Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25775
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25775
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

There is a pervasive misunderstanding today about how language works. It is, in its operation, heavily symbolic and analogical. Can a fever rage? Of course it can. Language is naturally analogical, and far more deeply analogical than most people realize when they are claiming things like "technically, a fever can't rage".

Because it is deeply analogical and symbolic, language is also deeply prone to ambiguity, and the way we resolve ambiguity is by reference to story. A statement that has many possible interpretations is interpreted in a particular way because of the story, and the story domain, in which it is embedded.

This sometimes creates a difficulty for science writing because it is embedded in a story domain (science) with which readers are not necessarily familiar. Writers attempt to pin words down mechanically to a single denotation. This exercise leads them to imagine that language actually works this way -- that it works like a programming language in which each term has a single denotation and every expression is formally disambiguated by its grammar.

This is a false view of language but it leads to the development of simple rules for writing. People love simple rules, even if they are wrong. They will cling to them with surprising ferocity, despite repeated illustrations that they are wrong. They will not give up one simple rule unless they are provided with another equally simple rule to replace it. And in a case where the truth is much more complex and difficult than the simple rules, it is almost impossible to wean people off the simple rules, no matter how often they fail.

The same it true at a larger scale as well. Writing is incredibly difficult and complex. People want simple rules like "show, don't tell". No matter how often you demonstrate, by reference to the works of great writers, that these simple rules don't work, it does not matter. People will not give up one simple rules unless you replace it with another. But writing is too complex to be captured in simple rules. So we continually see new simple ideas about things like speech tags become part of the writing school gospel from time to time.

Can we demonstrate the fallacy of such rules by reference to the works of great writers. Sure we can. Will it make any difference? No.

Original score: 4