Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T11:12:50.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A liturgical language in a linguistic perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Extract

It may seem strange, now that the hierarchies of the world have begun to put the Council's recommendations into practice, to see an introductory article on a linguistic framework for discussing liturgical language. But there are several good reasons why such a perspective is necessary. First, any decisions licensing the use of certain forms and withholding others must always be kept under review, as language is in a continual state of change. In a hundred years time, the language of today may well seem as archaic as the (never-defined) ‘Victorian English’ which biblical translations are frequently accused of being in. One must beware of complacency. There is bound to be further modification, and much future discussion. Secondly, the perspective would be valuable as a therapy for much recent popular discussion, whose utility is lessened by using undefined or irrelevant critical terminology, when words are condemned for being ‘ugly', ‘un-English', ‘incorrect', ‘debased', and so on – all highly subjective and misleading criteria. Thirdly, a linguistically-orientated basis for discussion would provide a means whereby the public's suggestions and views could be of use to any committee working on the liturgy. At the moment, sporadic opinions sent to the Catholic press about the kind of language vernacularization should bring make interesting reading, but because of the haphazard, occasional origins of this information and the variety of critical principles on which views are based (everything from a vague impressionism to a precise logic), the resultant mass of data is unco-ordinated, of little generality, and hence of little assistance. But it is just this knowledge about popular attitudes to language which a committee needs.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1

For which see Crystal, D., Linguistics, Language and Religion (Faith and Fact, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

2

There is also the point that the theist is usually only too pleased to be careful.

3

Liturgical Constitution, trans. by Howell, C., 34Google Scholar.

4

Morphology refers to the internal structure of linguistic forms; syntax to the external relationships of forms in sequence.

5

Cf. the ‘datum in the past’ discussed byBarr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), Introduction.Google Scholar

6

Often, such words can be symbolically identified in the popular mind wholly with the religion, e.g., advertisements such as ‘Christianity means Calvary‘.

7

Needless to say, there is nothing wrong with theological jargon in its own context, where it is not expected that untrained people should understand and where a high degree of precision is necessary. To condemn ‘jargon’ as such, is ridiculous.

8

Cf. the syntactic patterns already mentioned in archaisms.

9

A similar result comes from disallowing popular and (similarly traditional) images for talking about God; one is left with no replacements (cf. Honest to God).