I don't know how far you all have gotten in this play, but I just want to share some of the things that I found interesting while reading. First, I want to point out how much the father seems to understand about language. One of the points he made that really caught my attention was the one about who we are to other people. He stated that basically we are not the same to everyone else, that we have different roles in the worlds of everyone we have met. He then connected that with their situation, saying that the situation was different to everyone. Maybe it's me, but I can't help but think of Hayakawa whenever he brings up a point on language.
I also think that many of the points from Hayakawa can also be found among the characters. When the father comments that his wife doesn't understand him, isn't that proof that the lines of communication between them have not been open for a while? When each character is describing their view on the situation, isn't that showing how semantic environments can affect the way people think, making the view for everyone different in at least some way? There are also many times when the characters argue over which word to use when describing something. Isn't that exactly like the promp we had at the very beginning of the year with Pi and the Japanese investigators?
(Mary Quien)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with most of your examples--in fact, the parallels between the play and Hayakawa may have influenced Mr. Lazarow's decision in assigning us the reading.
However, the father/characters of the play do diverge from the "Hayakawa" way of understanding language. Its much less clear cut for them--in my post I quoted the father saying that facts need emotion in order to be facts. On the other hand, Hayakawa clearly delineates the existence of affective connotation etc. as different from "fact."
Post a Comment