The language of thought: how will it evolve?

Truncated communication is a feature of everyday life. We imagine linguistic experts would say that while this tendency has been with us for a while, it's rapid growth is due to a diffusion of technologies and cultural adoption of their expressive possibilities. Texting and emoticons have been augmented more recently by the trend for microblogging, through Twitter and Facebook.

Though linguists, psychologists and anthropologists might disagree on the degree of emphasis, we imagine that they'd concur that one of the richest ways to understand how a culture thinks is through its language.

The relationship between language and thought raises an interesting question about the uptick trend in communications truncation: what impact does it have upon thinking and coherence of thought? Does one beget the other?

As seems characteristic of the digital medium (across the variety of channels people use to communicate) there is a seductiveness in the speed with which people can contribute. Our research suggests that the efficiency and ease with which one expresses one's self or dispatches a reply invokes a confidence in the content itself. (Feel free to contact us to learn more about our findings.)

An opinion however is not synonymous with an idea nor does it confer rigor, though there seems to be a widespread assumptiveness (or at the very least a misconception) that it does.

There is an alarming casualness with which people claim expertise today, a disturbing comfort with which they adopt a tonality that suggests authority, when in reality they are far from having that earned stature. One only has to surf the net on a relatively modest number of sites to witness this in action.

When an alliterative approach is a false friend

The article in this Sunday’s San Francisco chronicle focused on how statistics of Iraq war injuries and fatalities are being kept under wraps by the current administration. But it was one of the ways these casualties of warfare were described that particularly stood out. Friendly fire.

For what it represents, this phrase is an offensive descriptor. Many people have commented that there is nothing friendly about fire of any kind (artillery or combustive).

So why has it become an accepted phrase? Why has it stuck in pop culture consciousness? Perhaps there is some aspect to alliteration that makes it easy for the brain to store and the mind remember. If there is a neurologist, or neurolinguistic expert able to weigh in (Mr Pinker?) OFD would certainly like to hear your perspective on how physical, cognitive and language development might work together to explain this tendency.

As a linguistic construct, alliteration abounds in everyday life. World wide web. Frequent flier. One imagines several brands are using this device as a way to aid retention in people’s mind. Best Buy. Jamba Juice. Bed Bath and Beyond. Some make sense. But there are those examples in which communication clarity – and meaning – are subservient to the form.

Take American Advantage. As one of a countless number of frequent flier programs, it is really not clear there is any advantage to this brand’s offering at all. And then of course there’s accidental assassination amidst armed assault. Surely, it is time for the idea and the meaning it carries to triumph beyond the convenience of form, as is sadly the case with Friendly fire.


It is a point that educators in England would do well to note. An actual lesson plan which pays homage to alliteration is scary enough. We should be careful not to raise an entire generation of people who are more enamored with the form rather than the content. This is perhaps only to be expected. We live in an age in which content is so often relegated in importance to appearance; in which what's immediately discernible on the outside and requires no effort to understand is prized at the expense of any deeper engagement. The best alliteration requires no effort yet maintains clarity of meaning. Lazy alliteration, however memorable, forces a compromise not worth taking.