Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
general semantics and the goal of reducing misunderstanding
|
General semanticists “embraced the goal of improving everyday communication by discovering the ways in which words distort, obscure, and complicate understanding between people” (Wood 76)
General semantics does NOT assume that conflict and disagreement are solely due to misunderstanding One might conceivably understand another person’s ideas and beliefs while still rejecting them Nonetheless, reducing misunderstanding seems a worthwhile goal |
|
|
symbols are the arbitrary
|
a
|
|
|
the difference between signals and symbols
|
Signals are “naturally” related to the thing they represent, AKA the “referent”
Symbols, however, have three components The symbol (the word “son”) The thought (all associations with that symbol) The referent (a specific little boy) The link between a symbol and its referent is indirect; what ties the two together is our thoughts |
|
|
"semantic triangle" of Ogden and Richards
|
Signals are “naturally” related to the thing they represent, AKA the “referent” (Deer tracks = a deer has recently passed by)
Symbols, however, have three components The symbol (the word “son”) The thought (all associations with that symbol) The referent (a specific little boy) The link between a symbol and its referent is indirect; what ties the two together is our thoughts |
|
|
symbols are abstract
|
a
|
|
|
"ladder of abstraction" and higher or lower levels of abstraction
|
a
|
|
|
slippage
|
the gap between ANY symbol and the thing(s) to which that symbol refers
|
|
|
symbols are ambiguous
|
a
|
|
|
meanings are contextual
|
Context, in general semantics, refers to the entire field of experience associated with a communication event
No two people share the same field of experience, although some overlap does occur Because of this, we should distinguish carefully between our words and the actual phenomena of experience |
|
|
intensional orientations
|
Intensional orientations are based on “our own definitions, associations, and fields of experience” (Wood 80), i.e.Intensional orientation (statement of inference): “That painting is ugly.”
|
|
|
extensional orientations
|
Extensional orientations “are based on observation and attention to objective particulars that distinguish phenomena from one another” (Wood 80), i.e. Extensional orientation (statement of fact): “The use of blue, yellow, and red in this painting clashes in a way that unsettles me.”
|
|
|
what do general semanticists mean by the term "context"
|
a
|
|
|
remedies for misunderstanding:
etc. indexing feedforward |
Etcetera: a means of “[r]eminding ourselves that language abstracts only part of reality” (Wood 82)
Indexing reminds us “that meanings vary and change across time and circumstances” (Wood 83) Indexing helps avoid static evaluation: assuming that people or things are totally consistent and unchanging Feedforward: “anticipating the effects of communication and adapting to those anticipated effects” (Wood 84) Feedforward is especially helpful in relational communication—anyone have an example? |
|
|
dual perspective
|
a
|
|
|
critical assessment of general semantics:
too simplistic misrepresents the character of symbols and language lacks applied value |
Too simplistic
Offers seemingly quick and easy fixes that are, in the end, impractical (for instance, indexing) Lacks applied value Can we consistently “check the facts”? Can symbols ever really be “accurate”? Misrepresents the character of symbols and language Does language merely describe a pre-existing, pre-linguistic reality? (This is a representational approach to language) Presentational approach to language: “speaking into being,” such as “I love you” or “divorce” |
|
|
language as representational
|
Representational approach: The events of that evening ALREADY WERE a date, and Sean’s answer merely confirmed a pre-existing, prelinguistic reality
|
|
|
language as presentational
|
Presentational approach: The events of that evening were raw experience with no specific meaning whatsoever; as Jerry and Sean negotiate whether or not their evening together was a date, they construct the events as a date
|
