PPPPrepositions & Propositions (Four P's #195)
On Language, On Point; Off the Chain, and Off the Deep End
The late William Safire's weekly column in the NY Times called "On Language" was often over my head when I tried to read it growing up. Only once I started getting the Sunday edition delivered to my dorm in Philadelphia did I truly fall in love with language.
Language is the manifestation of wit, and it remains one of the most potent weapons ever unleashed by mankind. It unites us, divides us, defines, and survives us. Language is immortal.
SOMETHING PRACTICAL: On Language
Language is the words we use, the way we use them, and the meaning behind them. Language is one of the defining characteristics that make humans, well, human. But because it’s such a fundamental concept, we rarely take the time to think about where it comes from or how it evolves. We’re all born with a language instinct that is hardwired in our brains.
Our knack for language is far deeper than the grammar we are taught in school and is probably even one of the reasons for our continued survival as a species. The idea that grammatical rules are hardwired into the brain was first put forward by the famous linguist Noam Chomsky in his theory of Universal Grammar. He posited that children don’t learn how to speak from their parents or anyone else, but rather by using their innate grammar skills. As a consequence, Chomsky reasoned, all languages have the same basic underlying structure.
Language is based on two principles that facilitate ease in communication. The first principle is the "arbitrariness" of the sign. This idea relates to how we pair a sound with a meaning (ie: the word “cat” does not sound like a cat and has no inherent “catness,” but nonetheless retains its meaning. The second principle is that while there is a finite number of words, grammar gives us an infinite number of ways to combine them. Grammar allows us to arrange these words in specific combinations to evoke specific images and meanings. We understand speech first, written language next. Sentences are parsed, broken up into parts, and refer to their grammatical roles to understand their meaning. However, grammar itself is nothing more than the code for how language works, specifying only which sounds correspond to which meaning. The mind then parses this grammatical information, looking for the subject, verb, objects, and so forth, and groups them together to provide the meaning of the sentence.
Childhood is a critical period for developing our innate language skills. An average six-year-old has an amazing vocabulary of around 13,000 words, which is extraordinary considering preliterate children only hear words through speech and have no opportunity to study them. Instead, they memorize a new word every two hours for every waking hour, day after day.
But as we grow older, we begin to lose this amazing ability. Adults everywhere struggle when it comes to learning another language, as the skill seems to rust with age. Why? Because we have learned TOO many words? Experienced TOO many things? It's all fascinating. Our knack for language is deeply complex, but the more we learn about it, the more we discover about ourselves.
SOMETHING PERSONAL: On Point with Grammar
I'll admit it. I'm a grammar snob. Recent decades have seen a growing obsession with grammatical rules. Confusing “their” and “there,” or splitting infinitives have been known to end friendships in my household. Yet we rarely use correct grammar when speaking. With grammar, prescriptive rules are the ones we learn and struggle with in school, and they govern how we’re “supposed” to talk. In contrast, scientists deal with and attempt to isolate and explain descriptive rules, i.e., the ones that govern how people talk.
Prescriptive rules alone are not enough to build a language. They really are little more than decorations of descriptive rules. So it’s possible to speak grammatically (as in descriptively) while also speaking ungrammatically (non-prescriptively), just as a race car driver can obey the laws of physics while simultaneously breaking the laws of Austin, Texas.
No, I'm NOT heading to Austin this weekend for the Formula 1 race, as it falls right in between my first two work-related events this week and next... plus I'm not still fully over my long COVID. That's right, I'm just finishing up my fourth (4th!) antibiotic post-COVID for a series of un-fun things. Of course, this last medication comes with a "black box warning" that I can rupture my Achillies tendon by stepping awkwardly. Awesome. I'd like to just be able to breathe out the left side of my nose. The good news is that I'm not contagious, so if you're at Advertising Week NY this week, at ANA Masters in Orlando next week, or at NFT.London the week of November 1, let me know!
SOMETHING PROFESSIONAL: Off the Chain
It should come as no surprise that I spend a great deal of time and energy looking at the words, messages, themes, even the tones used to communicate the value proposition of Web3 strategies for marketers.
But I often take for granted that not everyone understands the basic underlying principles, and frequently get asked, "What's different or special that I can't do with my current platforms and partnerships? So here goes...
Why Web3? With early digital technology (Web 1.0), publishers and brands were the creators, putting content online for others to consume. The novelty was being able to view content: Reference materials, news, and sports scores. With social media (Web 2.0), the masses became the creators: Wikipedia entries, Amazon product reviews, blog posts, YouTube videos, and crowdfunding campaigns. User-generated content was free labor, and the big winners were centralized media platforms - Google, Amazon, Facebook & Apple. The excitement and potential of "digital communities" quickly waned once savvy marketers and consumers realized that they own the data, your content, and all of the interactions happen in THEIR ecosystems and on their platforms. We put our trust in the biggest platforms not to abuse their power as they grew. With new, open blockchain technology that is verifiable and permission-less, Web3 is built on decentralized platforms on the internet that make all transactions open for others to see. Blockchain unlocks new value exchanges, business models, & systems that don’t rely on trusting people, corporations, financial institutions, or governments to make decisions in our best interest.
Why NFTs? The business model of nearly every proposed Web3 now platform entails distributing tokens on the blockchain for authentication and proof of ownership. Tokens incentivize fans and consumers to use and improve the platform to make the value (affinity, loyalty, financial) of those tokens increase. A well-defined strategy aligns the incentives, which is our job as marketers to unlock and optimize.
Why now? The next generation of community and fan engagement enables brands to incorporate tokens into their marketing mix, drive value, and achieve brand objectives. Together with those fans, we can bring together the innovative features of web3 -- blockchain openness, smart contracts, digital creative, composability, and direct-to-community engagement -- with the proven web2 models: search, social, influence, creation, and promotion. This will be a step-by-step process for leveraging tokens and collectibles to turn consumer audiences and target segments into communities, to bring them along with you... An evolution AND a revolution.
Why Mint? We provide seamless, accessible, white-label tools and models for your organization, athletes, and partners to companies to enhance their brand, enter new markets, engage their consumers, explore new innovations, target audience segments more effectively, facilitate more direct audience engagement, foster community growth, incentivize participation, monetize valuable brand IP, reclaim ownership of your content and data from centralized media platforms, and solidify your relationship with fans, consumers, and advocates.
SOMETHING POLITICAL: Off the Deep End
Politics divides us. Sports unite us. At least in theory. To be at Citi Field last weekend, watching the Mets in the Playoffs... was almost enough for me to forget about the trash conflagration that is our world right now. To be there with my son for his first postseason game, and to be there with my dad, was pretty awesome. But things came back to reality pretty quickly once the games began and the intensity increased. And I'm not talking about the game on the field.
The language directed at opposing players was consistently vile, and occasionally, far beyond any level of appropriate decorum. In both playoff games (one thrilling Game 2 win, another devastating, season-ending Game 3 loss), the profanity was frequently excessive. It was occasionally even homophobic and racially charged. And it was mixed in with extremist, right-slanting political commentary. Shocking? Maybe. Surprising? Maybe not. I try to be a good loser, so language like that when there with a child is not only mortifying (yes, we've talked about using some bad words occasionally, but how there are some words you NEVER, NEVER use), but utterly embarrassing to witness as a human being. And it's not just in person.
The rhetoric of racist and anti-LGBTQ hate has returned to prominence in the past decade, and make no mistake about from where it's coming. And why. The Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) conducted a global study to explain the rise in hateful language across Western countries that has led to the subsequent rise in discrimination and hate crimes against minorities. When hate speech is allowed to proliferate, it contributes to the creation of norms: hatred and intolerance become acceptable in society. When racist comments by extremist conservative politicians embolden people with discriminatory views to express themselves, the process of norm creation is enhanced. In such a social climate, actions that may have previously seemed extreme become imaginable or even plausible.
Alarmingly, many countries have witnessed a rise in hate speech and discrimination in recent years. Instead of using freedom of speech to engender unity in society, leaders from right-wing nationalist groups have co-opted the concept to levy discriminatory speech against fellow citizens. Far-right nationalist parties such as the Danish People’s Party, Swiss People’s Party, Fidesz (Hungary), Freedom Party (Austria), the Republican Party (United States), and United Patriots (Bulgaria) have become increasingly xenophobic and racist in rhetoric and action while simultaneously growing increasingly popular. Most notably, far-right parties have targeted refugees, migrants, people of color, indigenous people, and Muslims in particular, aiming to create a narrative that "minorities do not belong in the country."
In the United States of America, on 6 January 2021, people around the world witnessed the extreme consequence of allowing hate speech to flourish and spread on social media. Pro-Trump insurrectionists, who had coordinated for weeks on Facebook and other social media platforms such as the unregulated ‘Parler,’ stormed the United States Capitol, resulting in deaths and injuries.
In Germany in 2019, a pro-refugee politician, Walter Lübcke, was killed by a far-right extremist by the name of Stephan Ernst.
At the same time, in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his party Fidesz regularly and freely engage in hate speech, taking advantage of the misinformation of the public to build a political order based on the scapegoating of minorities.
The international community needs to harden the lines concerning language, distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. We're heading in a dangerous direction, but I have to maintain some hope that language for good will win out. And if you've made it this far, I assume to agree, too.