Hayakawa states in Language that taking away the word doesn't take away the thing. That is to say, that a 1984-like situation could never truly exists because the idea of freedom, and the idea of liberty would still exist even if it could not be voiced in the same way. If this is true, would E-Prime do anything at all? If taking away the word doesn't take away the thing how could removing "to be" eliminate the false notion that the symbol is the thing symbolized? Wouldn't people still innately feel that there was a connection between an extentional stapler and the word 'stapler' without saying it IS a stapler? I'm interested in comments - could a lingustic change eliminate that false thought process?
(Molly Dunbar)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That's what I am thinking as well. Let's use the example of the stapler. Even if I say 'it looks like a stapler' I bet many people would still be THINKING in absolutes, that in their mind, they would be saying 'yeah it is a stapler.'
I think it's the idea of absolute has already been introduced and been used for so many years that even if we used E-Prime, that idea won't go away.
I was wondering the same thing in class a few times, as according to Hayakawa, eliminating "to be" doesn't necessarily remove the faulty thought processes...but...
After some reconsidering, in this case avoiding the use of "to be" forces us to become more aware of the fact that everyone perceives things differently. Maybe that object seems like a stapler to me with its innate stapleriness, but to a 1500 Frenchman, I'm sure that he would have no clue, because there is no essential stapleriness...
Removing "to be" will not completely eliminate the false notion that the symbol is the thing symbolized. But by using more specific words like "seems" and "appears", E-Prime could help us see that nothing "is" anything: it only seems that way to us.
In addition, E-Prime does not completely fit with Orwell's Newspeak example. In the example you used, Molly, the word "freedom" corresponds to actual extensional freedom and experiences. By banning the word "freedom", the Party was attempting to prevent actual extensional freedom. Hence, Newspeak limits the range of our thoughts, perceptions, and actions.
But when we avoid "to be", we are not attempting to eliminate the extensional equivalent of "to be" or "being" (if there even is one), but are merely trying to shift our very perceptions of an extensional object and alter how we perceive things in general. E-Prime, unlike Newspeak, expands the range of our perceptions: we must recognize that not everyone sees everything the same way we do and we must consider how others may think.
Thus, E-Prime isn't really like Newspeak. Both might be attempting to avoid certain words, but for very different goals. Newspeak attempts to eliminate extensional realities with the deletion of words (Hayakawa says this doesn't work), but E-Prime merely changes the way we perceive things, and Hayakawa certainly agrees that words can alter intensional perceptions with their connotations.
Maybe we cannot alter the extensional reality by changing words, but our intensional one can be affected.
-Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
I agree with Eric, the goal of taking out "to be" is not to be rid of the concept, and whether that is even possible is highly debatable. E-Primes goal is to make language and communication more accurate but placing qualifiers in "to be"'s place.
Steve Szumski
This goes along with what Eric said, but I remember a few days ago when we first received the E-Prime essay Mr. Lazarow touched upon the idea that the deletion of the verb "to be" would alter the way that we think about things. As Eric mentioned, we would have to be very much aware of the fact that what may seem one way to us does not necessarily seem that way to another person. So, essentially, we are not only taking into account our own thought process, but, to a certain extent, the thought processes of others, as well.
(Emily T.)
Eric has brought up an important point that I agree with: E-Prime expands our range of PERCEPTIONS because it encourages us to recognize that not everyone perceives everything the same way.
In fact, as we discussed in class today, although it may seem like the use of E-Prime would "weaken" an argument because no clear-cut, absolute assertions are being made, E-Prime actually allows arguments to develop further because it calls upon the inclusion of qualifiers.
As Mr. Lazarow explained, this use of qualifiers in an argument forces us to discuss many different CIRCUMSTANCES of the situation, thus giving our arguments more depth. Of course, as was established in class, this would mean that argumentation would likely become a more lengthy process and one that is tedious to explain, yet it would give our arguments more ACCURACY.
Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
I would also like to make mention that E-Prime strives to eliminate absolutes absolutely (which as we discussed in class today, is a paradox). Rather than an individual possessing the right to make a completely definitive statement, his or her rights of observation will be sligtly tweaked, but not necessarily reduced. E-Prime gives us a form of language in which we express our potential fallibility with each phrase or sentence. This is undoubtedly needed since as Hayakawa establishes in LITAA, nothing remains static.
Eric established that Newspeak reduces our linguistic, and thus intellectual, abilities. Hayakawa, however, disagrees with this outlook, stating that since the symbolized is not the symbol, the sense of the symbolized would not cease. Mr. Lazarow also mentioned that Hayakawa would not agree with the principles of E-Prime. He would encourage the study of pre-existing semantics and dialects, not the formations of novel criteria.
Thus if Newspeak and E-Prime seem to be opposites (one a reducing agent, the other one of expansion), how can Hayakawa possibly disagree with both? Where is his happy medium? I may have taken this too far...any thoughts?
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment