Watch Your Language

The Language War by Robin Lakoff was such a refreshing text to read after struggling to comprehend the lack luster Rhetoric: A User's Guide by John D. Ramage. He is a very intelligent guy but his book just wasn't my cup of tea. However when I began reading Lakoff's introduction it led me to believe that I was walking down those dreadful roads of Ramgeland once again (The science of linguistic theory would scare almost any college student). The most intriging characteristic of Lakofff is that she incorporates recent historical events that the reader can relate to. And by doing so, her credibility as an author shot through the roof in my eyes.

The Ronald Reagan and Coretta Scott King reference was extremely helpful in understanding the manipulation of language when apoligizing (or at least trying to). When discussing the possibliity of making Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, Senator Jesse Helms conspired that the civil rights leader was under communist influence. Reagan responded with the half witted remark, "We'll know in about thirty-five years, won't we?" Obviously, racial and political tension increased after these comments were made. Mrs. King said Reagan apoligized. Reagan said he was misinterpreted. The White House said the President never issued an apology. What a confusing mess this turned out to be! The problem with apologies, specifically public ones is that they are indirect with blame being focused on anyone but the offender. As we construct meaning from language, we can not underestimate the power of the speaker. We have the right to criticize a president for these offensive remarks because of his elite position in government. This power influences perception, usually leading to negative or positive thoughts that form meaning. And with this superiority, Reagan dodged the bullet (not the real ones) by construcing what King perceived as an apology, but in actuality was an evasive tool used by skilled rhetoricians.

"Power is the most persuasive rhetoric"

-Friedrich von Schiller

Another important point that Lakoff presents is that the menaing of language is based on expectations and prior knowledge. Her example, "Dog bites man, man bites dog" explains this. The interpreter has pre-conceived notions about the natural tendencies of man and dog, while ignoring the possiblity of alternatives. Lakoff describes these expectations as frames which help us form meaning (finally, it all makes sense). A dog could definitley bite a man, but a man biting a dog in retaliation seems improbable. What an analogy! Ramage probably would have explained this with ancient Greek philosophy or Chinese Taoism (yawn). The formation of these frames is really just a basic function of human behavior. Our personal experiences in life will always influence our interpretation of language.

I also recieved a better understanding of the assumptions we make while interpreting language. This could be verbal or non verbal, but in either case, it is based on universal meaning. Lakoff's example of the juror selection of the Japenese woman who giggles and hides her face when forced to answer embarassing questions showed me how this concept works in the real world. The criminal defence attorneys thought that her actions were a sign of disrespect. However, in Japenese culture women do this when they are embarassed. Assumption relies on generalizations that usually do not consider the impact of culture on language creating a gap between speaker and listener. In this particular case the Japenese woman is not chosen as a juror because of this cultural barrier. These misinterpretations reoccur everyday in the melting pot of American society.

Honestly, thank you Robin Lakoff for saving me from the horrifying realms of Ramageland. That book should have included a cyanide pill on the inside cover (Just kidding Mr. Ramage) I could have said worse but I'll watch my language.