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)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment