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)