Is it necessary to use circumlocution?

My sister worked in the local senator's office over the summer and she told me an interesting story that happened at her work. Her usual duties at work were to answer phone calls and to respond to the letters and emails from the constituents. And she said when the constituents send a letter or an email, many of them use circumlocution instead of concision. I understand that people use jargons when they talk to professionals, but my sister said that some people try too hard to sound "smart" and end up confusing the readers. Why is it that some people try so hard to sound "smart" instead of getting the point across?

She also told me that, when responding to those letters, she needs to use certain phrases and words. She says that it is required to use sophisticated, sometimes confusing, language. I understand that a response from a senator must sound professional and sophisticated, but some phrases that she told me, did not even mean anything. Her favorite sentence that she used the most was "citizens like you who get involved truly turn the wheel of our government." If I were the constituent who received such a response, I would not be satisfied. I would want a resolution to the problem I had, not just the appreciation.

She also told me that the responses are very abstract and only shows the appreciation for the constituent's active involvement. I could relate this fact to Hayakawa's statements about politicians. He says that politicians use words at the peak of the abstraction ladder although sometimes doing so results in disrepute and suspicion. Politicians' use of abstract words functions as directives which people propel to support them. I think that a candidate would not specify his ideas in detail for doing so would create more disputes and disagreements if he were not successful in putting his ideas into actions.

-Joanne Park

After congragulating myself for successfully logging into the blog for the first time, I proceeded to go back through everyone's posts to bring myself up to speed. It seemed to me that most of us would say that language is an extremely powerful force, though I could be wrong in making that assumption. Still, as a question for everyone, how much weight can we put in words?

I must admit that as I started reading Language in Thought and Action, I felt a certain degree of skepticism. Hayakawa obviously believes that humans and most other organisms seek to cooperate. As a fierce supporter of Darwin, I naturally find the idea that life seeks to cooperate rather than compete somewhat hard to swallow. To me, Hayakawa's theories fit more with Mutual Aid rather than On the Origin of Species. When page 12 informed me that all of the book's ideas were based on the assumption that humans naturally seek intraspecific cooperation, I confess that I did not expect to agree with everything Hayakawa put forward. I was pleasantly surprised to find the book interesting, informative, and insightful. Still, I could not help but doubt some of the book's concepts. Hayakawa clearly had a passionate love for Language, one so strong that I don't doubt he would have married her if he could have. I like Language as a friend, but she seems inconsistent sometimes and I question her ability to support me or others; I would be hesitant to take our relationship any further.

I think it was Chloe who brought up the cliche "actions speak louder than words." (If it wasn't, I apologize to whoever did mention it.) Don't they? In AP Euro we were discussing how French "kings" in the 13th and 14th century had all the power on paper, but in reality it was the ranchers with large estates that controlled daily life. Similarly, Sunday morning political pundits frequently question Barack Obama's ability to flesh out his rhetoric into action. One can repeat the word "change" over and over, but to legislate it is another thing entirely.

It seems to me that words are largely dependent on what they symbolize. Hayakawa wrote (I paraphrase) that there is no necessary connection between words and the things they represent. If there is no necessary connection, then what power does the word have? Does it have an inherent power, or does it only have as much power as we give it? I don't know the answer to this question. Help?

--Colin Groundwater

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