Comments on: Dangerous Language Series – The possessive pronoun.

By: Zoe

Zoe — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:34:43 +0000

Well, the thought of refering to Gavin as ‘The man I love’ is certainly interesting, but also utterly awful. Whilst he is, without doubt, ‘the man I love’ I’m not sure why I just wouldn’t refer to him as Gavin, it might induce less people to marginally vomity feelings… Not that I have anything against ‘my’ in the overall. Ultimately I’d have to agree with Emily that the positive associations of possessive pronouns, are equal to, if not greater than their possible ‘dangers’. My Children for example. I don’t own them, they are their own people, with their own sense of self, their own way of doing things and their own view of life. The ‘my’ indicates not ownership, but responsibility, joy, love, pride, wonder…

It is interesting how people see things, though.

By: Rose A

Rose A — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:16:26 +0000

language always does have an importance but in someway but there would have to be some way of getting the whole of the english language to mean the same throughout the whole country and other countries aswell…it’s confusing enough for us as the native speaker never mind for others learning…the variations that exist across our language as so large and its taken us hundreds of years to get here as it is….the amount of times words have changed meaning over the years is unreal in itself.

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:15:49 +0000

Indeed it is, but I had planned to attack it in much smaller chunks spread out over time

To me, in the grand scheme of things. The current system will fail at some point in the near future. My idea’s on dangerous language are part of a larger societal change that I endorse (the Venus Project if anyone is interested). In our current environment I can’t see the topic of this note making an impact on society in the slightest. But it might succeed in reaching out to people like yourselves who would be more that way inclined. But as part of a wider societal change; language has a massive importance.

By: Emily F

Emily F — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:14:47 +0000

More needs to be done, on a larger scale. This would prevent behavior being misconstrued by all parties and also tackle other “problems” with human nature; deviant behavior, greediness etc. Sorry for the diversion but I think it is all relevant. Social evolution is surely the whole purpose behind the topic in the first place? Or at least improvement?

By: Rose A

Rose A — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:14:05 +0000

the majority of human beings however aren’t willing to change…most are quite happy settled in their ways, especially when they’ve been brought up that way…they aren’t interested in changing their lifestyles even if its beneficial to them, the drinking campaigns may have been successful in certain areas but you can gaureentee that if you go out on whatever night, there will still be a lot of people especially young kids who are wasted and wake up the next morning thinking its totally cool that they cant remember what happened the night before…its dangerous but they don’t care… so as for changing language that may or may not be potentially dangerous, i dont think anyone would have a chance…not even a highly influential figure ….
i dont really know where I’m going with this but yeah thats what i wanted to say :p

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:12:54 +0000

I’m in danger of veering slightly off topic now (societal evolution). Certainly in the current society, I agree. Still, I can’t help but feel that your comment smells of defeatism. Are you of the opinion that we are beyond any kind of improvement, however slight? Or that more needs to be done?

By: Emily F

Emily F — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:12:20 +0000

AHHH, then I agree completely. If you were taking a human and bringing it up in a society devoid of previous human behavioral attachments to language, behavior etc. in a non family environment with no interaction with anyone “polluted” with said behavioral and emotional patterns then it definitely would be effective. Like you say this is somewhat unlikely to happen and brainwashing (lol) could work but society has been built on these bonds and behaviors and it would take a lot to destroy them. The majority of all animals are “possessive” to a degree, mainly for survival of the species. Humans can be objective (usually) about their behaviour and then make changes but they would have to be asserted and regulated by the individual and again open to be misconstrued by fellow humans.

Also, I have to disagree with your method of making it socially unacceptable. Humans are a deviant bunch (thanks nature) and would just do it anyway. For example, the drink driving campaign…

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:11:18 +0000

Almost lol!

I agree with you on the most part. Especially when you say that ‘changing’ behavior with language is ambitious. Once the behavioral patterns are established they are very hard to break. And it usually takes some kind of trauma, or extreme emotional response to even change them slightly. I was suggesting that had the individual not been party to this sort of language in the first place, they would not have formed these behavioral patterns. I’m not saying there aren’t ways – take the drink driving campaign for example. A very effective way to change behavior is to make it socially unacceptable. Of course, brainwashing people in this way is somewhat contrary to my general philosophy… I wouldn’t dream of forcing people to behave in a certain way. Rather to present an argument that inspires people to think about the ways they behave.

By: Emily F

Emily F — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:10:13 +0000

I agree with your concept and that English language terms can be misconstrued and interpreted in a negative way. Today’s society of the “Marketing Personality” has jumped on the proverbial language bandwagon and assaulted our senses with an incessant barrage of possessive language. For example already mentioned in the above comments, magazines, TV, adverts and this is because it works, and why? Because it is in our nature and then, hugely exploited by large companies to make profits. The problem really lies with where partnership ends and possession begins and the individual’s interpretation of this point.
Human nature is to be part of a pack and to form bonds, vocalising these bonds creates the issues you are discussing but where does the inherent human nature of belonging turn to possession?
Ultimately, regardless of who vocalizes possession in language terms, the “possessed” has to allow the “possessor” to reach this position within the relationship…

The terms “my wife”, “my husband” or “my child” have many positive connotations as well as negative and it is really down to the individual, or indeed, group ideals and beliefs of basic human nature itself, as to which camp they fall into. I agree that vocalizing bonds in possessive terms can lead to possessive behavior but would people behave in this way regardless of how relationships were vocalized?
I think changing how you describe your partnerships may be a positive step to clarification of feelings within a situation, but also trying to beat possessiveness from the simple human psyche with a sight language change is a little ambitious.
Everyone feels the need to be wanted and to “belong”, ensuring this does not turn into possessive behavior in regards to any relationship (friendship, business, marriage, family), the individuals would have to keep their behavioral actions and emotions in check, as well as language, as these can all be misconstrued by the receiving party as “possessive” behavior. As well, choosing to act in certain ways or wanting to act in certain ways due to the connotations and feelings of a relationship is an offshoot of this. Is one way of action more “possessive” than the other?
Do I win a prize for longest comment?

By: Rose A

Rose A — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:08:31 +0000

i know…i mean it comes down to connotations really, i mean if you say ‘my woman’ or ‘my missus’ or anything like and (i know there are much worse ones) but if a man says these the connotations (or at least to me) are sort of negative, whereas if a woman says ‘my man’ or ‘my mr’ i kind of feel it gives a positive connotation to the man as her protector kind of things…whereas ‘woman’ makes me think of the womans stereo typical role… i don’t know if thats just me being sexist :p but you know, it’s when they’res people walking around saying ‘my piece’ and ‘my bit on the side’ then its just getting a bit silly and rude really :/