On page 11 Hayakawa states that language constitutes "the moral and intellectual atmosphere in which [one] lives." Simply put, the words one speaks shape their ideas, hopes, dreams, prejudices, etc. Hayakawa also brings up the point that speakers of separate languages may have separate thoughts or methods of thinking. This left me to question just how profoundly language affects one's thoughts and actions. Are differences in culture directly attributable to differences in the languages societies speak? Or are upbringing, heritage, geographical separation, and other factors a more powerful force? Surely, both have a huge role in shaping who people are. But how powerful is languages role?
When I read Hayakawa's points, the first thing I thought about was "newspeak" from George Orwell's 1984 (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/). The very purpose of this language was the restrict the thoughts of people by reducing the amount of words available with which to express feeling. For example, if a child grows up speaking a language with no word for happiness (and no word even remotely connected to happiness), then that child is not able to feel happiness, right? Surely, he won't be able to express it.
Overall, the point of language/words influencing thought was interesting to me. My final question, though, is just how powerful can language become? Is something like "newspeak" possible? Or is human nature too powerful to be controlled by a dictionary with a limited vocabulary? Thoughts? Ideas?
-Bryce Cody
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very astute observation, Bryce.
ReplyDeleteHaving read "1984" last year, I understand Big Brother's approach to exterminating people's thoughts and feelings through "newspeak" by brain-washing them. I also know, however, that Big Brother was successful in limiting vocabulary, but failed to extirpate people's emotions.
Why couldn't Big Brother abolish the feelings within people? Simply because humans were born with instinctive emotions.
For instance, a newborn baby cries whenever he's upset. Does a newborn baby know how to talk? Not at such a young age. Because the newborn baby cannot express his feelings verbally, he resorts to physically expressing himself with tears and wails. Although the baby doesn't understand that his crying symbolizes the word "sadness," he still instinctively understands that he cries whenever he feels uneasy.
The same can be said with happiness. A baby can't define his smiles and giggles as "happiness" because he hasn't learned how to speak yet, but he can certainly understand that such an emotion is a favorable one.
What if somebody never knew the word "heart-broken?" Couldn't they still feel that emotion through experience alone?
Let's say a man falls in love with a woman he's grown close to. After a year or so, he wishes to marry her. If said man witnesses the woman of his dreams kissing another man one day, won't he still feel that same, heart-wrenching pang in his chest as, say, a woman undergoing the same experience as his own, but who can define what she's feeling as "heart-broken?"
So, is language more powerful than human emotions? No, it is not, because language can only describe a human's feelings, not control them. (Of course, language can be powerful enough to control human *behavior,* but that's another story altogether).
-Chloe Martianou
I agree with Chloe that language can't limit a person's feelings because they are so instinctively a part of us. However, when it comes to politics, like the way Newspeak was used in 1984, language can definitely set a limit.
ReplyDeleteWhile words like "happiness" and "heart-broken" are emotions that we experience whether or not they have a name, words like "freedom" and "democracy" are not. In 1984, Big Brother attempts to form a society in which people never experience or are aware of anyone who has experienced freedom. If the word "freedom" remained in the dictionary, someone would not only find and agree with it, but also attmept to bring it back to society. However, without that word, or any relating to it, forming the idea for freedom and giving it a name is incredibly difficult. It is practically impossible to think what we lack the words to name or even describe. Even if we could think it to ourselves, how do we explain this wordless notion to others?
Of course, at some point a very long time ago, someone must have come up with the original idea for freedom. So, it's not impossible, just highly unlikely.
Anyway, language plays a role in what we can feel and express, but only to an extent. Language can't erase the raw human emotions Chloe talks about, although it can easily manipulate them. Language, as Hayakawa says, is symbols for things, not the things themselves. So long as the thing remains, the symbol will naturally reform. It is with more abstract ideas, things that are not experienced, that language becomes truly a neccessity. To someone who does not experience rights, there are no rights without the word for them. So, language can be pretty powerful in controlling the thoughts of people.
~Becca LaRosa
Your comment reminded me of that riddle, "What was the longest river in the world before the Nile was discovered?" And it was still the Nile. We can still experience feelings/emotions even if we don't know what it's called; so I disagree with you Becca. It's not "practically impossible" at all. We can describe "heartbreak" in many more words than a single word (that feeling of sadness and despair that one experiences... etc.) but somebody along the way decided to call it heartbreak so that we don't have to recite that entire long explanation. That person experienced it before it was named; he/she named it. This concept of abbreviation is similar to the example in the book -- we say "house" instead of A's maga, B's biyo, and C's kata (Chapter 8, "Why We Must Abstract").
ReplyDelete-- tori lee