ONE truism about language is stated most succinctly in the introduction to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary: \"Meaning does not truly reside within the word but in the minds of those who hear or read it.\u201d <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
This is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because the phonemes or speech sounds we need to create words are not unlimited, so it's to our advantage that the same phoneme combinations or words can be used to mean different things. Imagine what would happen to English, for instance, if the dozen or so broad groups of meanings of the word \"hand\u201d \u2014 not to mention the scores of prepositional phrases and idioms that use it \u2014 were to suddenly vanish from the language. Speakers of English would be desperately scrounging around for hundreds of new phoneme combinations for the well-established denotations and connotations of \"hand\u201d! <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
On the other hand, for meaning not to reside within the word itself is a curse because using the same phoneme combinations to mean so many different things would make mastery of a language so difficult. Learners need to get exposed to the infinitude of situations that give rise to the different meanings of words, and \u2014 if they are to become reasonably proficient in the language \u2014 need to commit them to memory as well. Thus, whatever the language, learners often spend a great part of their lives trying to master it, some simply giving up and getting by with only a smattering of stock expressions and phrases. <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
Even so, the existing repertoire of words of a language is usually adequate to communicate the more mundane tasks, actions, and ideas of its speakers. It is only when faced with entirely new and extremely complex activities, processes, and concepts that the users of a language get stumped. They will then have three options when this happens \u2014 invent new words for those activities, processes, and concepts; explain each baffling aspect in laborious detail every time; or come up with acronyms as shortcuts. <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
The first two options are, of course, anathema to the scientists, technologists, or conceptualizers who originate novel ideas and things; they are also a vexation to the bureaucrats and laymen who must make those ideas and things produce results in the workplace. <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
This is why a new, thriving cottage industry of sorts has emerged in the language business: acronym development, or the forming of a word from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts of a compound term or phrase. And from the looks of it, unless their makers and users find a way to moderate and rationalize their use, acronyms are well on their way to making the English language a veritable alphabet soup.<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
Unrestrained use of acronyms poses the grave danger of making our English an appallingly thick and unpalatable alphabet soup.<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
See how thick and cryptic that alphabet soup has become by going over this acronym-studded corporate memo: \"EVPO-JAC wants us ASAP to (1) intensify both the B2C and B2B aspects of our WAN operations, (2) refocus our SOHO services, (3) reexamine our SWOTS in the Cellular Division, and (4) target an EBITDA in 2004 of 50 percent over last year's. FYI&G.\u201d <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
Here, corporate and technological acronyms have conspired to form new jargon that we might call \"corpotechnolese,\u201d decipherable only by information-technology savvy managers and geeks. And would the statement above make sense when the words hiding in those acronyms are flushed out? Of course, it would: \"Mr. Jaime A. Castro, Executive Vice President for Operations, wants us to do the following as soon as possible: (1) intensify both the Business-to-Customer and Business-to-Business aspects of our Wide Area Network operations, (2) refocus our Small Office-Home Office services, (3) reexamine our Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, (and) Threats in the Cellular Division, and (4) target 2004 Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization of 50 percent over last year's. For your information and guidance.\u201d<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
But as we know, acronyms aren't really all that bad and confusing. When easy to read and pronounce and when not particularly cacophonic, a few are actually able to shed off their acronym status, get lower-case-letter treatment in standard dictionaries, and open up a whole new world of meaning for us. Imagine modern English without these evocative words that once were acronyms: \"radar\u201d (radio detection and imaging), \"sonar\u201d (sound navigation and ranging), \"laser\u201d (light amplification by simulated emission of radiation), \"maser\u201d (microwave amplification by simulated emission of radiation), \"quasar\u201d (quasi-stellar radio source), \"scuba\u201d (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), \"snafu\u201d (situation normal-all fouled up), \"yuppie\u201d (young, urban professional + the suffix \u2013pie), and \"wysiwig\u201d (\"what you see is what you get,\u201d a reference to computer screen displays that exactly reflect the appearance of the printed document). Most acronyms, however, soon lose currency and die without meriting a dictionary entry.<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
But the urge to come up with acronyms is simply irresistible to brevity-struck people. For why else would there be the acronym ACRONYM for \"acronym\u201d itself, which stands for \"Abbreviated Coded Rendition of Name Yielding Meaning\u201d? Therein lies the grave danger to English becoming an even thicker alphabet soup.<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
This essay, which forms Chapter 134 of my book \"Give Your English the Winning Edge,\" first appeared in my weekly column \"English Plain and Simple\u201d in<\/i> The Manila Times, 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing. All rights reserved.<\/i><\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
Read this essay and listen to its voice recording in <\/i>The Manila Times: \"Language as alphabet soup\"<\/i><\/p>
<\/p>
<\/i><\/p>
Next week, Aug. 22, 2024: \"The perils of using back-formations\"<\/i><\/p>
<\/p>
<\/i><\/p>
Visit Jose Carillo's English Forum, http:\/\/josecarilloforum.com. You can follow me on Facebook and X (Twitter) and email me at [email protected].<\/i><\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
\t<\/span<\/p><\/p>","article_custom_fields":"{\"\":[\"\"],\"seo_meta_keywords\":[\"\"],\"seo_meta_description\":[\"\"],\"seo_meta_title\":[\"\"],\"sponsored_flag\":[\"\"],\"offer_flag\":[\"\"],\"featured_article_flag\":[\"\"],\"drupal_json\":[\"\"],\"wp_custom_json\":[\"\"],\"article_tags\":[\"\"],\"show_image\":[\"\"],\"Disable_Ad\":[\"\"],\"disable_player\":[\"\"],\"column\":[\"\"],\"kicker\":[\"\"],\"edel\":[\"\"],\"delu\":[\"\"],\"delt\":[\"\"],\"premium\":[\"\"],\"Redirect_URL\":[\"\"],\"Registration_required\":[\"\"],\"background_image\":[\"\"],\"page_number\":\"0\",\"initial_publication\":\"The Manila Times\",\"date_created\":null,\"date_modified\":\"2024-08-14 21:00:41\",\"last_modified_user\":\"Marishelle Medina\",\"section_color\":\"\",\"target_page\":\"0\",\"cxense_metatags\":null}","cms_type":"live","author_id":11,"section_id":10,"seo_meta_keywords":"Language,as,alphabet,soup","seo_meta_description":"","seo_meta_title":"Language as alphabet soup","publish_time":"2024-08-14 21:00:41","related_articles_ids":"","article_tags":"","sub_section_id":0,"visit_count":0,"sponsored_flag":0,"offer_flag":0,"featured_article_flag":0,"media_gallery_flag":0,"video_gallery_flag":0,"highlight_flag":0,"top_story_flag":0,"is_updated":0,"is_old_article":0,"old_article_id":0,"article_byline":"Jose A. Carillo","ts":"2024-08-14 21:00:42","last_edited":"2024-08-14 21:00:41","alt_publish_time":"2024-08-14 21:00:42","image_path":null,"author_name":"Jose A. Carillo","section_name":"News","sub_section_name":"","slide_show":0,"breaking_news":0,"visit_count_update_date":null,"old_cms_article_id":null,"permalink":"2024\/08\/14\/news\/language-as-alphabet-soup\/1964248","show_image_in_thumb":0,"api_status":2,"a_custom_data":"","publication_id":2,"max_publish_time":"2024-08-14 21:00:42","page_number":"0","homepage_article_flag":0,"article_shortlink":null,"cropped_image":0};
ONE truism about language is stated most succinctly in the introduction to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary: "Meaning does not truly reside within the word but in the minds of those who hear or read it.”
This is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because the phonemes or speech sounds we need to create words are not unlimited, so it's to our advantage that the same phoneme combinations or words can be used to mean different things. Imagine what would happen to English, for instance, if the dozen or so broad groups of meanings of the word "hand” — not to mention the scores of prepositional phrases and idioms that use it — were to suddenly vanish from the language. Speakers of English would be desperately scrounging around for hundreds of new phoneme combinations for the well-established denotations and connotations of "hand”!
