Although some of you may feel that we have exhausted the topic, here goes...
The other day I was thinking about how semantics may easily be taken to a totally different level. We have concluded that everything is based on perception and personal interpretations. What if the things we learned in Hayakawa's LITAA start playing tricks on us? I understand that the dynamics of language allow us some liberty when analyzing speech or writing, but how much is too much?
Considering the extensional/intensional maps of the speaker/writer is a valuable tool, but I feel that this may be where semantics may get to be overkill. Let's say someone were to say, "Yes, it's good." Provided that you would generally have more context to work with, what is "good"? At one point this year, I would have said that good is what you want it to be, but I'm not so sure anymore. What is the speaker's definition of good? Once again, I would have said that this definition relies upon the experiences that speaker has encountered in his/her life. Once again, I'm not so sure. Language is tricky in that we can manipulate it. We don't have to mean what we say, and we don't have to say what we mean. So when do we reach full and complete understanding? The answer seems like it would be never...but "never" is an absolute, and according to E-Prime and our other studies, that is a big linguistic no-no!
I mean, look what happened to Chief Justice John Roberts. The poor guy switched around a few words and he has reports written about him the next day (by a psychology professor at Harvard, might I add!). One of the first things Mr. Lazarow told us is that language is effective as long as the audience is able to understand the speaker's point. We all understood the essential meaning of the oath, what harm will it do that the word "faithfully" was incorrectly placed? Besides ritualistic practices, there has to be some kind of stubborn outlook on the matter..or at least I think so. I doubt everything I hear these days. Even "reliable" sources don't seen to be doing their job with my over-analysis of everything!
A few days ago, I actually thought of a good example where I could clearly demonstrate my point. I seem to have forgotten it now, however, so I will let you all know if it comes back to mind.
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Actually, I was wondering when this would come up because I once was thinking the same exact thoughts, especially since we all pretty much quote Hayakawa whenever we try to make a point about semantics.
I actually think that the whole 'studying semantics' concept is, in itself, hypocritical. We read what how it's 'wrong' to use loaded words, and yet, we use them in daily language all the time. We look down on advertisements for being misleading and using all types of tricks to sell a product when we happen to use the exact same type of tactics, just in a different situation.
So yeah, in a sense, Hayakawa is playing a trick on us. It points out all of the different effects of the words. It makes it seem possible to fix all those 'problems' with our language, but in reality, it actually may be a lot harder, perhaps nearly impossible.
It's almost as though being familiar with Hayakawa'a semantics tricks gives us more than one advantage: first, we are more prone to analyze before "falling" for an ad (or something like that), and second, we can use the techniques against other people if we choose. We are aware to a certain extent of the things that stir people to action and things that "turn them off". Didn't Mr. Lazarow mention that Hayakawa ran for a political office using to his advantage all of the "selling" techniques that he warned us to be aware of?
Emily T.
In regards to your points about the oath administered early last week, I believe that a lot of the hubbub was mostly due to the ritualistic facet of the event. Obviously, from a realistic point of view, the bungling of the word order had no bearing on whether or not Obama was sworn into office that day. Hayakawa, however, is quick to emphasize the fact that once language becomes ritualistic in nature, it becomes largely independent of what it once signified. The bungled oath doesn't actually have much bearing on the legitimacy of the current administration, but rather it serves as a reaffirmation of social cohesion. The oath is one of the most famous passages contained within our nation's founding documents and obviously is far more significant to Americans. No one comes out better informed about the state of the presidency or nation after hearing the oath. In fact, there is nothing really being communicated. Thus, by messing up the oath, the Chief Justice wasn't threatening the swearing in of the President but rather our experience of the reaffirmation of social cohesion.
That's just my theory, of course. :)
Post a Comment