Politics and Politicians

After reading language in thought and action its amazing how you can see things from a different perspective. For those of you who watched the DNC, did it strike you as having really no informative value? Every word in every speech was used soley for its affective connotation. If you think about it, whether it was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, or Barack Obama, none of them actually "said" anything. Actually when you think about it, during a political race nobody really seems to say anything of any informative significance.

Everthing said at the DNC seemed to be said at a very abstract level. "We're going to build a better America." "We're going to make health care more affordable." One might be tempted to ask, by what extensional means do you plan to bring about these changes? Can any one person really change America the way politicians like Barack and Hillary say they can?

All politicians use directives to give us maps of the future, these maps are always "better" than the maps we have right now. We must ask, how much of what politicians say will actually come to pass?

The truth is we know at some level or another that politicians can not follow through on all their promises. That's why we have such stereotypes as "all politicians are sleazy and are liars." Is this really true? Is the system that corrupt? Or are politicians constantly working to make there intensional maps become reality? Do they lie, or do they just fall short from time to time?

Politicians are not afraid to use snarl and purr words to influence people's views about themselves and others. Looking back at the DNC, president Bush was incessantly bashed for a less than adequate presidency. Barack said that America is "better than the last 8 years" blatently criticizing Bush. Hillary said that we "didn't need four more of the last 8 years" as a reason not to vote for McCain. At the same time, both Barack and Hillary talked about the democratic party as being able to "bring America back" or "turn America around." Hillary's speech, if nothing else, was symbolic of new unity in the party, and her speech was given in strong support of Obama. Obama's promises of a better future during his speech worked to whip the convention into a screaming frenzy. These words were obviously used for their affectual connotations. But were they uttered out of selfishness and a desire to get a democrat in the White House? Or were they said because Obama and others truly believe that they can make a difference? Or is it alittle of both? what do you think?

(Kevin Trainer)

Some Thoughts upon Partisanship, Arguing, and Discord in General (and the DNC in the comments)

First, I'd like to return to a quote from Jen from a few posts back:
"Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?"

Now, many of us agree that cooperation is often not possible due to our differing verbal intensional worlds. And if we all had the exactly same intensional worlds, then perhaps there would be less arguments and more cooperation. But I wonder, would that be right? Even if we could, would we force everyone's verbal intensional world to be the same?

After all, we'd have cooperation. There would be no more arguments, no more fights, no more war. We actually might have world peace if everyone on the planet had the same verbal intensional world, and we would all understand each other. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that we were all born with and maintained the same verbal intensional worlds. Would the world be a better place?

Actually, Mr. Lazarow's mention of the DNC prompted me to think about politics, which in turn led me to the subject of partisanship. More and more, nowadays, I see headlines telling us that politics is too polarizing and that the two parties are dividing us into two Americas, red and blue. We have vicious political bickering, and sometimes with all of the snarl words and purr words being thrown at us from political consultants, the truth doesn't always come through. Now, I'm sure that all of us know the major smears (snarling) against both Barack Obama and John McCain and have heard their life stories (purring) praised numerous times. But I wonder if we could offer a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of each of the candidate's policies, even complicated ones such as health care.

Sometimes I wonder whether partisanship is a good thing or a bad thing. The two parties result from the differing intensional worlds that we all have, and so sometimes compromise is impossible upon social issues such as abortion. After all, if the maps inside of our heads don't match, how can we agree? Could we get more done if we all had the same intensional maps inside of our heads? Even our Founding Fathers were wary of a two-party system.

Still, I have to conclude that argument is an essential part of society, and that we need to have different intensional maps and that we need disagreements and partisanship. And through argument, we all offer and receive glimpses of the verbal maps inside others' heads. Many times we learn to revise our own maps.

Besides, isn't it a bit like having an extra brain and perspective if someone has a different map than we do and offers us a glance of it? If we all had the same map and thought the same way, innovation would come to a standstill and language and communication might even stop. One reason we communicate is to learn about other people's maps, and if all of our maps were the same, why communicate?

Even though partisanship may seem counterproductive at times, I believe that it still is an essential part of democracy. We need disagreements and arguments and differing intensional maps as chances to improve and advance our own mindsets. Freedom of expression is needed for society to function.

Thoughts please? My mind was muddled a few times, so clarification would be appreciated.

(Eric Wei)

Just Some Thoughts

Sorry for getting started so late, but yeah.. I just posted replies to the current issue at hand using the Comment box - if anyone finds them somewhat incoherent, feel free to ask for clarification.

At any rate, I was wondering if anyone had given any thought to the relationship between high level abstraction and a previously discussed issue regarding whether or not a concept such as freedom could exist without verbal knowledge of it.

"Of course it is possible to talk meaningfully about democracy, as Jefferson and Lincoln have done...Speakers who never leave the higher levels of abstraction, however, may fail to notice when they are saying something and when they are not."

Dictionaries do occasionally take you for a wild circular ride when you try to look up the definition for a certain word and find yourself looking up new words until you end up back at the starting point with nothing accomplished. Then, what stops us from doing the same when speaking or thinking about concepts such as freedom and democracy? Furthermore, if the word were simply eliminated from the language and that circular ride - though useless for the purpose of defining - suddenly has no place to stop, or even start for that matter, does the idea simply cease to exist? (I believe that Grace brought up a similar point..?) Probably not.

Hayakawa mentions that "[t]he test of abstractions... is not whether they are "high level" or "low-level" abstractions, but whether they are referable to lower levels." (93)

I guess this answers the question Eric brought up a while back: can you describe something to someone who has never seen/experienced it before? (i.e. a color or a concept such as freedom etc.) Yes, you can, by referring to lower levels of abstraction (Describing the color in terms of primary colors and such).

In the case of 1984, however, the word "freedom" is not just twisted, but the lower levels (Independent thought etc.) are also pushed into extinction. The Thought Police destroyed Winston by breaking his mind down with the goal of eliminating his belief in the existence of things such as a past different than what the Party had put out (i.e. Independent thought). By getting rid of these lower levels, the Thought Police made it impossible for Winston to "operate on all levels of the abstraction ladder." (95) Thus, can we get rid of freedom? If we believe the possibility of Orwell's circumstances and the truth in Hayakawa's theories, then we can.

Any thoughts?

Hello all!

A few things:

1. Don't forget--you have an assignment due on your first day in class next week (the scrapbook). I expect brilliance, of course.

2. I am QUITE gratified by the level of discussion and understanding you are all currently displaying in you posts about LITAA. Please do keep it up. HOWEVER...

3. Has anyone noticed that it is exceptionally challenging to follow a particular line of discussion, since the overwhelming majority of you are writing posts, even when you are actually responding to or commenting on another post? It would seem that most of you have developed a healthy prejudice against using the "comment" function--a function which would enable you to create a LINEAR discussion of a single point, rather than a hodge-podge of posts that attempt to respond to multiple lines of discussion at once. You might consider this to be time-saving--however, any time it manages to save is directly counteracted by the inability of anyone to FOLLOW A CONVERSATION (as you might guess, an essential component of what we do here in AP3.) So, please, let's get into the habit of creating conversations by utilizing the post function, when we are responding to someone else, hm?

4. And if you're looking for a great way to apply your LITAA skills in practical fashion--may I suggest the ongoing DNC? Such glorious examples for analysis...

I look forward to seeing you all next week. Enjoy the waning days of summer...

Mr. LAZ

More Symbols....

Let me try to clarify. The word 'only' signifies that such an example is insignificant and that it is a rare occurrence. This is why I tried to point out that Hayakawa found that it is not the case, as I also tried to point out in my example.

"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand"
I do not think that Hayakawa is contradicting himself here. I think that he is trying to point out that sometimes we have to use words with different affective connotations in order to try to convey our feelings while not having to say them directly. For example, let's go back to the example about the person who helps the sports team. If I say, "look it's the errand boy!" my feelings of disrespect towards that person is portrayed. Also, the it is still separate from the symbolized because it also is a symbol of such feelings....? I think I'm starting to confuse myself.

Connecting this to Janet's note, I believe that the whole confusion of how the symbol is the symbolized is how the symbols are able to influence the reactions toward the symbolized. Once again, I am unsure if I am making any sense.

(Mary Quien)

Connection Between Word and Meaning

I did not quite understand Mary's explanation of Hayakawa's signifigant usage of the word "only." Could someone please clarify this paragraph for me?

I also think that by 'only' Hayakawa meant that this sort of situation is common in our language. Take, for example, someone who takes care of a sports team by getting water, towels, etc. Are they a manager or an errand boy? As you can see, both words give a different feeling, but have the same extensional meaning.

Thank you!

In addition to the A-town and B-ville confusion, I stumbled upon something else that struck my attention.
"But as we know from everyday experience, learning language is not simply a matter of learning words; it is a matter of correctly relating our words to the things and happenings for which they stand" (Hayakawa 86).

Does this not completely contradict Hayakawa's lesson in Book One that symbols are completely and totally independent of what they are symbolizing due to each person's unique extensional and intensional experiences?

Clarification is greatly appreciated.

(Samantha Maliha)

A-Town and B-Ville

I, too, feel like I do not completely understand every aspect of the Story of A-town and B-ville. Having read the story a few times over, the message I understood from the parable was that the way a concept is worded can have a great impact upon the reactions to (or the effects of) that concept. However, as Mary brought up, Hayakawa and many of us have acknowledged the distinction between symbols and things symbolized. Then, I must admit that I am thoroughly confused with my own thought process: how could the way a concept is worded have an impact upon the reactions to that concept if the words used (the symbol) are separate from the concept itself (the thing symbolized)?

Now I realize that I merely contradicted myself in the paragraph above. Perhaps the message I took from the story is not exactly what the writer is trying to get at? Has anyone else taken a similar message from the story? If not, I seriously apologize for puzzling everyone, but if so, is there anyone who could help me through my confusion? I welcome any comments or clarifications. Thanks :)

(Janet Lee)

Symbols Once Again at Large

I can't say that I fully understand the importance of the story and the argument, but there are some things I have noticed. First, I believe that Hayakawa goes back to what he said about the confusion about the symbol being the same as the symbolized.

Words are symbols, am I correct? I believe that symbols such as these can be considered affective connotations. Doesn't the word 'welfare' carry a negative feeling of laziness? Doesn't the word 'insurance' carry a positive feeling of respect and worth of deserving? I think that such symbols, first, change a situation, as shown in the story, and confuse people even more and get them to believe that there is a difference between the words, as shown in the argument.

I also think that by 'only' Hayakawa meant that this sort of situation is common in our language. Take, for example, someone who takes care of a sports team by getting water, towels, etc. Are they a manager or an errand boy? As you can see, both words give a different feeling, but have the same extensional meaning.

(Mary Quien)

"Only" and "The Same Thing"

I seem to have understood the professor's story. Upon its completion, I did not, however, feel that it was a story about the Social Worker and Advertising Executive's argument. I am afraid I need clarification on this argument and also on what Hayakawa meant by:
(1) only
(2) the same thing.

Thank you!

(Samantha Maliha)

The Story of A-Town and B-Ville

I am glad that Connor brought this up. When I first read this story, I had to think a lot longer about it than it took me to read it, and then I had to read it again. Frankly, I still don't completely understand it. Some thoughts I had concerning the story really go back to a lot of the things we've been discussing concerning semantic environments.

First of all, the two towns were "a considerable distance from each other," and from this I would conclude that their semantic environments were different. Secondly, "the leaders of A-Town... were substantial and sound-thinking business people," while one the commissioners of B-Ville was "somewhat of an economist," maybe suggesting he had the economy in mind more than just the goals of business. The two towns also started off with completely different preconceptions, which I think played a large role. A-Town believed that giving people something for nothing would demoralize their character, while B-Ville believed that the tragedy of unemployment could happen to anybody, and their goal was not to humiliate people, but, rather, to build them up and try to help them maintain self-esteem. Even though both towns did do essentially the same thing from and outside perspective, because the towns themselves had different perspectives on what they were doing, there were two different outcomes.

More comments and clarification on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

(Emily Thompson)

On Everything

Hey guys, I guess I'm jumping in a bit late, but this summer has gone by way too fast for my liking. In this post I'm going to give my thoughts on some of the questions posed before, and offer up a few new ones for discussion. I'll start with the discussions at hand. Characteristics of a persons appearance that are associated with wealth are often considered beautiful, nowadays this is true concerning women more-so than men. This becomes apparent whenever we observe how people's views of beauty have changed through the years. We may not make the instant association of tanned skin with wealth in our minds, but it is the root of our views. Also, concerning the generalizations Sam pointed out, I agree with Janet in that he is not trying to impose those views upon readers, but just pointing out a common situation.

There were several posts earlier discussing the question, can a concept be understood if there is no word for it? The example was used of people in 1984 with freedom or liberty. For those people the concept of liberty is drastically warped from our definition, in the party slogan they say "freedom is slavery," so there is a word, but the definition has been changed. I don't think this is the best example we could use, I would point to an infant. It does not yet know any words but it understands what it wants, it does not need words to understand food, loneliness or discomfort.

Another main question is if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment would there be less conflict. Of course there would be less conflict. I realize that this is a harsh generalization, but from my experience it does have truth in it. Take a girl who was brought up in, say, alabama, and a girl who had grown up in Hollywood, two extremely different semantic environments, what do you think will happen if they discuss abortion. Chances are they would disagree because their intensional associations and views concerning abortion would be drastically different because of the semantic environment they were raised in. However if they had both been raised in alabama or in Hollywood their views would probably be more similar. On the other hand I feel that it is impossible to have every human being live and be raised in the same semantic environment. Also, if there was no difference in opinions, if there was no conflict, would there be no, or drastically less, progress?

Finally I'd like to ask about the story of A-Town and B-Ville. I eel as if I should be drawing some deeper meaning from it. I get that the two towns did essentially the same thing, but went about it in different ways. Is there a real difference between A-Town's welfare and B-Ville's insurance?

I'd love to hear opinions on anything I've said

(Connor Tweardy)

The Beauty of Tanned Skin

Going back a few posts, I think that the differences of the relationship between beauty and tanned skin has to do with time and the general situations during that time. For example, years ago, tanned skin was not considered beautiful because people, especially the wealthy, could afford to not work outside at all. Therefore, tanned skin was a symbol of a lifestyle of hard labor. Now, the majority of people do have jobs. Therefore, tanned skin is a symbol of the time and/or money one can afford not to have, a lifestyle of leisure. I also believe that being able to show other people your tanned skin is mostly why it is a symbol of leisure. For example, even if a construction worker does get tanned skin, it does not seem like a symbol of leisure if the person is not able or does not care to take the time to show it off. Also, the tanned skin thing seems to matter more in this sense when applied to females more than males. Just putting some more thoughts out there...

(Mary Quien)

Response to Imposed Views

Sam inquired:
It is almost as if Hayakawa is imposing these points of view upon the reader. What if the man or woman in the first citation are completely satisfied with their lack of vow fulfillments, and what if the man or woman in the second has no regret about their religious conversion?

I am in agreement with Sam that Hayakawa does seem to have a tendency to make generalizations. However, in the examples (pgs. 70-71) Sam inquired about regarding vow fulfillments and religious conversion, I believe that Hayakawa is merely suggesting one possible outcome of each situation, rather than imposing a point of view on the reader. I think he simply wants readers to know what he believes is likely to happen, without completely blocking out other possibilities that readers might consider. Hayakawa is just utilizing these situations as examples of the point he is trying to prove: "human beings use words to reach out into the future and control each other's conduct" (71).

(Janet Lee)

Imposed Points of View

In the post below mine, stated is the idea that:
I have concluded that symbolism has no direct influence on our perseption of human beauty; obviously Hayakawa disagrees.

I may be gravely mistaken, but I, however, have felt that throughout this informational text, Hayakawa has made the point of stating that the symbol is independent of what may be symbolized. Is this view not correct?

This is an odd observation, but lately (especially in Chapter 7), I have been realizing Hayakawa's tendency to make generalizations. On page 70, he writes:
Even if, later on, a person realizes that he has not fulfilled his vows, he cannto shake off the feeling that he should have done so.

On page 71, he follows with:
A person who has changed religions after reaching adulthood will often, on hearing a ritual familiar from childhood, feel an urge to return to that earlier form of worship.

This observation is based more on Hayakawa's writing style than his actual content, yet it is necessary to take note of it. When I find myself reading, I often follow the author's chain of thought perfectly, and find myself agreeing with practically every point made. Yet these are just two of the many lines which startled me. It is almost as if Hayakawa is imposing these points of view upon the reader. What if the man or woman in the first citation are completely satisfied with their lack of vow fulfillments, and what if the man or woman in the second has no regret about their religious conversion?

I would greatly enjoy hearing your opinions.

(Samantha Maliha)

Does symbolism really determine beauty?

Sorry everyone for jumping into the conversation so late; I have been on vacation and have been unable to blog. It seems many excellent points have been brought to attention. While reading Chapter 2 "Symbols", I read a brief paragraph (pg 15) which discussed symbolism as it applies to skin color. It explained how tan skin had once been considered ugly because it had represented a life of "farming and other outdoor labor." The paragraph then went on to state that tan skin is now considered "beautiful" because it represents a life of leisure.

This paragraph struck me as slightly odd. I considered what had been said. I agree with Hayakawa that society's definition of human beauty has changed over the years. However, I find it difficult to accept the idea that symbolism is the root cause of our paradigm shift. Is tan skin attractive because of what it represents, or is it just more aesthetically pleasing? Consider some things that symbolize a life of leisure; sports cars, beach houses, plasma tvs, clothing, don't these things symbolize a life of leisure more than a tan? A construction worker can have a tan!

I have concluded that symbolism has no direct influence on our perseption of human beauty; obviously Hayakawa disagrees. One thing I can't account for is the reason why society's perception of beauty has changed. If it isn't symbolism what is the reason? Does the change have to do with the introduction of new ideas, new styles, new cultures? I'm not sure.

What do you all think?

Opposites are Similar?

I've noticed that a major point that Hayakawa is trying to help us understand is that language is an ever-changing subject matter. It is diverse and flexible just as much as the men and women who utilize it. They way it is conveyed or spoken always leads us back to the speaker's unique extensional and intensional experiences. Connotations and how they are understood are largely based on how they are executed. For example, as we have learned, the two elements taken to consideration are the tone of voice and rhythm. If one is truly passionate about the subject matter, these two aspects will be emphasized, drawing the audience into the speaker's thought agenda. If not, then I daresay that the speaker may have failed to gain support. Afterall, are not the men who we look back upon and study widely acclaimed for their oratory glory? Two of the most prominent are Adolph Hitler and Martin Luther King, Jr. One fought for the good of mankind, and one fought to diminish it. Yet both rallied followers along the way due to their ability to utilize informative and affective connotations to their advantage. It is rather shocking to think that both men had completely opposite informative and affective connotations in mind concerning such words as justice and equality; both, however, were successful in their endeavors.

Interesting, huh?

(Samantha Maliha)

Reflections

Continuing the discussion of this question:
If everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?

I find Sam's remembrance of Orwell's 1984 in regards to this question quite intriguing. As Sam stated, Winston was living in the same semantic environment as the rest of the Party, yet he still followed his thoughts and decided to rebel. At first thought, I feel as if 1984 shows that there would NOT necessarily be more cooperation if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment, since conflicts still arose within the Party's "unified" semantic environment. However, on second thought, I realize that several semantic environments existed in 1984, including not only those of the Inner Party and Outer Party, but also that of the Proles. Since Winston, the other party members, and the Proles collectively make up the characters of 1984, I feel as if the hypothetical in the question above (everyone living in the same semantic environment) is not satisfied, meaning that the answer to the question cannot be speculated using 1984 as the primary example.

I apologize if my two-sided description is merely confusing any of you, as it was rather difficult to put in words. Perhaps I should not even be discussing aspects of 1984, since we are supposed to be discussing Language in Thought and Action, but does anyone else have any additional comments or opinions?

Moving on from 1984, I bring myself to Sam's last comment: Language was invented for the purpose of simplifying the exchange of any sort of information, not complicating it. I agree with this statement, but I do so simply because of the wording, "invented for the purpose of". In other words, I believe that although language was invented for the purpose of simplifying the exchange of info, in actuality, language does not always simplify the process. Rather, there are many times when language complicates situations, since, as we established earlier, conflicts arise when there is something "linguistically wrong" with the listener, the speaker, or both.

Any thoughts?

(Janet Lee)

More 1984..

I, in addition to my other classmates, find the following question to be quite puzzling.

Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?

A part of my mind is thinking back to Orwell's 1984. Winston was living in the same semantic environment as the other dedicated party members, but his thoughts did not allow him to put his internal arguments to rest. How do you all feel about this?

And in response to this quote:
"When the use of language results, as it so often does, in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there is something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (12)

Hayakawa made a point of stating that language is usually used for the betterment of society. That is, afterall, the reason that a human's society is more complex than an animal's. Language was invented for the purpose of simplifying the exchange of any sort of information, not complicating it.

Thoughts?

(Samantha Maliha)

Intensional World

I agree with Janet in regards to people's intentional worlds. I find that it is impossible that two people can create the exact same 'map'. Even if such people were to share the exact same experiences, the way they interpret these experiences differ, therefore creating different maps.
To what Jen said earlier:
Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?
This question seems to go with the famous question of whether a person is a result of the environment he/she grew up in or whether the environment doesn't matter at all. To clarify: would a brave person, who grew up taming tigers, still end up brave, even if the person grew up in a completely different way?
Unfortunately, I have been wondering about that question for a while now, and still don't have a clear response.

(Mary Quien)

More Comments on Disagreements

Emily inquired about the following question:
"When the use of language results, as it so often does, in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there is something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (12)

I honestly was just about to inquire about this question myself, so I am pleased to hear that I'm not the only one who needs some clarification. I concur fully with Emily's interpretation of the phrase "linguistically wrong" as the misunderstandings that arise due to built-in judgments and personal bias or different verbal intensional worlds. Although I am not absolutely certain, I believe that it does indeed seem logical that no two people have the same verbal world. As Hayakawa explains at the end of Chapter 2, one's verbal or intensional world is comprised of much second- and third-hand information about morals, language, history, etc., gathered and inferred upon continually from infancy. Thus, each of us is bound to have a unique intensional world, since the "map" each of us holds is at least partially different, each drawn with different knowledge passed down from parents, shared among friends, taught by professionals, or inferred by ourselves. I don't think it's possible for two people to have the exact same intensional world. Or is it possible?

Does anyone else agree with this speculation? I welcome further clarification.

(Janet Lee)

Responses Concerning Disagreements

The point that Hayakawa makes about us making unconcious assumptions about language is key to understanding why people can disagree. Especially when it comes to politics, I many times wonder why people can't just agree on things and move on to help the country progress. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, because of different backrounds (no two people can have exactly the same backround) we all have different verbal intensional worlds shaping our "maps" of the "territory" of right and wrong/experience in our minds, so we disagree. As Hayakawa also mentions, "judgements stop thought" by narrowing our views, and "experience comes to all of us... already slanted". Taking these statements into account, it seems impossible to stop ourselves from making assumptions about language, and therefore impossible to stop all conflict/disagreement-- but I really don't know. That's something to think about, certainly.

Reading past chapter one certainly helped me undertand this statement (which had me confused a little at first) much more:

"When the use of language results, as it so often does, in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there is something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (12)

I understand now, from continuing my reading, that when Hayakawa says "linguistically wrong" he does not mean someone from China not understanding English very well, but, rather, two people having different understandings, maybe, of what certain words or phrases mean due to built-in judgements or different verbal intensional worlds that they have. Does it seem logical that no two people can have the same verbal intensional world (a.k.a. map of experience or life)?

I would welcome any further comment, clarification, etc., because, honestly, I don't know if I understand this topic completely.

(Emily Thompson)

Yet Another Response

Jen asked:
Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation? If it is impossible to make everyone think in the same way, is it also impossible to stop all the conflicts?

I am rather mind-boggled by these questions, which makes them all the more interesting. I think one reason why people can't think in the same way is that, as Hayakawa explains, we unconsciously make assumptions about language, since we readily draw connections between the words we use and actual events we experience, regardless of whether or not those connections are sensible. These assumptions seem to be a likely source of superstitions. People can't suppress such superstitions because of the automatic assumptions that they make, which is also why people cannot all think the same things about an object, idea, or situation. Thus, the next question to be asked is, "Is it possible to stop ourselves from making such assumptions about language?" The answer to this question would help in answering Jen's third question (above), but unfortunately, I am still trying to find an answer. Perhaps someone could be of assistance? Any thoughts on this matter?

(Janet Lee)

Questions & Responses

While I was reading, I came up with some questions.
In the section “The Niagara of Words”, Hayakawa says that people can understand the same word differently and these misunderstandings cause conflicts, using the example of T.C. Mits.

Most of the misunderstandings occur because people have various thoughts and ideas, and these differences occur because they are from different backgrounds. However, people from similar backgrounds still have arguments and do not cooperate. Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation? If it is impossible to make everyone think in the same way, is it also impossible to stop all the conflicts?

Now some responses...
To Arvind:
I think what Hayakawa wants to state using the chimpanzee example is that chimpanzees do not understand what is implied or symbolized by the red light. Chimpanzees can only understand the red light as a signal meaning stop. When humans see the red light they usually drive slowly until they come to the white line or stop behind the car in front of it but I don't think chimpanzees can figure out where is the most appropriate place to stop. Chimpanzees do not understand the implied meaning of the red light or what the red light is representing, such as 'look around before you stop'. And of course the chimpanzee would be a better driver after a few accidents but it would still get in more accidents because every time it drives, the situation would be different so the lesson learned from the previous accidents would not likely be applied to current situation.

And I have to disagree with you that only scientific and mathematical uses of language bring human’s advancement. There are certainly other ways that language benefited us, for example, literature.

To Sam:
Yes, I have heard about the weird behaviors of certain animals that happened before natural disasters. The smart frogs did it again right before the recent flood in China! I think what Arvind is trying to say is that animals cannot explain and come up with theories or studies about math and sciences because they do not possess the tool, language. Also, I don’t think the animals can express scientific knowledge about how they know if there is some natural disaster coming. I think animals are just acting from their natural instincts which tells them there is an imminent danger or it might be that they sense something different in the atmosphere (like atmospheric pressure??). I really don’t think frogs can explain something using science or mathematics.

(Jennifer Park)

General Response

I believe I should use this post to briefly respond to some of what has been said, and also to raise a new topic.

Mary stated that:
Describing a completely new color would be impossible.

I strongly agree with this speculation. Each and every being has a different extensional background. One may say that the color reminds them of "a jungle." The next observer may say that the color reminds them of "a coral reef." As Hayakawa illustrates for us, Lynne's personal computer at home is certainly different than George's personal computer that has yet to be purchased. Both are personal computers, but they are not the same. It is impossible for one object to have two different meanings or contexts, as is Hayakawa's speculation.

Similarly to Eric, the explanation of the process undergone during the dictionary-making process left me in awe! Hayakawa mentions that the editors put their best efforts into avoiding being bias when choosing the definitions of the word. I can't help but feel suspicious whenever using the dictionary as a resourse from now on.

Early on in the blog, there was a discussion of symbols and their progression through time. Hayakawa explains the loosening up of a word's definition by explaining the former meaning of a hood (used by a monk) and current ones (such as the hood of a car). How a symbol relates to a word once again deals with one's personal experience. If a child is raised in a fairly well-to-do suburban area, home might mean a well-kept apartment building. If a child such as Tarzan is questioned about his abode, he would define "home" as the jungle.

Eric -- Your views about Hayakawa versus Orwell were greatly enlightening. You couldn't be more right. They seem to be total opposites!

Arvind stated that:
Most animals can express feelings such as “I am hurt and I can’t get up” or “Get out of the way”, but they cannot express laws of nature or mathematical theorems.

I remember hearing that during the time of the infamous Tsunami that the animals had migrated to slightly elevated land to avoid the uproar of the ocean. Did anyone else hear this, or is it something that my mind conjured independently? If it is true, I must disagree with Arvind's statement.

Reflections?

(Samantha Maliha)

The Languages of Science and Math

It seems to me that really only the languages of science and math are responsible for our advancement past other animals. Hayakawa seems to reason that most of the other uses of language are reports, inferences, snarl-words, etc. Most animals can express feelings such as “I am hurt and I can’t get up” or “Get out of the way”, but they cannot express laws of nature or mathematical theorems.

Also, I don’t really understand Hayakawa’s chimpanzee driving example. The red light doesn’t really mean stop, it means come to the white line and stop. If you could teach a chimpanzee to stop at a red light, I don’t believe that it would be too difficult to get a chimpanzee to understand that it should slowly advance to the car stopped in front of it and then stop. Though Hayakawa argues that the chimpanzee does not account for the other drivers, I am relatively certain that after a chimpanzee gets in a few accidents, it would learn to drive fairly well. I doubt these concepts were easy for even humans to get used to when they first started.

(Arvind Kalidindi)

Animals vs. Humans

Animals vs. Humans
“To be able to read and write is to learn to profit by and to take part in the greatest of human achievements-that which makes all other human achievements possible-namely, the pooling of our experience in great cooperative stores of knowledge, available to all (8).”
- First of all, I greatly appreciate Hayakawa for letting me realize this fact. Moving on…When I first read this statement, I went back to the question that Hayakawa presented previously: “What animals should we imitate?” Then I began to think that the reason Hayakawa presented this question is not to extract a reasonable answer from us but to emphasize that ‘survival’ has more connotations than just to live. Since every animal somehow managed to live with its natural instinct for survival, the word ‘survival’ does not mean only living but how a species continue to exist and to advance. Because the humans possess one tool that other animals do not, language, the humans dominate and maintain the order of the ecosystem. Humans could live in a better condition than other animals because they are able to pass down the wisdom using language. This unintentional sharing of knowledge via written or oral records has helped humans to have a greater advantage than other species.
I concluded that humans do not have to mimic other animals’ abilities which have kept them alive. For those animals, their special gifts help them to survive just like how language benefits humans. We just received different gifts from God and luckily we can say that we got a slightly more favorable one.

(Jennifer Park)

Symbols and the Dictionary

I think that it is true that Hayakawa and Orwell differ in their viewpoints, but I also think that both of them have at least some parts that are true.

In terms of symbols, I have to stick with what I said that it isn't impossible to explain concepts without using symbols, but I do agree that the use of symbols makes it a lot easier. And I think that the symbols that stand for a concept can be compared to the making of the dictionary. Like the dictionary, I believe that symbols are also a bit fluid. I think that as society changes so do symbols. Taking an example from Hayakawa, now, if someone were to be seen with tanned skin, it would be considered to be a symbol of wealth. I don't know what this symbol stood for a couple of centuries ago, but I highly doubt that it stands for the same thing as today. Also, I think bicycle tires and computer mice could symbolize patriotism, but on a more personal level. Unfortunately, I am unable to come up with a good example of that at the moment. Moving on, I think that the more personal symbol can connect to slang. Personal symbols differ according to the person just as slang differs according to the area. For example, there were some people from Haddonfield on my crew team this summer, and in casual conversation, they used all these different slang words that I haven't heard before. Now, maybe it's just because I happen to live under a very big rock, but I think that shows that even though the cities aren't that far from each other, the slang differs. This is why I think that the dictionary tends to stay away from including slang, even though it does put them a step behind. Although, I do admit that I have seen many attempts at trying to define all the different slang words (i.e. urbandictionary.com)

(Mary Quien)

Orwell & Hayakawa

Before reading Hayakawa, Orwell had fully convinced me that "linguistical determinism" does exist: namely, that language shapes thought and the words you know directly influence the corresponding thoughts. As I wrote before, Orwell seems to believe that the word is the thing and that if one can control the words, one can control the thoughts (hence Newspeak). This seems to be the opposite of what Hayakawa believes: symbols (words) are not intrinsically linked to what they represent. Does anyone else believe that Orwell and Hayakawa differ?

However, after reading Hayakawa and all of your responses, I'm beginning to revise my view. Meg's explanation of the "quack" sound helped clear up some of my confusion, although I had meant to type this in my previous post: "All right, so the word is not the thing as the different versions of "quack" in different languages show."

I believe that some concepts are almost impossible to express clearly without the use of symbols, such as patriotism. But as Hayakawa writes, the specific symbols themselves do not necessarily have a connection to what they are representing, as fireworks and apple pie do not have an inherent link to patriotism. But over time, due to people's perceptions, perhaps fireworks and apple pie have gained a pseudo-connection to patriotism? I know that bicycle tires and computer mice could just as easily stand for patriotism if we wanted to switch symbols, but the fact is that they currently don't. And if you attempted to replace the current symbols of patriotism (flags, stars, etc.) that have persisted over hundreds of years with arbitrarily decided ones the next day, I'm not sure that these new symbols would be as powerful as the previous ones. Maybe fireworks and pie did not originally have any intrinsic or fundamental connection to what they represent, but over time they might have developed a link based upon people's perceptions.
But once again, I'm not sure. I'm kind of in a transition stage between Orwell's thoughts and Hayakawa's. Oh, and Mary, I'm actually not sure if we disagree, as I'm still trying to reconcile the differences in opinion between Orwell and Hayakawa.

Moving on from Orwell, I thought that Hayakawa's explanation of the creation of a dictionary was fascinating. I thought that editors had arbitrarily created definitions or revised previous ones. It adds a new perspective to learn that the editors derived all of the meanings from actual pieces of writing and real cases of context and usage.

It seems as though dictionaries are at least somewhat fluid, moving with the times. But if Hayakawa's description is correct, how would dictionaries gain new words that are primarily used in conversation? For example, there are slang words, words recently created like "truthiness" and "frenemy." They haven't had enough time to pass into literature, so perhaps dictionaries must always remain a step or two behind the modern lexicon?

Finally, when I read about Hayakawa's explanation that "circumstances compel...[people]...to agree" upon certain conventions (like the number of days in a week or the names of months), I immediately thought of the French Revolutionary period, where the week was revised to contain 10 days and the eleventh month was renamed Thermidor. Shaking up these commonly agreed conventions certainly was revolutionary, and in the end a bit too revolutionary. The French to eventually revert back, as "circumstances compelled them to agree" eventually. Just a random tidbit that jumped to my mind.


Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)

Concepts and Symbols *quack*

It seems that I'm going to have to disagree with you on many points, Eric. To start, I think that it is really pointless trying to compare the situations of having to describe an unknown color and of having to explain a concept. Describing a completely new color would be impossible. You cannot describe something you have never seen, but trying to describe a concept is completely different. In describing a concept, there are many more tools that can be used.

For example, let's say I was trying to describe the concept of love to a child. Even by using simple emotions like happiness and sadness and the experiences that the child already had with which these emotions were involved, I would be able to get the child to understand. It wouldn't be possible to do this with something like a new color because it doesn't really involve any sort of emotion or experience. In the end, it goes back to what Emily said in the first post about how it's up to the person to be persistent enough to keep trying to explain the concept until the other person understands. Therefore, if Winston was persistent enough, he could explain what he learned to pretty much anyone he wanted.

Also, I can see how the book could be portrayed as a map, but not so much as a symbol. I would appreciate it if someone could expand on that.

Moving on to symbols....
I'm going to have to stick to what Hayakawa has said about symbols. Let's continue with patriotism as the example. Basically, I think no one can come up with an exact definition of patriotism because it is really different to everyone. It is true that many people prize the symbol over the symbolized, but that does not mean that the two become one. For instance, many people consider wearing red, white, and blue a symbol for patriotism. However, the person may have just worn such colors coincidentally, and therefore, may not be the least bit patriotic. Basically, it is society that makes it seem that such symbols are one with what they are 'supposed to symbolize,' and once again, it is not that such a concept is hard to explain, but that people aren't persistent enough to try.

Moving on to the duck...
First of all I don't quite understand Eric's statement. "All right, so the word is not the symbol as the different versions of "quack" in different languages show. But then what is the sound of a duck? In this case, the symbol practically is what is being symbolized. Is it?"
If I am interpreting this correctly, I believe that Eric is stating that the 'quack' that we use is a symbol of the sound the duck makes. If so, then there are two points I have to make.
1) If the noise is actually being made, such as "A duck goes *quack*" then it is not a symbol, but the actual noise itself as it is heard.
2) If the word is just being said as it is, then it is a symbol, but it is still separate. To clarify, if the word 'quack' were to be read out loud, the actual sound of a duck wouldn't be heard. The word itself is a symbol that is commonly known in English to convey the likeness of the sound that is heard in reality. In this case, it is not surprising that the sound of the duck is symbolized differently in different languages, seeing as the sound of letter combinations is different in each language.

And I would like to add how I'm in awe that you are knowledgeable of so many duck sounds, Eric

(Mary Quien)

Even More Thoughts on Symbols, Words, and George Orwell

Hi, this is Eric W.

What particularly interests me is that Orwell and Hayakawa seem to disagree over whether "the word is the thing" (are symbols connected to what they are representing?) or not. Orwell states in his Appendix that Newspeak's purpose was to eliminate certain words and render their corresponding thoughts "literally unthinkable," and to "diminish the range of thought." He states that many crimes would soon be impossible to commit with the implementation of Newspeak "simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable."

However, Hayakawa and many of you respond that eliminating the word does not eliminate the feeling, as Hayakawa writes that "the word is not the thing" and thus the eliminated word could easily be replaced, as some feelings do not need words.

I do see now that the world of 1984 is a dystopia and while the Party may have been able to eliminate ideas, words, and prevent new words from springing up again, in real life (as many of you mentioned) new words may be created. However, in real life it often is difficult to do so. For example, I would like all of you to imagine a new kind of color, a color that none of us have ever seen before. I'd like you to now assign a name to that color and then explain to me what this new color looks like. I feel that attempting to explain what "patriotism" is and its contradictory set of meanings to someone who has never before encountered the concept or the word (such as a typical 1984 Party member) would be similar to trying to describe a new type of color to someone who had never encountered it before.


Regarding this thought from Sam:

The concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice [from the past], however, are still vivid in Winston's mind, despite the efforts of the Party to erase them.

In my interpretation, Winston is unsure of whether the past actually was any better or if any such ideals actually exist. Orwell writes this about Winston:
"How could you tell how much of it was lies? ... The only evidence to the contrary was the mute protest in your bontes, the instinctive feeling that the conditions you lived in were intolerable and that at some other time they must have been different."

Winston certainly has feelings that something is not right, but in order to express his emotion as more concrete ideas he would need such words as "liberty" and "equality." Nothing prevents him from inventing a new word to describe this feelings (although the Thought Police would soon catch him) but how could Winston explain the meaning of his new word to anyone else? It'd almost be like describing a new color . Thus, restricting certain words and preventing new ones being formed in their place does have at least some restriction upon thought. Of course, such a condition is only feasible in 1984's dystopia and in the real world, we could easily create a new word.

I wonder if 1984 is almost a "map" of the real world "territory," albeit an intentionally distorted one. Orwell's book was intended as an example of what society could become at its worst, so perhaps it is a symbol? Anyway, the Thought Police could never exist in the real world (I hope), and so any effects upon our thoughts of what particular language we learned is not as exaggerated as in 1984 (provided that we do not start teaching only Newspeak in our schools.)

Once again, Jabberwocky shows a good example of feelings transcending words but...

I still believe that the particular language we happen to have been taught still has at least some effect upon our thoughts, although it does not wholly control them. Newspeak and the Andamanese language are exaggerated examples, but the effect still exists to a lesser extent with other real life languages.
Thoughts?

Moving on from Orwell:

Hayakawa emphasizes that symbols are independent of what is being symbolized and that too many times, we confuse the two. Perhaps one reason is that some ideas and thoughts are too difficult to understand without the help of symbols. For example, Hayakawa writes that symbols of patriotism (like a flag lapel pin) are sometimes valued above actual patriotism. But what is patriotism? Is it burning a flag or pledging allegiance to it? Supporting a war or protesting it? TIME Magazine recently pondered over this question in a cover article, but I still am not too clear. Does the symbol not almost become what is being symbolized in these cases? Such a nebulous concept (patriotism) might sometimes be replaced with the concrete symbol (flag) because the concept is too hard to express clearly to others.

As Sam's example of the snake shows, clearly the word is not the thing. But how else can we define some things without using symbols? For example, take the sound of a duck. In English, the duck goes "quack quack." In French, it goes "coin coin." In Esperanto, it goes "gik gak." All right, so the word is not the symbol as the different versions of "quack" in different languages show. But then what is the sound of a duck? In this case, the symbol practically is what is being symbolized. Is it?

Any clarification would be appreciated. Thoughts?

The Meaning of Freedom

I really wish that I had gotten the chance to read 1984 so I could understand this situation a bit more, but here I go. I agree partly with Sam's last comment. Even though the younger generation as brainwashed, I don't think that it limits their personal knowledge. Using the example of freedom, they probably had many experiences already. They already demonstrated the freedom of choice. They chose to listen to the Party and to accept what they were told. However, I do agree with Sam that without any verbal knowledge of freedom, the concept wouldn't be entirely understood, and it wouldn't be followed by many, which shows the effectiveness of Newspeak.
If I were to put it in Hayakawa's terms with maps and territories: It's as if they know the territory and have been there many times before, but the map is in the hands of the Party. Therefore, the younger generation has no idea about the importance of the territory that they walk through and are oblivious as to what can be done with it. So even though freedom is not acknowledged, it still exists in their lives, ready to be discovered by those who are able to draw their own map.

(Mary Quien)

Symbols versus Concepts

An essential topic raised in Chapter Two consists of a discussion concerning the separation between symbols and their meaning. For example, snakes are seen as vile creatures. When one displays negative characteristics, they may be described as a snake. Two totally independent chains of thought have been brought together as one rather spontaneously. Thus, when a certain concept is understood, there are many forms of speech in which it may be conveyed, depending upon one's extensional versus verbal experiences.

In George Orwell's 1984, Winston often dreams of the many freedoms that the past once held. Newspeak's purpose is to eliminate vocabulary, in hopes of also eliminating ideas that follow along with that vocabulary. The concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice, however, are still vivid in Winston's mind, despite the efforts of the Party to erase them. As Mary stated,

So in the end, going back to the 'freedom' example, the word freedom is a symbol of the concept, and therefore communication is possible with just 'made up words'.

Even without the specific word "freedom," Winston would have continued to think of the justice that existed so long ago. The feeling has not died. Thus, I strongly disagree with Eric's speculation:

How can one have any concept of what "freedom" and "liberty" are if those words did not even exist? It is almost impossible to express our feelings and ideas without using the appropriate words and meanings.

In Winston's extensional experiences, he was able to identify the meaning of freedom. The younger generation, however, brainwashed by the dreaded Party, would lack this source of personal knowledge. Their leading political figures would also avoid passing on verbal knowledge of a freedom that once existed. In fact, freedom would only exist for as long as the population acknowledged its existence.

I would appreciate any responses/clarification.

I'm afraid I also am in need of further explanation concerning Grace's last thought.

(Samantha Maliha)

Wondering About Teacups

I'm wondering if someone could give an example of the situation Grace was describing at the end. Maybe it's just me, but I am not able to even think of how a situation like that is possible.

(Mary Quien)

Thoughts & Tea Cups

Going off of Mary’s point—“In the end, the word may no longer be 'freedom and liberty,' but the concept will still be understood.” I find the discussion on various languages and limitations imposed by each language to be interesting. While I believe that language, in respect to both our inner thoughts and outward speech, is important in conveying a specific concept, understanding—however hazy--of a concept can still be gained if there is no specific word for it. While it may not be as eloquent as the various established languages of the world, making up words should not be dismissed as inefficient or regarded as an impossibility.

When you look at a tea cup, your brain immediately recognizes it—in English, if happens to be your dominant language—as equivalent to the “symbol” that is composed of the letters t-e-a c-u-p (in that order). If you are speaking another language, your brain then “converts” the symbol of t-e-a c-u-p into the corresponding symbols of the other language. For example, even with Chinese as my first language, I do not immediately think to myself in Chinese. My thought process in the example would go as follows: recognize the cup-->think of symbol t-e-a c-u-p-->think of symbol cha bei (茶杯).

Going back to my first point, since our thoughts seem to have a set standard/automatic language in which we express our thoughts (to ourselves or to others), it is easy to express ourselves using only that set language.

I believe, however, that where there is a will, there is a way. Since my previous Chinese-English analogy may not be as relevant as it is not a “made-up language,” I’ll attempt at another one. My sister and I used to converse in some unknown (read: “made-up”) language with each other before we were able to speak coherently, let alone communicate with anyone else via speech. When there is no need or initiative to converse in made-up languages, we rarely do so. This, however, does not mean that said languages automatically possess any crippling limitations. You should still be able to express the idea you want to express.

P.S. Correct me if I am wrong, but, the title of “Language in Thought and Action” seemed to imply that language (supposedly the same one) can be expressed through both thought and speech. Most people, however, first learn to either read or speak a foreign language. Suppose you learn to read first. How can you properly communicate your thoughts to yourself if thoughts are “talking to [yourself] in words” (-Eric) if the thought only exists in the foreign language and not in your native one? Does the conversion process as was described above just self-destruct?

P.P.S. Please pardon the pathetic title, I couldn't stand another regular "Thoughts" title.
-Grace Yuan

More Thoughts

To start, I have to admit that I probably don't completely understand this Newspeak thing, but I do have to disagree with what Eric said about it being "almost impossible to express our feelings and ideas without using the appropriate words and meanings." I think that this even connects to what Hayakawa says about extensional meanings (for those of you who have gotten that far). I think that someone can have the concept of 'freedom and liberty,' for example, through use of other known words. In the end, the word may no longer be 'freedom and liberty,' but the concept will still be understood. It's like how Hayakawa gave the example of golf terms (again for those of you who read ahead). Someone may not know what an Albatross is, but it can be explained through other terms and contexts. Another example can be shown in everyday life. When we want to tell someone something that we do not know how to describe? In most cases, we blabber on until the other person understands what we are talking about. if the thing has an extensional meaning, we may even make a gesture towards it and call it 'that thingy over there.'
Also, I think the same goes with other languages. Although, there may not be one specific words, I think that the concept can still be understood. (except maybe not in casses as the Andamanese language).
I even think that it would be possible if we had to make up our own words. As Hayakawa states (I'm sorry if I'm spoiling anything for anyone. I couldn't stop reading the book after I started) names are symbols and that symbols are seperate from the things symbolized, a concept many people mess up. So in the end, going back to the 'freedom' example, the word freedom is a symbol of the concept, and therefore communication is possible with just 'made up words.'

(Mary Quien)

Some More Thoughts

Honestly, I love this question. "Do the words we utter arise as a result of our thoughts, or are thoughts determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?"

I feel that the first part of this question is relatively straightforward, but the second part really captivates me. Although Mits may have believed that words merely represent ideas, Hayakawa says that ideas are merely the "vocalizations of cerebral itches," and indeed, how can we express an idea without using words? Ideas are composed of words, and thus are limited by what words and connotations we know. If we only know a certain set of words due to the specific linguistic system that we have been taught, does that constrain us?

I believe that Emily's example of Newspeak in her comment on the first post fits this idea perfectly. Orwell included an Appendix of Newspeak with his book, and while critics originally disparaged it as dry and uninteresting, today its brilliance shows. The purpose of Newspeak was to systematically eliminate words and thus lessen the capacity for thought. As Orwell wrote, the goal of Newspeak was to have heretical thoughts "literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words." How can one have any concept of what "freedom" and "liberty" are if those words did not even exist? It is almost impossible to express our feelings and ideas without using the appropriate words and meanings.

Here's a sentence from Orwell's Appendix that underlines this:
"Countless other words such as honor, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist...All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance were contained in the single word crimethink."

Newspeak literally eliminated ideas from the imagination by taking away the words that we would use to express them, and forcibly changed language to something "independent of consciousness." I doubt that we students could even be discussing our ideas on this blog if we had been indoctrinated in Newspeak instead of English.

Could you form any thought without using words? After all, Hayakawa considers thinking to be at least nine-tenths talking to ourselves in words (hopefully silently). If we must use words to express our ideas and cannot think of an idea without the appropriate word, it follows that the linguistic system that we have been taught has a direct impact upon our minds.

A real-life language example is the rare Andamanese language, which only has two number words: "One" and "more than one." If you had grown up speaking and thinking in that language, could you decipher and enunciate the difference between a bicycle and a tricycle, or a man with two eyes and one with four?

In my personal life, many times I have had to ask my parents to translate some Chinese words into English, as I only have a rudimentary understanding of the former. Countless times I have been told that "there isn't really a word for it in English," leaving me mentally behind and frustrated when my parents talk about or describe something that apparently I am unable to even "think" of.

But I do agree with Emily that a lack of words in a particular language is not completely an insurmountable barrier to thought, although I believe that it is very close to one. Take a look at "Jabberwocky", and although you (or anyone else) might not know what "brillig" and "slithy toves" mean, we still are able to draw our own feelings from the poem. But once again, there are limits to that method of communication, and it would be almost impossible for us to converse with each other if we had to always make up words. Perhaps the Andamanese might be able to create new number words, but it'd be very difficult for a 1984 Orwellian drone to express the idea of freedom to others without knowing any of the needed words.

Any thoughts?

(Eric Wei)

Some Thoughts on Chapter 1

An interesting question: "What animals shall we imitate?"

I believe that Hayakawa is only asking this rhetorical question to point out the uselessness of attempting to directly equate human fitness with animal fitness. As he tells us, there are so many different ways to define survival, and while people usually like to take on the "cunning of a fox" or the "strength of an ox," the survival and fitness skills of animals such skunks, houseflies, and ticks are usually neglected. Choosing a few animals to imitate for "survival skills" is a foolhardy task because as Hayakawa mentions, "all [animals] have obviously survived in one way or another," and we cannot define human fitness to be the same as that of a lower animal.
Hayakawa wonders if "human survival does not revolve around a different kind of fitness," namely one dependent upon communication and cooperation.

We cannot describe human fitness solely in terms of lower animal traits because our fitness revolves around our capability to "share nervous systems" and communicate, something the lower animals lack, as Hayakawa shows in his example of the two animals yelping with each other.

Hayakawa's last sentence of the chapter summarizes what human fitness actually involves, "the ability to talk, write, listen, and read" so as to increase our chances of survival. That's something the lower animals certainly lack.

I agree with Janet that we are not inclined to imitate the animals.

Any more thoughts?
(Eric Wei)

Response to Thoughts on Ch 1

"What animals shall we imitate?"
I think that he does imply with this title that we imitate animals, as well as many others. An example is the commonly used term 'animal instincts'. Therefore, I think that he is trying to emphasize his point that we are different from animals in terms of speech, and that we need not imitate those types of characteristics.

(Mary Quien)

Thoughts on Ch. 1

Humans are able to progress with life, technology, etc., due to their possession of language. Animals are limited in their exchange of speech and thus are a less sophisticated society. Their warning calls are independent of one another, yet as humans, we have the power to branch out our speech in many directions.

I agree fully with this speculation. Unlike human beings, animals are restricted to making certain noises, which impedes their populations from further societal development. As Hayakawa has indicated in Ch. 1, when one animal yelps and then a second animal nearby yelps also, the second animal is not yelping "about" the first one--it is simply making its own signal.

This discussion stems from the first couple of sections in Chapter 1, which brings me to the title of the first section: "What animals shall we imitate?" Though I am not sure whether Hayakawa meant for us to seek an answer to this question or whether the question is simply rhetorical, this title confuses me a little bit. Based on what was discussed in the section, I was under the impression that language is what separates us from animals. Does this not imply, then, that we are not inclined to imitate animals? I welcome any kind of clarification that can be offered on this matter.

(Janet Lee)

Response and Chapter 1

This is an interesting question:

If one learns to speak in a foreign language, then would his/her thoughts no longer be limited to those associated with his/her native language? Or would thoughts become even more limited, due to difficulties in communication?

All of these observations depend upon the environment and its population. If you are with someone who is fluent in both languages, you are bound to express yourself more freely. If you are with someone who speaks neither, your outward emotions are limited. According to Hayakawa, however, the idea that we are contemplating this makes us high-level thinkers. We are not dwelling on the grammatical aspects of languages, but rather the actual communicational skills. I daresay we are more advanced than T.C. Mits, who is unaware of the power constituted by the Niagra of Communication.

The subject of T.C. Mits brings me to Chapter 1. I would like to hear some thoughts in relation to the "Which Animal Are You?" subsection of the first chapter. I find it so interesting that humans are able to progress with life, technology, etc., due to their possession of language. Animals are limited in their exchange of speech and thus are a less sofisticated society. Their warning calls are independent of one another, yet as humans, we have the power to branch out our speech in many directions. Our language is so complex that we constuct phrases about other phrases, and so on. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this speculation?

(Samantha Maliha)

Responses

I return to the question posed earlier:
(from the preface) "Do the words we utter arise as a result of our thoughts, or are our thoughts determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?"

This question has led me to think much, in addition to the comments made on expressing ourselves in different languages. In considering the possibility that the language we have been taught actually limits our thoughts, it seems as if Hayakawa is suggesting that the implications of using a foreign language would be different. Though I feel this may be a question leading nowhere, I am still compelled to ask: If one learns to speak in a foreign language, then would his/her thoughts no longer be limited to those associated with his/her native language? Or would thoughts become even more limited, due to difficulties in communication? Many of us are currently in the process of learning a foreign language, so the question intrigued me.

(Janet Lee)

Expression in Different Languages

I greatly appreciate this observation:

For example, a person fluent in both English and Aboriginee, two languages that developed seperately from one another. Can they concieve a thought and express in to have the same meaning in both languages?

I am currently in Lebanon, and I feel as if I have a great advantage seeing as I am able to express myself in English, Lebanese, and French with my peers. I am certain that upon my return, it will be somewhat difficult to limit myself to solely English once more, although it is a lovely language. It is possible that I may find myself temporarily stumbling over words, trying to find an efficient way to express my sentiments.

This past year in Honors English II, I realized how wonderfully the Bible could assist one in drawing connections to literature. During the Pentecost, the disciples were able to spread a common message to all passerby due to the power presented to them by the Holy Spirit, allowing them to converse in the many tongues of the world. The emotions of the disciples were undoubtedly fully expressed considering that every sort of speech was readily utilized.

(Samantha Maliha)

Reactions

"Do the words we utter arise as a result of our thoughts, or are thoughts determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?"

Here is how I interpreted this: Either our thoughts are already coherent ideas, ready to be expressed in the language we use, or our our thoughts are formed in the limitations of the language we think in. For example, a person fluent in both English and Aboriginee, two languages that developed seperately from one another. Can they concieve a thought and express in to have the same meaning in both languages? If so, the first is true. But if the thought is conceived in one of the languages, it might be exceedingly difficult or impossible to express in the other language, thus the second hypothetical will be true.

Is he suggesting that our upbringing and background limits our thought processes because of the speech we are accustomed to hearing?

I do not think that the upbringing or backround creates any concrete limits to thought processing. Thet can certainly cause obstacles. An example would be a child raised in the home of a KKK member. All throughout their childhood they are taught the prejudice and evils of their parents. That can limit their social interactions and how they think and deal with the people they are taught to hate. But that can be overcome by casting off the prejudices they were taught, when recognized they are wrong.

(Steve Szumski)

Introduction/Preface

I have to admit that I was not necessarily excited about starting this book, yet even the introduction and preface served as an invitation to the reader. In the preface, however, S.I. Hayakawa poses the question "Do the words we utter arise as a result of our thoughts, or are thoughts determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?" I daresay that I understand the first half of this question, yet fail to truly comprehend the second. Is he suggesting that our upbringing and background limits our thought processes because of the speech we are accustomed to hearing? For example, if one's parents speak incorrectly in front of the child, will he/she think differently than the child whose parents are greatly concerned with correct grammar and speech?

(Samantha Maliha)