The Danger of Abbreviations

Abbreviations have been a part of culture for centuries. They live in our language and sleep on our tongues. But, just like most things, they have an unsavoury side to them, and by using George Orwell’s 1984 as a the foundation, abbreviations role in society can be explored in more depth.

‘If thoughts can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thoughts.’ Arguably, this can be taken further to say that our actions are manifestations of our thoughts. Thus, language becomes a means to corrupt our behaviour as well. By limiting the range of vocabulary through the instrument of abbreviations, our range of ideas and actions is also limited. For example, if the word for rebellion ceased to exist, would then the concept and act of rebellion no longer exist as well? This can be said to be so. Though there is an argument to be made that action comes before thought, sometimes referred to as ‘I did it without thinking.’ But this then brings us to a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Let us break it down even further then. Though the act of rebellion had to exist before the word itself did, for why would a word be needed for something that doesn’t even exist yet, this is a ripple from an earlier concept that has yet to be explored. If the language prior to the action of ‘rebellion’ was also controlled, the behaviour itself couldn’t be abstractedly conceived. It could never have occurred in the first place if the puzzle pieces had been manipulated or removed. It was the initial freedom of thought and behaviour in the first place, the ability to experiment and revolt, to dislike and rebel, that led to the birth of the action. But before the genus of action, what was there? Understanding? Black abyss? Take another example, such as ‘studying’. When the person committed the act of studying, surely it had no name then, but over time it became a notable behaviour resulting in the solidification of its identity and label. The action did indeed come first, but before the action, the conception of the action had to occur, and a strong abstract form of thought was required. An idea in the crevices of the mind. The origin of action then lies in the abstraction of thought, pieces that aren’t concisely aligned, but there is potential, a vague idea, a possibility. Then, it is refined through action, like gold through fire. It is this that 1984 seeks to eradicate, and it is by controlling this point within human thought that our behaviour falls under tyranny.

Abbreviations cultivate the ground, allowing the seeds of miscommunication to sprout. Miscommunication in itself is already rampant, like a plague. It breeds in pride and rides on the back of chaos. Sometimes it hides behind lies. But, abbreviations themselves allow this disease to spread like wildfire. Its inherent nature not only conveys a lack of investment in the conversation but also indicates mankind's thoughts on the role language has in our society. It becomes abnormal to be well-spoken. This isn’t to say we must revert back to thees and thys but rather to fill our speech with words of weight, of care, and awareness. To know what we mean and find words that mean it. Yet, how can this be possible when the language needed doesn’t exist? Instead, we are left with skeletons of suggestive letters. Arguably, miscommunication and abbreviation are married; they go hand in hand down the aisle of disharmony. It must be made clear that it is the full act, concept, and agenda behind abbreviations that is at fault, not just the end result. Once a word as simple as ‘dead’ is transformed into ‘unalive’, the meaning fundamentally changes, and its connotations shift. It does not simply replace ‘dead’. Its original intent and idea are concealed, restricted, and ultimately eradicated. It is therefore imperative to perceive and understand language as a weapon. What kind of weapon it is, is up to us. A weapon of peace or a weapon of tyranny.

Furthermore, by shortening and streamlining language, offensive and morally complex ideas become more digestible, easier to process, and more acceptable. From the surface, this only looks like a benefit. Who wouldn’t want complex concepts to be boiled down into a simple format to understand better? Yet, beneath the swelling surface, its ugly face lies bare on the concrete. Language can be offensive, difficult, and challenging. But reducing it to what can only be called a dummy (pacifier) does nothing but damage our intellect and thus our progress as a race. Truth, ideas, and new concepts by their nature risk offense and hurt; they carry the potential of pain and discomfort in their palms. But for humanity to grow, to be better and achieve more in the right light, we must take this risk daily. Leap into the ocean of discomfort and embarrassment of pronouncing new words incorrectly and accidentally insulting someone. Abbreviations deny us our humanity. They are a tool created to soften the sting of Truth, but is it not the potential of this very sting that makes Truth…Truth?

Additionally, it can be contended that abbreviations are used to limit, confuse, and ultimately reduce our range of thought through amalgamating different meanings together into one word. Though streamlining our language could be considered beneficial to society, as mentioned previously, it ultimately has a corrosive side effect that cannot be ignored. By reducing our interaction with intellectually intensive ideas or potentially objectionable concepts through the simplification of language, we diminish our range of expression, thus thought. Associations that words might previously have held slowly disappear as more meanings are replaced with socially acceptable and digestible versions. The words would evoke ideas by their full existence, but instead, they are diluted and then transformed into a completely different entity. The abbreviated version itself is its own word. It exists in its own right. It does not replace the original words it was intended to abbreviate.

Furthermore, due to their nature, abbreviations are quick, efficient, and easy to pronounce. Again, this might seem like a positive step forward; however, in reality, it is simply a reduction of thought process and critical thinking. The typical routine when pronouncing full words immediately provides clarity, depth, and holistic meaning. Yet, the easily uttered versions arguably encourage people to be more thoughtless when conversing. Society becomes careless in its speech as it disregards the importance of language more and more; the weight it should hold in our minds matters.

‘In the name of progress, ’ the public will shout. They’ll protest and march against words that are offensive to their ego and pride. To the fragility of their worldview, fragility in its complete meaning. They hold a perspective that crumbles at disagreement, breaks under pressure, and shatters like glass when being asked, ‘Do you have evidence for that? ’ So, we don’t challenge the manipulation of meaning in our language, and slowly over time, we forget. But by no means is this an excuse to be offensive, but rather that most ideas carry a risk, and it’s this risk that we take every time. Instead, for the sake of forged peace and protection, our language is contorted into the strict guidelines society sets for it. Original meanings will disappear into a propagandistic history. But the elites, they’ll scream and shout the same as the people do, they’ll mutter under their breath, ‘it's progress,’ while they hide 1998 editions of paper Oxford dictionaries, under their kitchen floorboards, and we’re stuck with the Urban, where ‘popcorn girl’ is the word of the day.