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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This relates back to the story of A-Town and B-Ville (the prologue for Book Two, Language in Thought.) At the conclusion of this story, an advertising executive remarked that B-Ville’s council was wise to disguise welfare as insurance because it would make people happier, even though it was still welfare. A social worker disagreed and thought that the citizens of B-Ville had a right to that money, and B-Ville's plan provided insurance, which is distinctily different from welfare. One might conclude from this story that the social worker and advertising executive were really "only arguing about different names for the same thing." It is true that in both instances the unemployed members of the towns recieved checks for five hundred dollars each month. But recall that the welfare system set up by A-Town was a lot less affective than the insurance plan developed by B-ville. This is because the term "welfare" was given negative connotation - obtaining welfare was purposefully made difficult and humiliating to ensure that the unemployed would not take their unearned payments for granted. Starvation was avoided, but class hatred developed among the "haves" and "have-nots." The term "insurance" had a much more positive connotation. The recipients of these insurance checks had their money distributed to them during a huge ceremony, and they felt personally honored. They faced unemployment with greater courage because they knew they could get back on their feet again with the support of the community.
This story proves the point that connotation is just as important as definition. Though the systems set up in A-Town and B-Ville were very similar (by definition), the connotation of the term "welfare" was so different from that of "insurance" that A-Town felt devastating effects.
The advertising executive and the social worker weren't simply arguing about differet names for the same thing - they truly weren't arguing about the same thing at all, because the connotations of each word were different.
Your post makes a fascinating point on what Hayakawa writes. In response to your last question, I think that the connotation of a word is more important than the definition. We always think that we get to the bottom of what a word means by looking it up in a dictionary. As Hayakawa writes, a dictionary does a poor job defining words; instead of "going down the abstraction ladder," it goes "up."
So if the definition isn't all that useful, we have to rely on connotations of a word. Connotations are interesting things: they alter the essence of words based on the speaker and listener(s). And while the whole "Albert" situation isn't that serious, it's just one example of the many connotations that change everyday life. While superstitions don't come to mind at first, I would consider them consequences of negative connotations. For example, hotels avoid 13th floors (so watch out on the 14th floor). But naming (or not naming) a child something because of what it could be associated with is a kind of superstition. Connotations are also important in the marketing business, as Hayakawa demonstrates. Looking in my refrigerator, there's a package of yogurt called "La Creme." In terms of a definition, we all know that it means 'cream' in French. But when people usually think of French food, they think of fancy, expensive food. So in the end, connotations are just as (if not more) crucial to language as definitions.
Hi, it's Jasmine Z. I agree with you that connotations are just as important, or even more important than the textbook definition of a word. A dictionary editor cannot be influenced by what he thinks a word means; he must define the word based on collected sentences. The way the word affects his feelings (affective conotation) does not become part of the dictionary meaning. In real life, however, a word or a phrase almost always causes people to refer back to past experience, and they associate the word with something unique to their life.
Affective conotations also cause words to become taboo. An ethic slur and the less discriminatory term have the same extensional meanings. The "n-word" and Black both refer to members of the same racial group but the former was originally used to make Blacks feel powerless and inferior. The "n-word" is still a powerful word that reminds people of inequality and inferiority. Thus, both the connotation and the meaning of the "n-word" remain the same, while "Black" has a different connotation nowadays. Some Blacks, however, use the "n-word" in an empowering context. The use of the word can be used as a tool to remove painful connotations. By using the word out of the original context, a new connotation can gradually replace the previous one.
This is an example of the constant replacement of words. Recall that Hayakawa stated that "idiot" was replaced by "retarded", which was later replaced by "developmentally disabled". When words that are socially acceptable become associated with negative affective connotations, they, in turn, are replaced. Extensional meanings remain the same, so connotations are more important since they constantly change and affect the English language.
Jasmine wrote, "Extensional meanings remain the same, so connotations are more important since they constantly change and affect the English language."
I think most of the time this is true, but extensional meanings can also change. For example, many students find it hard to understand Shakespeare because the modern definitions of some words are, sometimes, in no way related to the definitions during Shakespeare's time. There are countless websites and books to help students translate his text.
"In real life, however, a word or a phrase almost always causes people to refer back to past experience, and they associate the word with something unique to their life," Jasmine also wrote. I definitely agree with this point. Wouldn't it be great if a person were packaged with his own dictionary? If there were billions of websites, each dedicated to one person and his personal definitions, wouldn't it be easy to understand and "translate" each other's speech? There would still be diversity and variations in speech, which make language so intriguing, but there would be no communication and learning between different groups of people.
Even if you knew someone's personal definition, would you still understand without having gone through the same experiences?
Hi, it's Erin again. I have to say that I agree with what everyone's said - it really does seem now that connotations are in a way more important than the definitions of words themselves, because the definition stems from the connotation (previous to reading this book I had no idea how a dictionary was made and how words are defined).
In answer to Sarah's question, I think that it's impossible to understand some things without ever having gone through them yourself. You can try to, but only up to a point. Just as Hayakawa says a word never means the exact same thing twice, you can never duplicate another's experience (even with a very good definition) because the same thoughts and emotions cannot be exactly repeated. I remember last year in English how we talked about the Holocaust and how even though you can learn so much about it, you cannot completely understand or feel the experience of those who went through it.
I was lucky to have a chance to go to Hawaii and visit Pearl Habor this summer (I highly recommend going, by the way, if you're ever in Hawaii). It was really an experience. No one can replicate the horrors that the people in Pearl Habor had to go through on December 7. They show you a really moving video and there are so many pictures and stories in the museum, but how can you yourself feel what those people felt? I remember reading a story there of one man who stayed on one of the ships to hold a flashlight so others could escape and so sacrificed his own life. And that's an extreme example. I just think that it's really impossible to understand someone completely without having to go through their same experiences, and often times that never occurs. There are some things in life where words just can't do justice.
Hey it's Ben...I have to totally disagree with the view that the connotation is more important than definition. Yes, connotation is crucial and a big deal...but think logically, it's nowhere NEAR as important as the definition.
If I didn't know much English and someone asked me if I would enjoy having a hernia and I had no idea what a hernia was I would probably say "Yes, I would enjoy a hernia." Hernia is a pretty word that sounds like a type of flower. Hernia also sounds like a pretty name for a girl..but if I looked up the standard, dry, definition of what a Hernia was I would totally change my opinion of the word.
Sarah says "If there were billions of websites, each dedicated to one person and his personal definitions, wouldn't it be easy to understand and "translate" each other's speech?" No. It wouldn't be easier at all, in fact it would be much harder because there would be a billion websites, not just one or two sites giving people a good enough universal meaning of the word.
When I look up a word in a dictionary, I am totally fine with the definition I get and I don't need a connotational meaning because I'll either determine the connotation based on the definition, or determine the connatation after I get some personal experience with the word.
I'm not underestimating the power of connotations I'm just saying they're not nearly as important as definitions.
Hi, Erin again. I've been thinking about what Ben said (very good points)and it has to do with Ch.8 of the book, about abstracting and definitions.
We use abstractions constantly when we talk (ex. "Bessie, the cow" p.83). It's for convenience. We can't ever completely understand someone's personal defintion of a particular word and the thoughts and experiences that are associated with that word. When I talk about a house, really there are so many houses that are very different from each other. "Joe's" house can be completely different from "Bill's" house. But abstractions (the word "house" in general) make it possible for "Bill" and "Joe" to talk about a house and understand each other. It's just important to understand when something is general as opposed to specific.
I have to agree with Ben on the importance of definitions. I don't think I can agree with the idea that "definitions, contrary to public opinion, tell us nothing about things" (p.87). I rely heavily on the dictionary when I need to define something. Even if I had a good sense of the word itself (like a zebra), I'd still reach for that dictionary and copy down there definition. Ben's point about the word hernia is a great example. I'm just interested to know if anyone thinks otherwise.
Hey guys, it's Grace. I agree with both sides of this argument. While connotations are very important to individual meanings of words, definitions, as Ben points out, are the "starting points" for meanings of words. For example, while everyone might have his or her own "personal dictionary" made up of all of his or her past experiences with the thing that the word is ("the word is not the thing"), a cookie cutter definition gives the generally agreed upon meaning of the word so that "Joe" and "Bill" are able to have a conversation about a house and have a basic understanding of what the other is talking about.
One can argue extensively which is more important, connotations or definitions. However, do definitions really exist? As Hayakawa points out, the author of a dictionary has the task of finding every context a word was ever used in and recording all of his or her findings in one "definition". So really dictionaries just provide a series of connotations all lumped together in a "happy median" definition. One way of looking at it is connotations occur naturally as part of the human thought process, while definitions are "man made" things.
On the other hand, definitions provide authority (in the sense that there is consent from the population that the definitions provided in the dictionary are generally in accordance with everyone's connotations) and give humans a "go-to" for words that would otherwise have cloudy meanings. If everyone were left to their own devices regarding which words ("maps") stand for which things ("territories"), language would be chaos and communication and progress would fall apart. This is where dictionaries play their part. It's good to have a baseline definition for words. From there, humans can expand on the definitions with their own personal connotations.
(I apologize for this rambling and verging on nonsensical post. Does anyone else feel slightly frustrated by the limits of the internet? I have a lot to say and I'm frustrated by my inability to type as quickly as I think!)
Erin's original post is so interesting. It certainly has generated a lot of discussion! I actually commented on it earlier, but I've thought a lot about it since then. I still believe that connotation is just as important as definition. Ben's point was valid - there could definitely be instances when definition is more important than connotation. But for those that know English as a first language and use it daily, connotation is key.
I'll give an example: by definition, clothes considered "fashionable" are not that different from other clothes. Pants are pants, shirts are shirts. But wearing certain labels or designers can symbolize wealth. The not-so-wealthy often try to imitate these symbols of wealth to prove that they are just as good as everybody else; the connotation of being so wealthy that you can afford an expensive shirt is more important than the definition - the fact that you simply overpay for your shirts. (This offers some explanation to the poverty issues of America – frequently people buy on credit so they can possess the newest and latest technology, clothes, etc. Though they cannot afford these items, they feel it is too important to own them. They simply purchase them anyway and don’t care if they go into debt.)It is often more important to have the symbol than the thing it symbolizes.
Hello, Erin (again). Ashley's point about symbols made me think: do we even think about what something symbolizes or do we not care and just grab for the symbol (yeah, that was a little awkwardly worded). People definitely do charge things that they can't pay for, just for the pleasure of having them and letting others know they have them. Is it so important to put on that facade?
One thing that boogles my mind is money. Really, the only reason you get, say, a candy bar for your dollar is because we've all agreed that that dollar means something, has some sort of value. In actuality the true value of that dollar is the cost of the paper it's printed on. The days where money was backed by gold are long gone. And with inflation and deflation and exchange values, it can get a little confusing.
Now, I shall get off-topic and return to definitions. I was watching a movie last night with my family. In it, the main character was confronted with the meaning of courage. Was it running off to fight in a war? Something closer to home? He had to decide for himself. I think that there are some words that, although they have a general definition, require an individual definition. We had to define success in careers. Success for one person and success for another can vary extremely. What is happiness? Being well-off? And there's tons more.
Is there such a thing as a word with a personal definition?
Post a Comment