Humans are able to progress with life, technology, etc., due to their possession of language. Animals are limited in their exchange of speech and thus are a less sophisticated society. Their warning calls are independent of one another, yet as humans, we have the power to branch out our speech in many directions.
I agree fully with this speculation. Unlike human beings, animals are restricted to making certain noises, which impedes their populations from further societal development. As Hayakawa has indicated in Ch. 1, when one animal yelps and then a second animal nearby yelps also, the second animal is not yelping "about" the first one--it is simply making its own signal.
This discussion stems from the first couple of sections in Chapter 1, which brings me to the title of the first section: "What animals shall we imitate?" Though I am not sure whether Hayakawa meant for us to seek an answer to this question or whether the question is simply rhetorical, this title confuses me a little bit. Based on what was discussed in the section, I was under the impression that language is what separates us from animals. Does this not imply, then, that we are not inclined to imitate animals? I welcome any kind of clarification that can be offered on this matter.
(Janet Lee)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Does the discussion in the first section of chapter one suggest that we are not inclined to imitate animals?
What I think this section is really trying to get at is not that we are not inclined to imitate animals, but, rather, that we are (italics) animals-- the difference between humans and all other animals is our sophisticated system of communication. We can take pointers from other animals, but when it comes down to it, we have to fight to survive just like all other species. But, as much as we have to fight, we also have to cooperate as a species in order to survive, and the ability to talk can certainly help in the process of cooperation, allowing a more sophisticated society.
(Emily Thompson)
I do agree with Emily's speculation -- that we are animals. Yet Hayakawa is also trying to point out that we are a more complex form of these wild beasts, and thus we possess great extents of language which award us with an advantage over other sects of the living world.
The comment above was left by Samantha Maliha.
Post a Comment