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