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

Unconscious Assumptions About Language

I think that one of the more interesting concepts brought up in the book is that we tend to make unconscious assumptions about words. I feel that this can be best observed when the idea of naming comes up. For example, one of my aunts is a teacher. When she tried to come up with a name for her son, she spent months mulling it over to no avail. Her difficulty was that she couldn't think of a name without conjuring up the memory of a former student with the same name. Though she did eventually decide on a name, at the time I couldn't understand the difficulty she had with the process. After reading Hayakawa's thoughts on the subject, I was finally able to understand where she was coming from.



The question I have about the whole concept is whether or not it is possible to refrain from these unconscious associations. My personal feeling is that it is near to impossible to fully disassociate. No matter how illogical it is, it's immensely difficult to separate our memories and feelings from the words that we use and hear. What does everyone else think?



- Tara Burns

The Difference Between Human Emotions and Behaviors

Bryce's post, titled One's Semantic Environment, inspired me to differentiate between human emotions and behaviors. The difference between such seemingly similar entities is that language can control behavior, but not emotions.

A good example for differentiating the two is a fixed set of laws in a community. Let's say a woman was pulled over for littering. The policeman fined her for breaking the law, and she obeyed by paying the fine. This fixed law illustrates language controlling people's behavior. (The woman will probably avoid littering in the future).

This particular law, however, does not have any control over the woman's emotions. Although the woman was obligated to pay the fine, she was not coerced to repress her feelings on the matter. The woman therefore could've expressed her emotions--which would most likely be anger and/or humiliation after receiving the fine--through verbal, mental, or physical performance.

Language can act as a regulator of human behaviors, but cannot control human emotions, whether the emotions are expressed externally or not.

-Chloe Martianou

One's Semantic Environment

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

Inferences and Judgments

I found it interesting that Hayakawa stresses the positive side of inferences, and doesn't mention the negative. I think we have all read a book or seen a corny movie in which a character draws an incorrect inference creating a conflict between characters. This doesn't just happen in movies. For example, from one mean word we may infer someone is mean, when really she just had a bad day, and we lose out on a friend. That's not a great example, but things similar to that happen. While I think what Hayakawa says about inferences is their more common and important use, they also have a negative side.

Hayakawa mentions the result of judgments on individuals, but I think they also permeate society. A judgment has to start with either one person, or one small group and then gossip carries it to everyone else. People easily accept judgments the same way they accept reports. These judgments usually aren't good, and a lot of time are prejudices against another group. Because judgments stop thought, the prejudices are very hard to get rid of. Once formed, the majority will only see evidence to support the prejudice, with only a select few who can look beyond it. Judgments, especially ones we feel passionate about, spread easily from person to person, and even generation to generation. Children easily accept the prejudices of their parents and never look to correct them, accepting the prejudice as fact. Prejudice is very bad for society. It leads to oppression, violence, and general ignorance. By being aware of judgments as we hear them, and recognizing judgments for what they are and not as facts, we can stop prejudices from forming or spreading. However, getting the majority to do this is incredibly difficult. Anyway, so those were my thoughts on judgments.

~ Becca LaRosa

Symbols Designed to Impress

Whenever someone goes to a concert, he or she usually purchases a concert T-shirt as a commemoration of the event. There is an underlying reason, however, for purchasing such an item: to impress other people.

I remember my sister wore an Aerosmith concert T-shirt to the mall one day. I noticed people ogling her shirt until one woman approached her and said, "Wow, you are so lucky to have gone to an Aerosmith concert!"

Jewelry and sartorial attire are impressive symbols that have signified affluence for centuries. (It is safe to say that such elegant garments worn today do not represent one's social status anymore. They are primarily used to impress people nowadays). Souvenirs from different vacation spots--magnets, postcards, bracelets, necklaces, etc.-- are purchased not only to preserve memories, but also to reveal to others that someone has traveled abroad.

To conclude, one of the roles of symbols is to arouse admiration from others. People enjoy being flattered.

-Chloe Martianou