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