Forms of Language

This post is about language in general. I've been ruminating over the different languages the people of the world use. There's Latin, Korean, French, Mandarin, all the various forms of Mandarin. But isn't there language beyond?

I have heard varying opinions on this question: Is math a language? Math is used as much as English is; we use it in our daily lives to purchase things and to count objects. We use math to express our internal thoughts. Take the statement "There are 2 birds." How would we make that statement without math? Or is math just one of those operational definitions like "weight" and "length" because we can't define math without bringing in the very definition of math?

So is math a language based on that evidence? I've heard that "math is the universal language." Math is understood by people in Taiwan and in Sweden and in Brazil. After all, it's just numbers. So are those numbers and square root symbols and plus and minus signs equivalent to letters and question marks and ampersands?

I thought about languages that don't use words physically. Math substitutes numbers for letters. Sign language substitutes gesticulations and facial expression for words and sentences. So if sign language doesn't physically use words, and math doesn't physically use words, is math a language?

-- tori lee

Truth

In his class introduction today, my physics teacher made the arguement that science is really the only subject that aims to teach its pupils "the truth". He made the case that all other subjects are not based on learning the real, hard facts of life (math is only applied knowledge, history is written by the victors of wars, etc.). His explanation for English was that it only taught the rules of language.

The rules of language? Just grammar?

While I don't completely disagree with Mr. PhysicsTeacher, I'd have to say he's missing the big picture of the study of language. We're a class that is on a mission to understand the semantics of language - the meanings, implications, and effectiveness of words. But semantics is only one branch of English. There's grammar, of course, and literature, poetry, speech, lingustics, and more. So why does this vast intellectual realm exist if it doesn't strive for .... the truth?

Or does it seek "the truth", just not in the physical realm? What is the importance of English? Why bother learning the semantics of language?
Your thoughts?
(emily donahue)

Evolution of Language

I'm always impressed by people who invent things. I find it so amazing that someone can figure how to put a bunch of different things together and make something totally new. Language in Thought and Action brings up the fact that words change and evolve. If you look into the history of a word, you can see where it came from. For the most part, new words come from other related words. But what about the first forms of communication? Was it totally arbitrary what sounds came to stand for what things? Did someone just point to that thing over there and decide to call it, say, a tree? If thats the case, just a slight change in history and our whole language could be different.

-elizabeth campbell

Dead-Level Abstraction

After finishing the section on dead-level abstraction, I felt Hayakawa implied that people who write on higher levels of the ladder of abstraction always think they sound intelligent and are unaware that they are making little to no sense. I disagree with this implication and also with the idea that dead-level abstraction on high levels is as meaningless as it is on lower levels.

When John Lennon received a letter that the students of a high school were studying and analyzing Beatles lyrics, he decided to write a song that made no sense whatsoever. Thus, "I Am the Walrus" was released and became one of the most discussed and analyzed Beatles songs ever. People were determined to find reason and insight behind the lyrics and discovered their own personal meanings for the song.

Since Lennon stayed at very high levels of abstraction, the song could be interpreted in endless different ways. It is sometimes more interesting for the reader to have to think about the meaning of things rather than having it spelled out in writing that switches from high to low levels. While I agree that the examples Hayakawa gave about dead-level abstraction were hindrances to the reader, I'm surprised he didn't discuss when it works to the reader's benefit and entertainment.

-Alexa Kaczmarski

Foundations of Society

A society will remain intact on the condition that the people within it cooperate. As Hayakawa defines on page sixty-eight, society is "a vast network of mutual agreements."

It is interesting to realize how much people accept this systematized network of agreements everyday of their lives. When driving, people must obey street signs and traffic lights. Consumers at supermarkets must pay for the items they want. At school, students are expected to follow the teachers' rules. Even at home, there is a fixed set of rules from the parents for the children to follow. If someone refuses to adhere to a rule or law, he will be punished.

A lawless society is a paradox because no society can exist without a network of mutual agreements. Imagine how chaotic life would be if people didn't have any rules to follow. Murders and other atrocities would be inordinately committed everyday. Businesses wouldn't exist because nobody would pay for their purchases. Children would have the choice of whether to attend school or not.

It's unfathomable how disorganized the world would be without laws and rules to follow.

-Chloe Martianou

Loaded Words

Chapter 5's section "Words with Built-in Judgments" was especially thought-provoking to me. Words only acquire attached affective connotation if people use it with those attached feelings. I noticed that specific definitions in dictionaries have the words "usually offensive" included or something similar. And since dictionaries only record how words are used, it follows that certain words must have been used offensively. However, prior to that, earlier editions of dictionaries would not have included "usually offensive" or "sometimes vulgar", because there was a time when it only had an informative connotation -- at one point, "ass" was only used to refer to donkeys.

The manner in which words obtain built-in judgment is a two way street. The way people inflict words with negative connotation or positive connotation is received negatively or positively. When a word is used frequently enough with a specific meaning, eventually its definition in the dictionary will be recorded as such. But afterward, conflict often ensues as one person intends only to use the word with its informative connotation but another person receives it with its affective connotation. At that point, those words don't even have a distinction between its informative and its affective connotation, both are integrated too closely together to use one without the other. Examples of these words include swear words that were once completely innocent (a**, b*tch) and words describing race that are replaced by other words to describe the same race.

Hayakawa's example in Language in Thought and Action shows that the word "Negro" was replaced by "colored," "nigger," "nigrah," and later "black." But then "African-American" was substituted for "black." This progression demonstrates how people used different words to describe the same thing, and then how people received it. If society had never used the n-word negatively, and in turn had never received it negatively, there would be no cause to think of a new word.

-- tori lee

Stereotypes: Good or Bad?

Many people deliberate over whether stereotypes are good or bad for society.

Stereotypes can induce negative feelings from people towards a certain group, but the true intention for stereotyping is to generalize about (abstract) any group.

On page eighty-six, Hayakawa claims that abstracting is "an indispensable convenience." This is absolutely correct, and is the reason why people have stereotyped different groups of people, animals, etc. By stereotyping, people are simplifying in order to make life a little less complicated.

For instance, the association of Africa with HIV/AIDS stereotype has formed because over sixty percent of the sub-Saharan African population alone is infected with HIV. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic#Sub-Saharan_Africa) People disagree with this stereotype because not every single African is infected with HIV. Though not every African has HIV, a majority of the African population is indeed infected with it, and that is the reason the stereotype was developed.

Stereotypes aren't always meant to be insulting to a group; they serve to generalize. People must understand that there are always exceptions when dealing with stereotypes.

-Chloe Martianou