One of the first things to catchy my eye upon my reading of "Toward Understanding E-Prime" was Alfred Korzybski's involvement in the development of E-Prime. His 1933 book on semantics, Science and Sanity, depicted the downfalls involved with the usages of the verb "to be". In fact, Korzybski concluded these factors to be so problematic that he has encouraged student training in the field of semantics to avoid "logical error, emotional distortion, and demonological thinking" (Wilson).
The irony, however, is that Hayakawa also quoted Alfred Korzybski in Language in Thought and Action. "Man's achievements rest on the use of symbols. -Alfred Korzybski" (Hayakawa 13).
If Korzybski feels the use of symbols to be such an art, why is he willing to delete two of them?
The second section of the packet also brought to light something of interest. The army's new slogan, "Be an Army of One," appeals to both the tastes of the individual in favor of independence and the individual in favor of togetherness. This ties in quite nicely with the "you device" and "we device" discussed in class today.
Just some thoughts. What are yours? (..So much for the usage of E-Prime.)
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"If Korzybski feels the use of symbols to be such an art, why is he willing to delete two of them?"
This is an interesting question, as I myself had not even realized that Hayakawa had included one of Korzybski's quotes in Language in Thought and Action (underlined). Isn't that neat? (Or in E-Prime, "doesn't that seem pretty neat?")
I think that it is necessary to understand that Korzybski is not really contradicting himself since his belief of the significance of symbols is general, while his belief of the downfalls involved with the verb "to be" is quite specific. Yes, the verb "to be" can be seen as comprised of two symbols, but Korzybski has not stated that man's achievements rest on the use of TO BE; he stated that "man's achievements rest on the use of SYMBOLS" (Hayakawa 13).
My point here is that Korzybski may believe that the use of some/many symbols is an art, yet simultaneously believe in the benefits of eliminating the verb "to be" from the Standard English language.
"Toward Understanding E-Prime" has an interesting connection to The Toulmin Method which Mr. Laz touched upon in class. That is, both are in favor of qualifiers over absolutes; E-Prime strives to eliminate the definitive nature of the verb "to be" and The Toulmin Sentence includes a qualifier.
Thoughts? (In this comment alone, I used the verb "is" ten times. The power of this small word dazzles me.)
(Janet Lee)
Jeez Sam I'm in shock and awe of your incredible quoting skills. How'd you find that quote again?
Anyway, I wanted to take this discussion on a slightly different tangent. Yes it obvious that E-Prime is impractical in everyday environments due in great part to its elongated structure. But I think there is a deeper meaning as to why this frame of mind would never catch on. It comes in two factors...
1) E-Prime suggests fallibility in every aspect of linguistics, in turn totally dismantling the mutual rules we've set up in order to make society function properly.
2)The majority of human minds need some absolution in their process of thinking. Which, on a side note, is possibly to most prominent reason for the existence of religion.
E-Prime assess the danger of judgements, inferences, biases, etc. and breaks everything down to a fundamental level. It seems to pose as a solution for the convolution of language. However, isn't the very basis of language so subjective and so variable that E-Prime would inevitably cause the same problems as our current form of dialect?
I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite exsistentialist commentators, Isaac Brock, lead singer of Modest Mouse.
"Language is the liquid
That we're all dissolved in
Good for solving problems
After it creates a problem"
(taylor burke)
I too do not believe that there is a contradiction in Korzybski's words. He stated that man's achievements rests upon the use of symbols; that does not imply that every usage of a symbol is correct and immutable and that none can be removed. By abolishing "to be", we are simply clarifying our intensional perceptions, and improving the symbols we are currently using. I agree that symbol-making is an art, but there is nothing preventing us from eliminating prototypes (like "to be") and creating new ones.
Interestingly enough, the Army's current slogan is "Army strong." Note that there are no "to be" (or any...) verbs present, although the army is still trying to imply that joining the army = becoming stronger. I'm not sure that I would classify "Army strong" as E-prime, however, as it still is trying to suggest that the Army has the innate quality of strength (following the flawed Aristotelian essence idea.)
EDIT: Love the quote, Taylor.
(Eric Wei)
I think that Eric is right about the fact that we can just create new prototypes. It is present even in this blog.
Isn't that neat? (Or in E-Prime, "doesn't that seem pretty neat?")
I took this from Janet's comment. Now, as you can see, the second sentence does not use the word 'is' but doesn't give a similar feeling as the sentence with the word 'is' in it?
One of the things that interested me as I was reading about E-Prime is that it is not only the use of the verb "to be" that Korzybski thinks should be avoided, but the avoidance of ablsolutes and the idea that qualities are innate to certain things, in general. I think that honing in on the verb "to be" is the easiest thing to do because it is the easiest to pinpoint, whereas phrases like "ARMY STRONG", as Eric suggested, are numerous and we can't simply list all of them. We just need to be aware of the implications of these types of phrases.
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment