contempt?
Lewis’ case is that as language looses its linguistic quality – where words no longer have their descriptive, imaginative and poetic (and even religious) qualities - it becomes pure emotion instead. Language deteriorates, imagination is lost, and communication becomes a volley of outbursts.
One may just as well say “you ughhh”! An ejection of pure emotion, with no language.
Lewis must have been predicting these modern times. In the age of endless words on the internet, and constant invitations to read them, this bilge of the emotions distinguishes the writer from the “bilger”.
“That was an evil film” could translate as “ughhh, what an awful film”. We can all have our emotional outbursts, and enlighten nobody in the process. {Notice that awful has also reached the realm of emotional outburst).
Someone who writes “That was an evil film” who can somehow convey that the film was full of evil intentions, that it was harmful, unGodly, morally wrong is but following Lewis’ advice, and reviving language and words.
But, in the final analysis, people are afraid to use language, to go deeper into their explanations. They are afraid to commit themselves through language and prefer the easier, primal and primitive emotional outbursts instead.
A language of responsibility (moral and otherwise) is a huge commitment. It is so much easier to use an expletive.