According to John McWhorter, people have “prescribed” terms like “Latinx” and “BIPOC” to push social change as part of a recent phenomenon known as linguistic prescriptivism. McWhorter asks: Does this process work? And will these terms remain in public consciousness?
McWhorter, a Columbia University linguistics professor, New York Times columnist and author, spoke at Claremont McKenna College’s Athenaeum on Jan. 26. He argued that linguistic prescriptivism is not effective in changing thought, as it is imposed “in neglect of certain realities about language that can be different to perceive.”
McWhorter acknowledged that new terms are created in the name of progress. “But prescribing language changes before thought and assumptions in society have moved in that particular direction doesn’t actually [help people],” McWhorter said.
McWhorter first argued that many of these new terms are embraced by a select group of people and not necessarily the group intended. He cited as an example the term “Latinx,” a gender-neutral alternative of “Latino” or “Latina.” McWhorter stated that the problem with this term was that only 3 percent of the Latino population use the term. In the world beyond academia, it is “considered aesthetically unpleasant” and is an attempt to erase the gendered aspect of a language that has a binary grammar gender system.
McWhorter highlighted the arbitrary nature of linguistic evolution. Some terms make it and others don’t, he said. He stated how the acronym BIPOC,” which centers Black and Indigenous consciousnesses, is also predominantly used in academia and may not gain widespread acceptance in the general public. He quipped that the acronym almost sounds like a “medical condition” or could be mistaken as referring to bisexual people.
Still, McWhorter acknowledged some examples in which new representative words did catch on: In 1989, “African American” started being used “almost overnight” and in 1987 the term “Oriental” fell out and people started to use “Asian.” Despite the good intentions behind all these prescribed terms, these two terms were among the few that gained traction both within their respective communities and nationwide.
McWhorter was squarely against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, created by linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir, which states that language channels thoughts to a large extent. McWhorter contended that language does not shape thought to the extent that it fundamentally alters the glasses through which individuals view the world.
“You can’t make people think differently by changing the word, or rather the thoughts that are attracted to a particular term at a given time,” McWhorter said. “If you take the term away, those thoughts just fly towards the new term and after a generation, you need a new one.”
McWhorter observed that decades ago, the words “bum” and “tramp” were commonly used, but due to their negative connotations, “the homeless” became preferred. Now, he said, there has been a push for “the unhoused” to replace “the homeless” to shift us away from these negative perceptions. However, McWhorter noted that “the homeless” acquired those same negative connotations over time anyway, a fate which will inevitably befall “the unhoused.”
“Language and meaning don’t walk in the lockstep that we often think that they do,” McWhorter said. “The dictionary definitions of the words do not necessarily match their book definitions.”
McWhorter suggested that we accept the reality that words can slip beyond what their dictionary definitions are. One shouldn’t force others to use these terms because it can do more harm for their cause than good.
McWhorter also noted the incongruence between the dictionary definition of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) versus DEI programs implemented today.
“You may be for [DEI], you may be against it … it doesn’t mean that you’re against equity,” McWhorter said. “You’re against what equity means within the confines of how DEI operates within our times.”
Stella Kazanjian SC ’27 appreciated McWhorter’s multifaceted approach to the central issue.
“I thought it was interesting how he connected the two sides,” Kazanjian said. “He gave arguments for each side about the words … it wasn’t too one-sided. It incorporated facts [as well as] perspectives.”
McWhorter concluded his talk with advice to the audience in regard to the nature of change and its incompatibility with “Whorf-ianism.”
“The sad thing is that in order to change how people think, you have to change how people think,” McWhorter said. “You have to make arguments … be prepared to get pushback. It is easier to believe change doesn’t happen than to acknowledge it happens slowly.”
Facebook Comments