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.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Oh the Possibilities...
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…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I completely agree with the "limitless language" theory. If words meant the same things universally, how could there be diverse thinking, social and intellectual development, or culture at all? Words connotate (this website keeps underlining 'connotate' even though I know I'm spelling it right...) unique things to both the writer and the reader(s), so how could the same exact line of thinking be established between multiple people from one common passage?
If language is anything, it is a system of "various noises" (page 16) which we use to communicate. Though we have long ago (subconsciously) attempted to agree upon what each word symbolizes, to try to record or speak our ideas will no doubt leave a different impression on each reader or listener. However, to become more personal with language, it could also depend on familiarity to the speaker or writer with the listener or reader. In chapter 8, we learn that abstracting is the best way to accomplish this, and to ultimately hope that there is as little deviation as possible between to lines of thoughts. But, no matter how feeble or arduous our attempts at abstraction are, there is no denying that language is limitless (especially considering the innumerable languages extant today).
Donna, I completely agree with you. I felt the same way when I was reading the book. I had never thought of it before until I read Chapter 4, but Hayakawa is exactly right. A word is never used twice in the same way.
Even simple words (Hayakawa used the word "kettle" as an example) are never the same. What I think of when I hear any word is different than what would come to mind for anyone else. Nothing is the same from one moment to the next so how can words be the same from one use to the next?
This has made me look at dictionaries differently as well. Before I had thought of dictionaries as the omniscient authority on language, but humans can hardly begin to catalog the meaning of words. It is impossible for a word to have a true meaning because of the different contexts it will be used in.
This might be a little off topic, but this made me think of "1984" by George Orwell. The Party used Newspeak (a system of shortening and deleting words) to control and limit what people could say or think. In doing so, the whole structure of society was reshaped. It really makes you think about how language is used in society and how it effects us every day. It's amazing how language grows every day.
Donna, you bring up an extremely interesting and insightful point. It would seem that language can be as limitless as outer space. This concept boggles my mind. But the question that perplexes me further is this; how then did we come to a common set of symbols and utterances by which we all use to denote meaning? If the possibilities were endless, how did we as a human race decide upon each specific noise’s meaning? We had to start somewhere! Did communication begin with grunting cavemen and then evolve to more complex sounds? How did it advance further still, such that each corner of the earth has its own separate and distinct language?
I know those last two questions are a bit silly; it would be impossible to try and uncover the history of language. But language is (in my opinion) the most important invention mankind has ever created; it is constantly changing, everyone uses it, and society cannot function without it. Even though “the word is not the thing” (and we constantly make that error) words are powerful enough to evoke / express emotion. Sometimes the pen is even “mightier than the sword.”
I really agree with all of you, but I have especially been pondering Ashley's question about how do we all know what each other are saying?
I agree that contexts are important when comprehending the words we hear, but I also feel that there is something else that assists us and I believe that it is a certain level of ‘worldliness’. Early civilizations like the Greeks and the Romans firmly believed in a well-rounded human being, and I believe that being a well-rounded human being allows you to become more informed when you make inferences and judgments on the utterances that others make.
For example, my father can have a conversation with almost anyone about almost anything. He reads the New York Times every morning, and he doesn’t just read the sections that interest him, he reads all of them. When he encounters someone new or needs to talk to a client for work he has the ability to laugh when they make intelligent jokes, and contribute in an insightful manner.
In my post I mentioned that it is hard to teach the meaning of words by memorization, which is why I disagree with vocabulary quizzes etc. However, I feel that encouraging people to read more (not just novels) and expand on what they are already interested in, they will automatically increase their ability to correctly infer the proper meaning of a word that is uttered to them. Since words can be used in multiple contexts with multiple meanings, the only logical way to understand language is to encounter it often in everyday life.
(Which is also why I think it’s important to learn and read about subjects you aren’t interested in so you can understand those around you.)
Donna, you're two for two! I agree with you again! It is important to recognize the context of a word and the 'interaction' of words. Hayakawa tells us that any word, sentence, or paragraph whose meaning is revealed by its context is itself part of the context of the rest of the text. All words within a given context interact upon one another. Serious issues arise when we ignore contexts. In the course of argument, people frequently quarrel about words meaning different things to different people. Take the example given in the book - the nine Supreme Court justices all have a different interpretation of “justice.” The robber feels differently about “justice” than the robbed.
In Chapter Four, Hayakawa tells us the secret to becoming better readers, writers, and critical thinkers. All we have to do is be aware of context. If we deeply ingrain into our consciousness "the principle that no word ever has the same meaning twice, we will develop the habit of automatically examining contexts and this enables us to understand better what others are saying."
Hey you guys! I think this topic is one of the most interesting in the book for exactly the reason Ashley mentioned earlier. How did we form all these sounds and symbols to stand for thoughts that flit through our minds at 100mph? I've always been perplexed that when I close my eyes I can actually SEE what im thinking about. I think this is similar to when we think in our heads. Just trying now to think of something i can't unless I use words. I used to think that language was only created in order to communicate with others but I now see that it's partly how we can talk to ourselves, have ideas and just exist. What were thoughts like before language? I agree completely with Deirdre. In "1984" Newspeak was effectively killing personal thought. This is a little off topic, but if anyone has seen the Wendy's commercial this is what this discussion makes me think of. In the commercial hundreds of people are all running into a gigantic hole like lemmings. Then the red wigged Wendy man realizes that he doesn't want to. But only because he is able to formulate and then express his idea and thought does it affect himself or anyone else. Although I was skeptical at first with 1984 that people would not be able to rebel because of Newspeak I soon believed it completely. The words such as liberty, freedom, and justice would not exist. There would be no way to communicate to younger generations what used to exist and all past knowledge would be lost. The people are tricked into believing that the horrible conditions they live in are "good". I can't imagine not being able to think for myself. I think a wide varying language is what enables freedom of thought. I believe that it's great that one word can mean so many different things because if each word meant one exact thing our ways of communication would be severely restricted. Dictionaries and spelling tests i still think are a necessary base to communication but the fact that they are not the end all, be all, definition is a wonderful thing.
Hey, it's Erin. I definitely have to agreed with what's been said. Language just isn't a "static" (just read Ch.8) thing; it's constantly changing. Words drop out of use and new words enter. Meanings change over time. And there are myriad words just to express one thought, thousands of words in one language, and then the same words in other languages (and old languages that aren't even spoken anymore). Really it's amazing.
I really can understand what Cristy's saying: "I used to think that language was only created in order to communicate with others but I now see that it's partly how we can talk to ourselves, have ideas and just exist." That's so true. I think with words, expressing thoughts and feelings within my brain that way, without ever expressing them audibly.
But even as the words pop into my head, they will never be the same again. The moment has passed and they (and the feelings associated with them) can never be completely duplicated. When I write, I compose in my head (usually because there's no paper around) and once I finally set about to put the words on paper, they're no longer the same. They have a different feel; they never seem as good (but that could just be me realizing, gee, that wasn't that great).
One question, when you think in images and pictures (like in a dream), do you have a problem expressing them in words later?
In response to erin's question I think that most people do have a problem when trying to describe an image or emotion because they can't always give 100% of the picture because the listener didn't and won't ever have the same dream, and that's why describing it in writing can be so hard. In, books there is almost always room for imagination and we all see the same characters and places differently in our minds. Although, we've all read the same Harry Potter books I'm sure things were interpreted different by all of us. (Is Dumbledore dead? Is Harry going to die?) That's why I can never like the movie better than the book (if it was a good book) because it just doesn't come close to replicating what I had experienced in my head. With words you're actually involved in the story. I have heard a teacher say that once a book is written, the words must stand on their own to make the book come alive. We all interpret the book for ourselves and if our interpretations are different than the author's intent then so be it, the words must speak to us for themselves.
Hey it's Allison.
I was interested by some of the comments Deirdre and Erin made regarding the ever-changing meanings of words. I also agree with everyone about the fact that words never mean the same thing twice. So I pose a question: do we, as literate individuals who use language daily, have a say in the changing meanings of words? Could we conciously change the meanings of words by using them in a certain way? Or is the change more gradual and subconcious?
A good example of changing meanings is the word 'awful'. 'Awful' used to refer to something that made the observer 'full of awe'. However, after being used in different contexts time and time again, the word has gained a negative connotation. It now refers to something 'extremely bad' or 'unpleasant'.
When he was in power, Mussolini tried to change a certain aspect of the Italian language by force. He was unsuccessful in his attempt. Does that mean that language cannot be conciously changed by those who use it?
Post a Comment