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.

Some Questions

Hello again everyone, it's Erin.
I'm posting this time not to put down my thoughts (although I might later), but to pose some questions. Hayakawa's book is about language. How is are these principles (or aren't) relevant to us in our daily lives? Even though we've read this book, will we use some of his principles when we speak, listen to others talk, or read? Just how much concern does the average person have about the use of language? Will we be changed (probably not drastically, but some change) by reading this book? How effective was that change (if you did change)?

Feel free to add more questions if you'd like.

Symbols and Polyglots

As I was spending idle minutes searching through the vast stores of knowledge on Google.com (I've been trying to avoid Wikipedia...), I came across a very fascinating person who reminded me of Hayakawa's writing: Ziad Fazah. Born in Liberia, Fazah has, in under 60 years, been able to master 58 languages. A true polyglot, Mr. Fazah made me contemplate the vast amounts of words, alphabets, and tones used in the myriad of world languages. For me, French and English are too much to handle! In Language in Thought and Action, we learn that words are symbols (like a map is to the region it covers), and therefore not the actual objects. As for Fazah, I am immensely interested to know whether he, and any other speakers of more than one language, relates the corresponding word in multiple languages to the same object they stand for. When I think about it, what I took away at first from reading Language applied only to English. Now I am starting to see that these rules that he lays out are true of any language that is both spoken and written. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks on these issues.

Give and Take

Hey, it's Sarah K.
Language in Action, the original version of Hayakawa's text, was written in "response to the dangers of propaganda" (Hayakawa xi). By reading the text, the reader is suppose to be more aware of biased language. Hayakawa focuses on what is said, how it is said, and why it is said (i.e. reports, directives). The book, in a way, is a tool to help filter through biased speech and writing. As humans, however, aren't we naturally biased? Don't we listen and receive information with just as must bias as when we give information? Everyone has a unique voice, so doesn't everyone also have a unique ear and hear something completely different than a person sitting right next to him did? Is it possible to be biased in one respect and not the other? Or is there a balance of biasness between giving and receiving information? In which way is it worse to be biased?

Okay, I know there are a lot of questions, but here's one more: if I gave my answers to the questions, would it, in a way, be a report to help you form your opinions or would it corrupt your answers?

Meanings v. Connotations

Hi everyone, it's Erin.
As I've been reading Hayakawa, there are certain things that really stick in my brain and this one's been churning around for a while. I'd really like to know what other people think. In the first chapter (p. 11) Hayakawa talks about a man who would like to name his child Albert but, because he knew one who committed sucicide, would not. It made me laugh because I could see myself doing the same thing.

Hayakawa states that the reason he acts the way he does is because of certain assumptions about language related to reality. Maybe it's almost in a way confusing "the symbol with the thing symbolized." But I don't think that that is the whole reason. I think (I know for myself) that it's not because the man thinks that his son will committ suicide because he's named Albert (if you think about it, that child will have his own thoughts, feelings, decisions, and personality that will be very different from the previous Albert). Perhaps the reason the man hesistants is because of the connotation of the name for him. No one would name his or her child a name that upsets or worries (really if you think about it, there are some names, historically, that today nobody is named after). The negative connotation that the man now has for that name keeps him for naming his son Albert. I think it has to do with what Hayakawa mentions in chapter 4, intensional meanings ("what is suggested inside one's head"), as opposed to extensional meanings (being in this case the person himself).

In a way, I am starting to believe that the connotation of a word is just as important as the actual definition. When people write or speak (writing especially), they often need to choose a word with not only the right meaning, but the right way of feeling (in a sense). The word needs to evoke the feelings that the speaker/writer wishes to be evoked in order for the speech/paper to be effective. Some words have negative connotations and when you're trying to communicate a point, the connotation is important, so that you are completely understood.

Does anyone else feel that way, that connotations are just as important as definitions?