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)