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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
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?
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?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Brainpower or Wordpower?
Though it's true that Hayakawa mentions this concept in the text, the idea suddenly crept back into memory and seemed to take root: Does language control how we think, or does how we think control our language? It's a question that has no answer. While one could go on for hours arguing for a certain side, a conclusive solution will always be out of hand for this sort of enigma. I am not sure what to believe, and I thought that by posting about it, I might try to organize my own thoughts and get feedback.
Words Control the Way We Think
It's easy to make the case that our language controls the way that we process thoughts, form ideas, and share opinions. It's often said that we should think before we speak; by thinking we often talk internally to ourselves just as we would talk out loud. If we use words to create our thoughts, then isn't it true that our control over language not only controls the way we think, but also limits what we contemplate? Readers of George Orwell's 1984 are familiar with the "Newspeak" language which seeks to eradicate words with "dangerous" connotations, as Deirdre mentioned. For example, the word 'bad' was not used because of the associations it might evoke; it was therefore replaced by 'ungood.' In reality, if we are not familiar with such words as rebellion, war, and peace (and the ideas which they symbolize), how can we even begin form thoughts based on those ideas? However, all that I have written heretofore has be based upon a single, individual person. Another way in which words could control our thought process is the way others influence them. If we had heard that a friend or family member had, for example, gotten mugged in a foreign country, we may slant our thoughts against that country based upon the negative words used to describe that experience. In this way, sometimes we cannot even control the way we think; the descriptions used by other people influenced us to make judgments about something we had never personally experienced. Words can command, in some fashion, the way in which we think due to our own control of language or some other individual's control.
Our Thoughts Control our Words
Yet another interesting theory is that our mind controls our use of words. Of course, this is an idea which is difficult to put into words. Picture something in your mind which you can only imagine- without using any words. For example, picture an imaginary animal that you made up when you were a kid. Now try to describe what you envisioned. This would be an example of our thoughts controlling or words. Without using words, or your control over language, you formed an image in your head. The reason that it is so different from the previous theory is because we are not limited by vocabulary and what ideas we have already been introduced to. Our thoughts were limited solely by our creativity. We have all had the experience of not being able to put something into words: it might have been a delicious meal or a horrifying encounter that we didn't want to relive. Just because we weren't able to describe it, that doesn't make our experience any less real. All in all, the idea that our thoughts control our usage of words (and our command of language) is a fascinating one, but very hard to explain!
We cannot be sure whether words or our thoughts are dominant over the other. While time-consuming, it is interesting to ponder over these theories. In the end, I'd like to think that we are controlled nearly equally by both. But I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks on the topic. Are our thoughts controlled by words? Or is it the other way around?
Words Control the Way We Think
It's easy to make the case that our language controls the way that we process thoughts, form ideas, and share opinions. It's often said that we should think before we speak; by thinking we often talk internally to ourselves just as we would talk out loud. If we use words to create our thoughts, then isn't it true that our control over language not only controls the way we think, but also limits what we contemplate? Readers of George Orwell's 1984 are familiar with the "Newspeak" language which seeks to eradicate words with "dangerous" connotations, as Deirdre mentioned. For example, the word 'bad' was not used because of the associations it might evoke; it was therefore replaced by 'ungood.' In reality, if we are not familiar with such words as rebellion, war, and peace (and the ideas which they symbolize), how can we even begin form thoughts based on those ideas? However, all that I have written heretofore has be based upon a single, individual person. Another way in which words could control our thought process is the way others influence them. If we had heard that a friend or family member had, for example, gotten mugged in a foreign country, we may slant our thoughts against that country based upon the negative words used to describe that experience. In this way, sometimes we cannot even control the way we think; the descriptions used by other people influenced us to make judgments about something we had never personally experienced. Words can command, in some fashion, the way in which we think due to our own control of language or some other individual's control.
Our Thoughts Control our Words
Yet another interesting theory is that our mind controls our use of words. Of course, this is an idea which is difficult to put into words. Picture something in your mind which you can only imagine- without using any words. For example, picture an imaginary animal that you made up when you were a kid. Now try to describe what you envisioned. This would be an example of our thoughts controlling or words. Without using words, or your control over language, you formed an image in your head. The reason that it is so different from the previous theory is because we are not limited by vocabulary and what ideas we have already been introduced to. Our thoughts were limited solely by our creativity. We have all had the experience of not being able to put something into words: it might have been a delicious meal or a horrifying encounter that we didn't want to relive. Just because we weren't able to describe it, that doesn't make our experience any less real. All in all, the idea that our thoughts control our usage of words (and our command of language) is a fascinating one, but very hard to explain!
We cannot be sure whether words or our thoughts are dominant over the other. While time-consuming, it is interesting to ponder over these theories. In the end, I'd like to think that we are controlled nearly equally by both. But I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks on the topic. Are our thoughts controlled by words? Or is it the other way around?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Oh the Possibilities...
It’s a little late for prophetic thoughts, but as I lay awake in bed something kept gnawing at my brain, something I knew was somewhat relevant to reading Hayakawa’s text.
A word can never mean the same thing twice, is a common principle throughout the book. Even as I write this very entry, my words and thoughts cannot be duplicated or replicated exactly. Someone could copy and paste what I am typing at this very moment, and even though it would be the exact same words, it would have a different meaning, people would judge it differently (and perhaps judge the person who plagiarized differently), and there is no way anyone could go back in time and repeat everything exactly the same as I am doing right now. My fascination with this theory comes into play when I imagine the 6,602,224,175 people inhabiting this big, blue, floating sphere having their own thoughts and communicating their own desires. There are no repeats? Language has taken up a new image in my minds eye, an image of a vast unending space with no definite end in sight. The possibilities of language are positively endless.
As juniors, high ranking members in the High School hierarchy, it is guaranteed that some part of our didactic career has consisted of vocabulary tests and writing compositions that have been subject to brutal constructive criticism and have often been stained by a notorious red pen. According to Hayakawa, a word can never mean the same thing twice, and a single word can have an array of meanings. How is it possible to use an objective test when evaluating someone on his or her vocabulary skills? Sure, I may know by rote memorization the definition and synonyms of a word (that the teacher requires me to learn), but do I really know what that word means? Will that word later appear in my vocabulary after I’ve passed the exam and have moved on to other words? If I do you use the word, how do I know it will be interpreted the way I intended?
I’m not saying this as teenager trying to persuade teachers to stop giving homework and examinations, but if language is as malleable as Hayakawa claims it to be, how is it possible to teach the endless limits? The idea is similar to sending a man into outer space. Sure, he can go into outer space, take pictures, and gather some (minimal) information but how can he expect to teach others about outer space when the possibilities and restrictions of outer space are infinite and unknown?
It is my conclusion, that in our struggle to teach and convey the immeasurable meanings of words and phrases, we have actually started to misinterpret language to the point where certain arguments arise that “there is no way of ending the argument to the satisfaction of all disputants” (pg 38)
I’m extremely curious to know if anyone agrees or disagrees with the notion that language can be as limitless as outer space…
How to POST
Ian asked about Posting (as opposed to commenting)--
EITHER:
1. Be on the "Dashboard" page (the one that lists all of my blogs). Under your class blog will be an icon titled "Post"--click on that, and you will get to the post page. OR...
2. From the actual blog page (where you can read all of the current posts), look up in the top-right corner. You will see several clickables there, one of which will be "Post." Click there, and you will get to the post page.
Mr. LAZ
EITHER:
1. Be on the "Dashboard" page (the one that lists all of my blogs). Under your class blog will be an icon titled "Post"--click on that, and you will get to the post page. OR...
2. From the actual blog page (where you can read all of the current posts), look up in the top-right corner. You will see several clickables there, one of which will be "Post." Click there, and you will get to the post page.
Mr. LAZ
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Welcome to the 2007 MHS AP English 3 Blog!
Welcome, AP English Language scholars of MHS Class of '09! It's a great pleasure to greet you as the first-ever AP-3 class, and a special pleasure to welcome you to your home on the web--your class blogsite.
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Hayakawa's work in general semantics, your summer reading assignment Language in Thought and Action, and the scrapbook that will demonstrate your understanding of the concepts established in Chapters 1-8. No doubt you have many question to pose--you can be certain that I did, when I first read it.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English III may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. all discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. to ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the traditional Rhetoric/Composition class required of all college freshmen. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, two years ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class come September.
MR. LAZ
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of Hayakawa's work in general semantics, your summer reading assignment Language in Thought and Action, and the scrapbook that will demonstrate your understanding of the concepts established in Chapters 1-8. No doubt you have many question to pose--you can be certain that I did, when I first read it.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS AP English III may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. all discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. to ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the traditional Rhetoric/Composition class required of all college freshmen. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, two years ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class come September.
MR. LAZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)