In a previous post, I discussed the idea of positive terms becoming pejorative over time, such as “diva” or “Mickey Mouse.” But the opposite process occurs as well: Words that were once disparaging can come to be seen as acceptable or even positive. Just as good words can go bad, disreputable terms can become respectable members of the linguistic community. There are a number of ways by which such transformations occur.
Ironically, a new concept or idea has often received its moniker from those who are opposed to it.
Consider the term “impressionism.” For most people, the word evokes the powerful artwork of Degas, Monet, or Cezánne. But these artists were radicals whose work represented a sharp break with tradition.
The critic Louis Leroy, in a trenchant critique of a canvas exhibited by Monet in 1874, referred to his Impression, Sunrise, as an “impressionistic” work—a bit of wordplay with Monet’s title to suggest that the painting was unfinished. But Leroy was too clever by half—the artists themselves began to use the term, and it rapidly lost its initial negative connotation.
In a similar way, the Big Bang—the idea that the cosmos inflated from a single point—was first employed by the astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1949. His use of the term was interpreted as a critique of such a notion, in contrast to Hoyle’s preferred explanation of a “steady state” view of the universe. Nevertheless, the term gradually became the accepted way to refer to this hypothesis, and the Big Bang theory went on to become the dominant explanation for the origin of the universe.
In other cases, the pejorative nature of a word is lost through a process called semantic drift. Over a period of time, a certain aspect of a given term may evolve, and the meaning that becomes dominant is sometimes the opposite of the word’s initial sense.
Most people, for example, probably think of “conscientiousness” as a positive trait. But the term comes from the idea of acting in accordance with one’s conscience, and this can include a stiff-necked obstinacy and refusal to compromise. During the early modern period of English, several authors used the word in this way, but it gradually lost its negative connotation.
Similarly, the word “nice” used to mean simple or foolish, and “brave” was used to refer to something that was showy or gaudy. “Pretty” originally meant cunning or sly. In all these instances, there was a gradual shift in meaning from the negative to the positive.
And there is a third possibility as well: Negative terms can become positive through the conscious efforts of minority group members who elect to rehabilitate or reclaim a term that had been a pejorative label.
“Chicano,” for example, was originally a slur employed by Anglos to disparage Americans of Mexican descent. But when members of this community—such as Cesar Chavez—began to use the term as a label of their ethnic pride in the 1960s and 1970s, it largely shed its negative connotation.
English is replete with negative terms that describe social outcasts or those who are fascinated by technology. “Nerd” and “geek” are just two of these. However, as society has changed—and those outcasts and enthusiasts began to reap the rewards of their ingenuity—both terms came to be seen as positive. As the denizens of Silicon Valley became wealthy from their technological expertise, being described as a nerd or a geek began to take on a very different meaning.
No one, it seems, would want to be described as a brat, and yet kids who grew up with parents in the military are proud to refer to themselves as military brats.
Perhaps the most impressive example of linguistic rehabilitation, however, has been the reclamation of the word “queer” as a positive label for those identifying as gay or nonbinary.
From the late 19th century onwards, it was a patently offensive term, but in the late 1980s, the LGBT+ community began to use the word as a positive self-descriptor. In the course of a single generation, a term that had been an ugly slur was transformed into a symbol of pride, and “Q” took its place in the LGBTQ+ initialism.
Rapid linguistic change, as exemplified by the reclamation of “queer,” can have unintended consequences. As I point out in my book on miscommunication, there can be a certain disconnect as words that were once seen as taboo become acceptable. Since most linguistic change bubbles up from younger generations, those who are older may be perplexed when forbidden terms from their youth are rehabilitated in this way.
I’ve witnessed this phenomenon firsthand as queer studies became part of the academic curriculum. Some older faculty were quite uneasy when this word began to appear on syllabi or in the titles of courses, whereas younger colleagues and the students themselves saw nothing problematic in its use. For some, linguistic change can be disorienting even when the end result is a more inclusive society.
What's the Good Word?
27
0
19.04.2024
In a previous post, I discussed the idea of positive terms becoming pejorative over time, such as “diva” or “Mickey Mouse.” But the opposite process occurs as well: Words that were once disparaging can come to be seen as acceptable or even positive. Just as good words can go bad, disreputable terms can become respectable members of the linguistic community. There are a number of ways by which such transformations occur.
Ironically, a new concept or idea has often received its moniker from those who are opposed to it.
Consider the term “impressionism.” For most people, the word evokes the powerful artwork of Degas, Monet, or Cezánne. But these artists were radicals whose work represented a sharp break with tradition.
The critic Louis Leroy, in a trenchant critique of a canvas exhibited by Monet in 1874, referred to his Impression, Sunrise, as an “impressionistic” work—a bit of wordplay with Monet’s title to suggest that the painting was unfinished. But Leroy was too clever by half—the artists themselves began to use the term, and it rapidly lost its initial negative connotation.
In a similar way, the Big Bang—the idea that the cosmos inflated from a single point—was first employed by the astronomer........
© Psychology Today
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
