One of the elements of words that have a built-in judgment is gender. For example, people "know" that John is a boy's name and that Jennifer is a girl's name. People have gender assumptions not only with names but also with colors. Many boys say "I'm not gonna wear a pink shirt because pink is a girl color."
People tend to categorize colors and names by genders; and this is true worldwidely. Few days ago, I was online searching through web sites, and I found this interesting Korean web site that gave interesting statistics about names. I typed in my Korean name just for fun and I found out that my name was more popular as a boy's name. It also gave me the percentage of how popular my name was, and it concluded the genders of the characters of my name. My Korean name is Ji Hwan and the web site told me that Ji was a feminine character, and that Hwan was an extremely masculine character.
I wasn't surprised by this because I've grown up with people's comments about how I have a boy's name. The worst thing was in 3rd grade, there was a boy who had the same name as me and even the teacher forced me to be partners with him for almost all activities. In elementary school, my friends made fun of my name but looking back, I was surprised by how younger children are more affected by the word with built in judgments. My friends eventually stopped making fun of my name as they got older and they also stopped caring about the "girliness" of colors.
I also thought about what decides the genders of colors and names, and I could only think of one thing. The set standards. Both names and colors have been in existance for a long time and I don't know exactly when, but I could assume that the gender assumption was made a long time ago, too. Because people have been believing the gender assumption for such a long time, they accepted the assumption as a fact. Maybe young children decided the genders of colors by watching Power Rangers since the Pink Ranger and the Yellow Ranger were the females.
Any ideas?
-Joanne Park
Monday, September 7, 2009
Physical and Social Context
On Friday, I babysat for my almost three-year old neighbor. Spending several hours with a child who is just learning how to speak afforded me the perfect opportunity to see many of Hayakawa's principles in action. One of the most interesting observations I made was dealing with the idea of physical and social context. During the time I was babysitting, my neighbor constructed a block tower. As he tried to add on to the tower, he accidentally knocked the entire construction over. As a response, I offered the entirely meaningless word "Whoopsie." The word at first was recieved with quizzical looks from my neighbor, but after that, everytime he knocked over the blocks, he would repeat the word.
This scenario serves as an example of how we learn what words symbolize. Although my neighbor had never heard the word I used to express that a mistake had been made, he was able to interpret what I was saying based on the context of the situation. My neighbor then took the formerly meaningless word and began using it to express that he had made a mistake. After observing my neighbor and his developing speech, my faith in Hayakawa's ideas was reaffirmed.
-Tara Burns
This scenario serves as an example of how we learn what words symbolize. Although my neighbor had never heard the word I used to express that a mistake had been made, he was able to interpret what I was saying based on the context of the situation. My neighbor then took the formerly meaningless word and began using it to express that he had made a mistake. After observing my neighbor and his developing speech, my faith in Hayakawa's ideas was reaffirmed.
-Tara Burns
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Signal Reactions
Its almost creepy how much Language in Thought and Action applies to daily life. My house is currently under constuction and we don't have a kitchen. We've been eating off of paper plates, and these get thrown in trash cans around the house. My dogs then find these paper plates and rip them to shreds, leaving those shreds all over the carpet for us to clean up. This morning, I found these wonderful shreds in our living room and I wondered why my dogs insisted on eating these plates. They aren't food. But then I thought of Hayakawa and his chapter on signal versus symbol reactions. My dogs are having a signal reaction to the plates. The plates smell like the pepperoni pizza my brother had for lunch yesterday, so why wouldn't they be the pepperoni pizza? Dogs aren't as advanced as humans and therefore don't realize that the symbol is not the thing symbolized. If the plate smells like pepperoni pizza, they think it must taste like pepperoni pizza. This leaves me to clean up whats left of the plate, which will most likely be attacked again unless it is put out of their reach. Its a good thing humans have symbol reactions instead, or we'd being eating plates too.
~Elizabeth Campbell
~Elizabeth Campbell
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The Power of Body Language
Human communication is said to be primarily expressed and interpreted through body language. I firmly believe in this. From our tone of voice to mere eye contact, we are capable of conveying our moods, beliefs, interests, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language)
The same, simple body gestures can indicate different meanings under certain circumstances. For instance, the raised eyebrow can indicate shock, excitement, or even condescension. When someone is astonished by, say, a surprise birthday party, he most likely raises his eyebrows and opens his mouth widely in awe. When, however, a haughty individual patronizes a store, she may superciliously raise her eyebrows when talking to an employee and behave as if she is "above" said employee. (I have discerned this many times at my job, unfortunately.)
Tone of voice can manifest the mood of an individual. If a mother loses her patience to a rambunctious child, she will usually raise her voice peremptorily to denote her intolerance to the child's bad behavior.
Eye contact--or lack thereof--is a powerful form of body language. If somebody is giving a captivating oral presentation in class, the audience will probably remain focused on the speaker. If, however, the speaker's presentation is wanting, the audience may shift their eyes to different objects due to boredom, or even fall asleep.
There are many other forms of body language that reveal people in some manner. We even use body language unconsciously.
-Chloe Martianou
The same, simple body gestures can indicate different meanings under certain circumstances. For instance, the raised eyebrow can indicate shock, excitement, or even condescension. When someone is astonished by, say, a surprise birthday party, he most likely raises his eyebrows and opens his mouth widely in awe. When, however, a haughty individual patronizes a store, she may superciliously raise her eyebrows when talking to an employee and behave as if she is "above" said employee. (I have discerned this many times at my job, unfortunately.)
Tone of voice can manifest the mood of an individual. If a mother loses her patience to a rambunctious child, she will usually raise her voice peremptorily to denote her intolerance to the child's bad behavior.
Eye contact--or lack thereof--is a powerful form of body language. If somebody is giving a captivating oral presentation in class, the audience will probably remain focused on the speaker. If, however, the speaker's presentation is wanting, the audience may shift their eyes to different objects due to boredom, or even fall asleep.
There are many other forms of body language that reveal people in some manner. We even use body language unconsciously.
-Chloe Martianou
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thoughts and Emotions
Is it just me, or did Language in Thought and Action ignore the first part of its title? I know it's most likely because we only read the first eight chapters, but I was really looking forward to how Hayakawa was going to describe language in thought. I had never even considered what life was like before language, before common words that everyone agreed upon, until reading this book, and I found that I was amazed and confused. How did people even think without words?
We think in words and we feel in words. Society has become so used to putting a label on everything that goes on in life that people are losing the ability to really feel without analyzing or jumping to conclusions. So many couples think what they feel for each other is called "love," so they verbalize that emotion and then feel forced to do everything that other couples in "love" have done. Who knows if what they feel is strong enough to keep them together for life, or if they simply let a word they do not understand change their lives forever? Why must people assign words to such strong emotions? There have only been a few times when I have felt ways that I can't describe with words, and those are the emotions I remember most. When the words do not exist to define it, we are forced to really feel it. I think Language should leave Emotions alone. What does everyone else think?
-Alexa Kaczmarski
We think in words and we feel in words. Society has become so used to putting a label on everything that goes on in life that people are losing the ability to really feel without analyzing or jumping to conclusions. So many couples think what they feel for each other is called "love," so they verbalize that emotion and then feel forced to do everything that other couples in "love" have done. Who knows if what they feel is strong enough to keep them together for life, or if they simply let a word they do not understand change their lives forever? Why must people assign words to such strong emotions? There have only been a few times when I have felt ways that I can't describe with words, and those are the emotions I remember most. When the words do not exist to define it, we are forced to really feel it. I think Language should leave Emotions alone. What does everyone else think?
-Alexa Kaczmarski
Thursday, September 3, 2009
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)