Sample semantics questions

Analyze the following statements, based on your understanding of Hayakawa's concepts:


1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."

2. “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)

3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.

4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.

5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)

**You may post your analyses, or do them in writing and bring them with you to class***

LAZ

Hello fellow internet users, it's Paige.

During history class a young scholar (who shall remain nameless) brought up a statistic concerning Roosevelt's "New Deal." He said "Unemployment was doubled during this period of American History." At which point another young man claimed that "Statistics show that unemployment was cut in half." I felt compelled to changing into my Mr. Laz costume that I carry in my back pack and inform them that you can truly find a statistic to support whatever your argument is. Their facts were complete opposites for the same topic, shows just how irrelevant most statistics are.

On another note, during class discussions in recent days we have talked a bit about how "is" can be used to represent opinions that cannot be argued. Well I agree that if we can avoid using such a word with such strong connotations, it can benefit language and how it impacts society. However, how can we expect society as a whole to change the words it is build upon. Perhaps we as a class after this year can avoid using "is" as frequently, but what about the rest of civilization? Are we the choosen ones to start an anti-ism rebellion, or should we just accept "is" as a word and leave it at that?

The Link, As Promised

Sorry this is so late--this morning, I thought today would be a perfectly normal day...shows just how much I know about predicting the future!

The article is called "Towards Understanding E-Prime," originally written by author Robert Anton Wilson:

http://nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

It's not very long, although it is a bit complicated--those who see this post, do your best.

See you tomorrow morning--

LAZ

Cynicism Towards Advertisers

As a result of watching "Merchants of Cool", but mostly from our class discussions, I have come to view all advertisements in a different light. After I began to believe that corporate marketers are never concerned with the well-being of their audience and every ad is intended to maximize profit, some important corollaries followed. When something seems too good to be true, it is always too good to be true. When an advertiser talks about valuing the customer, they really only value the customer's money. In short, I have become extremely skeptic of any promises that marketers make.

This newfound cynicism applies to every advertisement that I see or hear. It is almost an automatic reaction to question the real motives of each commercial I see. Sometimes, the manipulation of language is almost obnoxiously evident . While listening to a baseball game on the radio today, I heard an ad that said, "If you want to be a real Yankees fan, then you have to open up a Bank of America Yankees Rewards Checking Account." The logic is so obviously flawed that it makes me wonder how ignorant the marketers think we are. Another ad I've seen for Stella Artois (an expensive Belgian beer) reads, "Perfection has its price." The snob appeal is unashamedly blatant. Other ads are much more subtle, and these tend to be somewhat frustrating. Although I know from the beginning that the advertisers are trying to manipulate me, I can't discern exactly how they're doing it. Even so, I think that it is beneficial to the consumer to be aware of the advertiser's intentions and to make decisions accordingly.

Reverse Psycho

Hey guys, it's Amy Z.
Ok, so this is my fourth effort (no joke) trying to post. Ok, so with the Sprite commercials, the company made fun of advertising in order to create effective advertising. Does this technique work? Does seeing our ideas and thoughts on screen make us sway towards one side or company because we feel like they understand what we are thinking? The students in the video were pretty upset when they found out what Sprite was up to. I am so used to commercials now, as Ben said earlier this week, that I don't even care what they put in them. Some people watch the Superbowl just for the commercials (kind of crazy).

Anyway, I was thinking about student government elections and how a student's posters last year relate to the Sprite commercials and how they used reverse psychology. His posters said things like "I'm just doing this for college applications!" and last year it made me wonder if it would be effective enough to persuade the student body to vote for him. I thought it was kind of crazy, but we know that some people do participate in clubs just for college. He was getting into the minds of the student body, but I think he was too open with the opinions of others. His approach was interesting, since most people assume that the candidates do it for college (no one in my homeroom knows what they actually do in student gov). Is reverse psychology really an effective method in most cases, or does it begin to peeve people once they figure out the true intentions behind the words? Do we have to be constantly exposed to this reverse method in order for it to be effective (the posters were probably up for only a couple of days)?

Where is the line?

As I was thinking about the "Merchants of Cool" and advertising in general (as everyone else in our class is hopefully doing...), I wondered when advertisements went from innocuous to dangerous. Reading Jasmine's post, it's true that not all advertising is BAD. If you like a certain product, then you will continue to be loyal to that brand for the brand's content alone. This also goes for the opposite: if you despise a certain product (for me, fast food) then you will refrain from purchasing that product no matter how effective the advertisements are at convincing others to buy it (like the Wendy's ad...haha).

But to ask again, where is the line? I believe that an advertisement truly becomes dangerous when the audience is not aware that they are being marketed to. This is especially true of subliminal messages, which are supposed to affect the subconscious mind. Now, of course actions have been taken in the US and around the world to curb the usage of subliminal messaging, but in its heyday it was certainly true that one was not completely in control of one's thoughts. Since advertisers cannot use subliminal messaging, they often use more sneaky techniques which aren't quite subliminal but certain show up on the radar. For example, the infamous Sprite is blatantly advertising a "sublymonal" (yes it's spelled wrong for a reason) messaging technique in its nonsensical commercials. If you've seen these bizarre commercials then you know that the stereotypical types of these messages- such as rapid flashes of images- are used; but they are slow enough so that we can consciously perceive them. What is Sprite trying to say? Is it trying to convince customers that they're so smart they can detect subliminal messages? We cannot answer this question- only the cunning marketing executives can. But I still don't drink Sprite.

By the way, I found some interesting links related to subliminal messaging:

http://www.umich.edu/~onebook/pages/tablepages/uses.html#sh
http://www.poleshift.org/sublim/ntro/How_To_See.html (this one is kind of funny but creepy...)

Marketing: Good or Evil?

Hi, it's Jasmine.

Some of you seemed blown away by "Merchants of Cool". In my opinion, the documentary just reinforced what I already knew. We've been exposed to advertisements for our whole lives, so I think by now, we all know that we cannot always trust them. We often make fun of ads that are make exaggerated claims, but at the same time, we know that they're biased - that's a huge part of what an ad is. So, if "Merchants of Cool" was a shock to you, if it made you feel like you've been lied to your whole life, why was it such a revelation?

For me, marketing isn't evil. It's simply a part of our lives that will always be there. Although we can't avoid advertisements, we always have a choice - companies have no way of forcing us to buy their products. Like I said in a previous post, life without advertisements would be woefully empty. Although people complain about the hidden advertising on MTV, they still enjoy watching it because it's entertainment. We complain about the amount of commercials on TV, but why do we still sit there and watch them? Once again, it entertains us - commercials can be pretty interesting and funny. Also, I remember in class, we talked about Disney - stating that it pretends to be something that it isn't. It doesn't matter much to me that Disney doesn't live up to its family-friendly reputation. The truth is, Disney produces many good TV shows and movies that aren't always rated G. I think that the actual product matters more than what the product is "supposed" to be. After all, according to Hayakawa, nothing is "supposed" to be anything - everything is based on our individual perception.

So, who thinks that advertisements are evil? Or good? Or somewhere in between?

Let's Just All Pretend

Hey, it's Sarah.

In Language in Thought and Action, Hayakawa describes an instance at a train station. It was during WWII, and being Japanese, Hayakawa was eyed a little suspiciously. He then starts a conversation with a man to feel more comfortable and to make everyone else more comfortable. He describes that language is a tool to let people know you're like them (or not like them in other cases).

I have been reading East of Eden for a few weeks. Lee, a Chinese immigrant working as a servant in late 19th century/early 20th century California, is well-versed and educated, yet he speaks in broken English to convey an image. Lee says it's an expected image; it makes people more comfortable for Lee to talk in barely understandable English because we, humans, like the familiar.

Don't words and language allow us to pretend? Lee is pretending to be an ignorant man. Also, a new "craze" has swept across the nation; white teens from middle-class and wealthy suburbs have adopted some slang that is "ghetto fabulous." Aren't they also pretending to be something they're not? Language has the capability to deceive (yes, I do realize that no one actually believes these teens are from inner-cities or in gangs). Don't we sometimes hide behind words? We let them represent us completely, not necessarily the words but the way they are said or delivered. What does everyone else believe? In a way, I sometimes just get fed up with the heavy traffic of words and the way we manipulate words to convey an image.

What Do We REALLY Like?

Wow, the blog is so alive! I love it! Although I had a lot of catch-up reading to do before I could put in my own two cents. Hopefully I’m not repeating too much of what anyone else has mentioned, I have managed to skim just about everyone’s but you can never be too sure…

So we’ve been watching the video “Merchants of Cool”. I wasn’t here when we started it, but today we saw a segment about the Insane Clown Posse (is that the proper name for it? I know it had something to do with clowns…). The Insane Clown Posse is supposedly an underground, individualistic, unmarketable, ‘stick it to the man’ kind of group.

But what I don’t understand is, do the people actually enjoy the music, or do they just want to be ‘different’? Even though the corporate world is not marketing bands such as the I.C.P., it is still influencing the choices that the supposedly ‘individualistic’ people make. Do people that listen to bands like the I.C.P. really dislike Britney Spears’ music, or just the fact that she is mainstream? What if the rolls were reversed and the I.C.P. was mainstream and Britney Spears was an underground fad? Even though people that listen to the I.C.P. think that they are not bending to the whim of the marketers, they are. Their decisions are still based upon what the marketers decide to package for the masses. It is safe to assume that whatever the advertisers decide to make mainstream, the 'indie' people will do the opposite.

Being influenced by advertisers is unavoidable, whether you purchase their product or not. And if that is the case, how do we know what music we really enjoy listening to? Or what clothes we really like?

In closing, I have one last thing to share, and it has to do with my wonderful mother. My mother is a mature, stay at home mom. She’s the sensible, structured, matriarch that runs a well-organized home. However, in recent years it has become apparent that my mother has a soft spot for rappers such as 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, and Eminem. Even though the lyrics are often times crass and derogatory towards women, my mom doesn’t seem to mind. These rappers are targeting a younger, much different demographic; yet they have managed to obtain a white mother of two who lives in an affluent community as a fan. This I believe is a perfect example of an exception to the rule.

The Evasive Midriff

The video we have been watching in class, The Merchants of Cool, discussed how the media portrays teenage girls and how teenage girls are marketed. Teenage girls are depicted as mere sexual objects that will do just about anything to gain the acceptance of their peers or the attention of the opposite sex. Throughout history women have been viewed as weak, inferior beings who need men to save them from their own futility. Men are praised for their sexual prowess, yet women are supposed to stay chaste. We are constantly being sent the message: "Women are here only to please men. Buy them and you can get them to do whatever you want." This so-called “double standard” can be found in language as well.

We might not always think about it, but language can be truly abusive to women. About two years ago I read a book called Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum. The book was a study on why girls are subjected to sexual labels and how those words have shaped society. On the first page of the book there are four lists of words; one each for terms used negatively to express sexually active men and women, and one each for words used positively to express sexually active men and women. There are only two words to describe women positively: hot and sexy. Men, however, have a good quantity of positive terms, such as stud, player, Casanova, and ladies’ man. When it comes to negative terms, men only have womanizer, wolf, and “can’t keep it in his pants.” Women, on the other hand, have a myriad of negative terms to describe them. There are almost thirty terms on the list, including slut, whore, tramp, hooker, and floozy. Even the term “feminist” has been turned into a negative connotation, or could be seen as one of Hayakawa’s words with built-in judgments.

The saddest part of this is that men aren’t the only culprits. This is so deeply embedded deep into our culture that women identify themselves with these terms. Much of the name calling comes from other females. I’ll even admit to partaking in it. We see another girl as an outsider or as competition and she's automatically a slut. Detrimental words are used to illustrate women in all forms of the media and in our own personal conversations. In The Merchants of Cool a band called Insane Clown Posse was featured. It was stated that their lyrics were demeaning to women, but there were women there to support them at their concert. How can we mistreat ourselves this way? Our music, magazines, movies, and television programs continually degrade women. Recently, when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes” (among other racial remarks) there was an outcry from Americans disgusted by the verbal abuse women face from the media. The commotion to remove these words from our vocabulary was sadly short-lived. Everybody realized there was a problem, but no one wanted to own up to it.

If we ever expect to have equality between the sexes, how can we use these words? How could we ever expect to receive respect from men if we are relentlessly devaluing ourselves? There will never be an end to this unless we stop buying into these stereotypes. If we are so disgusted by the scantily clad, blonde popstar crawling around lasciviously on stage, why do we in turn idolize her?

Is it possible to escape advertisements?

Hi everyone, it's Jasmine. I've been thinking about the "Merchants of Cool" video we've been watching in class, and I thought about the role of advertising in our lives. I realized that it's necessary and inevitable - there's no way to escape it. I feel like life without commercials or brands would feel strangely empty.

Even "Merchants of Cool" itself was a collection of advertisements - in warning us of the dangerous relationship between companies and teens, it actually promoted those companies' brands. Even if we tried to avoid the world of marketing, we couldn't. If I wore a plain T-shirt instead of one that had a brand name sprawled across it, I would still be advertising for that particular style. Also, somebody might like my shirt and ask me where I got it - and in answering, I would be advertising for a store or a brand. In a more extreme case, even an empty room is not completely free of advertisements. Although unlikely, a person could step into that room and admire the type of paint on the walls or the shape of the room, which might influence him to buy the paint or hire the architect that designed the room.

There's absolutely no way to hide from ads. Since we can't escape the media, we have to understand it and be aware that we live in a world where somebody is always trying to sell something. What do you think? How do you think our inability to hide from commercials affects our lives?

Different Names for the Same Thing

Hello everyone! I had an interesting experience the other day, and I wanted to share it with all of you:

I was babysitting for a mother who had to leave for work early last Saturday morning. When I arrived at 7:00 AM, the children had just woken up and wanted breakfast. I was willing to make anything (being the excellent chef that I am, I can whip up cereal, bagels, oatmeal, or eggs) but the youngest child, Paige, refused to eat anything. She was wailing that she was hungry, but she didn’t want to eat what we had in the house! I was forced to become creative. (As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.) I told her I would make “Cowgirl Sticks.” (Strange name I know, but she has an obsession with horses. I hoped the name would catch her attention.) What are Cowgirl Sticks, you ask? Why, nothing more than toast with butter and jam simply cut into three pieces, but she LOVED them. She ate six cowgirl sticks.

My point is that we can use different names for the same thing to create the desired affect. I could have told Paige I was giving her toast, but she wouldn’t have eaten it. I cut the bread differently and call the pieces “Cowgirl Sticks” and suddenly she wouldn’t stop eating.

Now, after having watched the “Merchants of Cool” video in class, we realize what power marketers have over us. Just like I influenced Paige to eat the toast, marketers are also able to influence what we do, what we say, and what we buy because they recognize the power of words. Companies like McDonald’s want to sell their product, so rather than advertise their latest creation containing 810 calories and 55 grams of fat as “The Artery Clogger” they instead they call it “Big Xtra.” These are both different names for the same thing, but one makes the sandwich sound a lot more appealing. If I’m really hungry, I want to eat the "Big Xtra" because it sounds like it will satisfy my hunger. In reality, the only thing this sandwich could satisfy is my upchuck reflex.

I’m curious to know what everyone else thinks about the video. I remember we discussed it in class, but only a few people shared their thoughts. So what do you all think – do we buy the brand and label, or do we concern ourselves more with the quality of the product?

Debate

One of my all-time favorite high school classes is debate. In this one class, students from all grade levels join to discuss current events, opinions, stereotypes and an endless assortment of topics from the morals of beauty pageants to the price of bananas. It struck me in class today how wonderful it was that we all saw words and objects in a different way. Each student brings a unique viewpoint and manner of speech that is always interesting to hear.

In debate we make speeches and ask questions to persuade the majority of the class to either pass or fail a bill, deciding if it will become law. I believe Hayakawa would have a field day sitting in our debate class and studying how the students use language in so many of the ways he mentioned, all at once.

In debate, language is your greatest weapon. The words you use are crucial in making your point. I am now even more aware of the signifigance of words that are "loaded" or carry a lot of excess bagagge. A word with heavy negative connotations can destroy a speaker if it is not used correctly. A good debater always has an amazing speech which is of course made up of words. Their speech is specifically manufactured to fit the audience type depending on whether it is for the elderly, teachers, or rebellious teenagers. As a debater I am constantly slanting everything that comes out of my mouth in order to persuade people that my view is the correct one. As debaters, we try to sound intelligent with statistics and data so people put trust in our judgment. However, a few simple questions from an opposing viewpoint, can quickly destroy a candidate who is attempting to persuade an audience. An intriguing question can make a speaker look ignorant, foolish, or cruel. A speaker will also lose a debate if he/she appears to be very predjidice or one-sided, which is very ironic because that is exactly what each debate speaker is...predjidiced! Instead, debaters must sound as objective as possible to lure the audience in, while in reality their every word is dripping with bias.
I remember reading how Hayakawa said that one important way, we differ from animals is our ability to express opinions that aren't always our own. Like the example of a yankees fan who can wear a phillies cap or when someone says "I'm hungry" but they are not actually hungry. This struck me as a very deep truth that I had not paid much attention to before. In debate I myself have made persuasive speeches pushing issues in the opposite direction of my personal feelings.

My opinion is constantly changing in that class as I learn new ideas from others. I also learn new ways to exploit language to become a better debater. I think that Debate class is one of the main ways I connect to Hayakawa's teachings everyday.

Witnesses

Throughout the day today, something that Mr. Lazarow said kept ringing in my mind. It was along the lines of, "If110,000 people are watching a game, then everyone sees a different game since no one sits in the same seat, sees the same things, etc." It's hard to think of our conception of the world as completely unique to each individual. But I wondered- how trustworthy is the justice system in its capacity to judge a person or group? We have all heard "Innocent until proven guilty," but how can one be judged guilty or innocent? Surely, we can use DNA and such evidence that so-and-so committed some crime, but what about witnesses? Each witness observes something completely different; how can be sure that what they're stating is what actually occurred?

Beyond Ch. 8

If you're like me, you finished the first eight chapters of Language in Thought and Action, then quickly closed the book without even a glance at the title of the next chapter. It is, after all, a dense and time-consuming read. A few days ago, I picked up the book and flipped through some unexplored pages near the end of the book. The chapter I read was "The Empty Eye", which deals mostly with television. I think that I enjoy TV more than the average American, which is saying something. Especially since my exposure to DVR and torrents, I have increasingly immersed myself in a variety of shows. For not the first time, Hayakawa's principles were relevant to my experiences.

One thing that was immediately clear to me was the relationship between the first and second parts of the the book. Several times, I saw how a principle from the first eight chapters related to television. For example, the idea of how much we trust each other's reports was evident when Hayakawa pointed out how much people believe what they see on TV. Later in "The Empty Eye", Hayakawa further developed the idea of how rare it is to see both positive and negative aspects of a character, and how a truly skillful author develops both sides. When I read that originally, I thought of how J.K. Rowling developed Dumbledore's character in the last Harry Potter book. The same idea applies to TV as well. Hayakawa talks about old western shows with an obvious divide between good and evil that could not be crossed. The good were always good, and the evil were always evil. While today's programs may be more sophisticated, many of them nevertheless only show one side of the characters. How many times do you see Jack Bauer having traitorous thoughts or making the wrong decision during a mission? On the other hand, shows like "House" do a better job of demonstrating that no one is perfect. The main character is a brilliant doctor who applies his skills to save lives, but he is often cantankerous and rude. I agree with the author in that good writers explore both the positive and negative aspects of their characters.

There is so much more to be found in the second half of the book. Has anyone else read further and found something interesting?

The Jumble of Languages

Seeing as how my brother is enrolled in a Japanese class in college, it is not easy to evade his frequent culture and language "reports." On one occasion, I actually paid attention and learned that the three "alphabets" of Japanese- kanji, hiragana, and katakana- are quite unique from an English-speaker's perspective, besides the utilization of a different set of symbols for words. In fact, one of them, katakana, is used almost exclusively in the communication of foreign words, such as 'America' or 'television.' I found it fascinating to compare the use of foreign words in our language to those of Japanese. What I realized is that our foreign vocabulary is extremely limited and serves only a handful of functions.

It seems to me that the only reason why we, as English speakers, use foreign words is to express a very specific thought or to sound "fancy." Turning to 'Seinfeld' again, in one episode George is dating a woman who always refers to paper mache as "papier maché" (literally meaning 'mashed paper' in French). I don't want to get too off topic, but the gist of this example is that her usage of a foreign words greatly annoyed George. When we use these terms, we often sound very pretentious; why is that? Why is it that the English language is so "close-minded" when it comes to using foreign words? Are there any other languages that do this?

Not sure what to call this

Hey, it's Erin. A few nights ago I was flicking channels and saw a few minutes of Nancy Grace. I don't know if anybody else saw this but the story at that particular time was of a child (I think a two year old boy) who had died from being left in a car in the heat for 8 hours. The caption at the bottom read something like mom leaves child to die in hot car. Now, certain words just jump out at you "leaves... to die" and from them you can draw only one conclusion: it was a purposeful action and the mother had essentially murdered her child.

I didn't get the whole story, so I can't know if it was purposeful or accidental, but the phrasing causes you to think one way. Like I said, maybe that's true, but what struck me at that particular point in time was that within five seconds, I had not only factual information, but a verdict, a conclusion as well. It reminded me of what Hayakawa said of words with built-in judgments, that they "communicate simultaneously a fact and a judgment on that fact" (p.48). Or in chapter 3, about slanting, he says that "even if explicit judgments are kept out of one's writingm implied judgments wil get in". So I'm wondering, is there true impartiality (everytime I think of impartiality I think of the movie "12 Angry Men" - about a jury because probably not many of you have seen it, but anyway impartiality is necessary when one is a member of the jury.)? I'm just interested to get everyone's thoughts.

Can one language be better than another?

Hi everyone, this is Arka.

Many times I have heard from a teacher of Hinduism that Sanskrit, the Latin of India, is a perfect language. Even its correct (non-anglicized version) of its name, Samskritam means, "that which is perfectly formed." Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for most teachers of religion, but can one language actually be better than another from a linguistic standpoint? In Language, Hayakawa talks about how language is the most refined form of symbolism, and it is true that there can be various levels of symbolism. For example, this blog is probably much less symbolic than writing from someone like Shakespeare. However, can an entire language be, "less symbolic" than another language. Even among students in the high school there is always a joking competition that Spanish is better than French or Latin beats all, etc, but in reality can this be true? Muslim proponents of Arabic claim that Arabic is the highest language as the Qu'ran is written in it, while the Catholic Church hold that Latin Mass is the correct way. While the reasons for supporting a language can be varied, such as cultural and historical, from a purely linguistic standpoint, can one language trump another?

Personally, I feel that one language can be more symbolic and better linguistically than another. For example, Sanskirt is most definitely more symbolic that many of the other languages in India. However, I could be completely wrong, and am interested to hear what other people have to say.

False Maps

As I was going through the passage written about the parallels between symbols and maps (pages 19-21), it occurred to me that false maps are everywhere we turn. As Hayakawa writes, "Some of the follies we commit because of false maps in our heads are so commonplace that we do not even think of them as remarkable...All such [superstitious] people are living in verbal worlds that bear little, if any, resemblance to the extensional world." (page 21)

The reason this passages strikes me in such an odd way is because it seems that we all live according to false maps. Isn't it true that we all have assumptions and superstitions (from the subtle to the obvious)? We have already established that any word can never have the same meaning twice, and that every individual has his or her own "personal dictionary." Then there is no general reality in this sense because everyone sees things quite differently. So how can someone be regarded as living according to a false map? Perhaps regarding something as "false map" in another may be indicative of a "false map" in ourselves. But to quote George Costanza of Seinfeld, "It's not a lie if you believe it."

TIME

Hey, it's Sarah.

I was perusing TIME today, and I came across a very interesting article. "Words Don't Mean What They Mean," the article, is actually an excerpt from a new book The Stuff of Thought. The article (and the book I'm guessing) describes how "words might alter a certain degree of familiarity" (TIME, 9/17/07, p.53). Each conversation is subtle in meaning and calculated, so the relationships we have are not disturbed.

"Words let us say the things we want to say and also things we could be better off not having said. They let us know the things we need to know, and also things we wish we didn't. Language is a window into human nature, but it is also a fistula, an open wound through which we're exposed to an infectious world. It's not surprising that we sheath our words in politeness and innuendo and other forms of doublespeak" (TIME, 9/17/07, p.53).

It definitely touches upon some of the topics discussed in Language in Thought and Action. I recommend that you guys read it, too. If you have a subscription to TIME, look in the September 27th issue. If you don't, try the website or just ask me to bring the magazine to class.

Abstractions

Hi it's Allison.
While discussing abstractions, Hayakawa mentioned that "The test of abstractions is whether they are referable to lower levels" (Hayakawa 93). He gave the example that those wishing to discuss civil rights in Wisconsin should know everything there is to know about civil rights from the national statutes to the behavior of police officers.
I found Hayakawa's thoughts on this quite interesting. I mulled it over and thought about what would happen if this was applied to representatives discussing a resolution at the United Nations. If the men and women representing their countries were debating about what plan of action to take in regards to the current issue in Darfur, would that mean that they would need to be informed about every crime against the people being committed to even discuss the issue? Would they need to be well versed on the history of the conflict? Would they need to have been to the places where these horrible things are being done and seen the crimes being committed to draft a plan to put an end to the violence? Is it even likely that one would have access to all of that information? If the delegates don't know all about the conflict, do they even have the jurisdiction to come up with a solution?

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words, he would not bother trying to say it in music." - Gustav Mahler

Hello everyone, this is Stephanie.
Hayakawa writes of “noise for noise’s sake”, presymbolic expression, and human tone of voice. In that same key, so to speak, music (in any culture) waxes and wanes in perpetual fluctuation based off of the human emotions. Personally, I consider music to be a language of emotional and psychological expression. If you listen to the song “Iris” by the Goo Goo Dolls, you might say that the combination of the lead singer’s desperate tone and the violins is quite ‘powerful’, without any directives indicating so at all; likewise, Yo-yo Ma’s vivacious duets with violins in the piece IB may sound ‘light’ and ‘playful’, when no mention of liveliness was ever portrayed in written or spoken language. Therefore, I believe music is a form of presymbolic expression; the implications of words (if words are at all utilized in the piece) are irrelevant to the meaning articulated behind the notes. I’m curious to know what everyone else thinks on this topic.

This is Paige.

I have been having trouble wrapping my brain around certain aspects of Hayakawa's book. For example in chapter one he states, "Human fitness to survive requires the ability to talk, write, listen, and read in ways that increase the chances for you and fellow members or the species to survive together." But what does that convey about people who choose to live life in solitude, or for that matter, those who are illiterate? Is achievement solely for those of us who take part in the norms of language in society?

In chapter two we learn more of maps and their connections and territories but on page 21 I became puzzled. “We can manufacture at will, with language, “maps” that have no reference to the extensional world. Here again no harm will be done unless someone makes the mistake of regarding such “maps” as representing real territories.” Is it always so wrong to live in a non-extensional mindset? Do people who choose this way of life deserve to be thrown into an asylum and prodded by questions? Is it only a mistake because that is how the majority of society views such thinking?

Further on in the book “slanting” is discussed and seems to have a negative connotation at first, but isn’t it just another method that we use to express opinions? Later on it is suggested that “slanting” shouldn’t be completely avoided, but what other methods of expressing are beliefs can be used to avoid becoming overly judgmental? Or is slanting not that judgmental, is it just a way of being blatantly honest?

I interpret what Hayakawa says about opinions, as they can never be completely regarded as fact. My question is what role do warnings play in this philosophy? Recently I read the book “Night” and I recall a man coming to Eliezer’s village to warn them of the horrors that were approaching. However the people viewed his opinions as madness. By not accepting opinions as fact are we dooming ourselves a trustless society, or are we protecting ourselves from ignorance?

Hayakawa, when writing about contexts concludes, “Few people ask by what authority the writers of dictionaries and grammars say what they say.” I am severely fascinated by this because often times at the high school I get frustrated about why I am being taught certain things, and who decided the methods on which education should be transferred. It is my understanding that a large part of how we learn is acceptance, but more and more as the decades pass people question less and accept too much. I we don’t stop to reexamine what is being taught, we could eventually loose our rights of expression and be thrown into a 1984 style of living.
I found myself taking, “Language in Thought and Action” as complete truth and didn’t question Hayakawa’s opinions. However I believe we should read other authors’ (or just other people in general) views on Hayakawa’s principles to take into account variation of opinions. In a way perhaps that is what we, as a class, are doing.