Emily, and no doubt many other people, have already recognized the flexibility of language as a theme of the text. We all know, and have probably all experienced the fact that language can be misinterpreted and cause conflicts between people. However, I thought it was interesting how Hayakawa pointed out that presymbolic language can also be misinterpreted. On page sixty-two, he gives three examples of this.
Hayakawa states that the educated are more ignorant of the presymbolic uses of language. I partially agree with this—the educated are ignorant of some presymbolic uses, while the uneducated are ignorant of others. It doesn’t matter whether a person is educated or not. It all depends on their point of view. Just as different symbolic languages (English, German, French, etc.) are understood by different people around the world, so are different types of presymbolic communication. Using the first example Hayakawa gives, the “chatter at parties and receptions” that the person is listening to may seem trivial to him, but it makes perfect sense to the guests engaging in it. (In fact, it probably is trivial, but the triviality of social conversations is already being discussed.) The person then goes on to interpret the “chatter” according to his own point of view, and makes a false generalization about the people at the party. It has nothing to do with how much he is educated.
Does anybody else have opinions on this?
-Audrey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting analysis, Audrey. I have to agree that the misinterpretation of presymbolic language does not depend on the individual's education alone.
ReplyDeleteBy an "educated person," I believe Hayakawa is referring to an individual who regards himself as "worthier" compared to those with a lower education than his own. The example you provided above clearly illustrates how a haughty, educated individual would perceive the presymbolic uses of others. Said individual deemed those who were "chatting" at the party as "fools" and considered the conversation meaningless when, in fact, there was significance to it.
I consider that specific individual to be arrogant because of his high regard for himself based on his education level, as well as ignorant because he couldn't understand the importance of presymbolic communication at a party.
All in all, the misinterpretation of presymbolic uses depends on the education of an individual, and also how that specific individual views himself and others.
-Chloe Martianou