For example, when I hear the word red, a color, Valentine's Day, blood, FSU, love, apples, and fire all immediately come to my mind. How could the word red not serve well in terms of understanding if literally all of the possible meanings behind the word come to mind upon hearing and/or reading it? To go even further, shouldn't "being understood" really mean having at least one if not all of these meanings come to mind when hearing a word? And hearing or seeing a word is what sparks the ideas into mind anyways, because how could someone think of blood and not picture the blood as red (unless of course they are color blind, but they would know from the world and how they have been trained that blood is red).
Locke states that the "words fail when they are used without any ideas, when complex ideas are without names annexed to them, when the same sign is not put for the same idea, when words are diverted from their common use and when words are names of fantastical imaginations" (Locke, 826). What I do not understand, is how this constitutes "failure"? A sign is the word attached to a meaning. If when we see a word, we think of ideas, regardless of what they are or there complexity level, we still think of something at the sound or sight of the word, thus the word/sign is doing its job. Here is where I disagree with Locke's argument, because I don't think words are necessarily "failing" but rather just interpreted or understood differently based on the context, situation, surroundings and speaker and hearer. Not everyone interprets or understands everything the same way, but in the end, each sign or word has a specific meaning attached to it that the world recognized (i.e. a banana is a oddly shaped yellow, peel-able fruit but some people may immediately think yellow or fruit or flavor or plantain depending on their culture and lifestyle and their understanding of the world).
I guess what I am proposing is this: words do not fail! Rather, words are just understood based on the speaker and hearer and as long as some idea comes to mind, a word successfully sparks an idea or meaning and thus is successful as a word, just not necessarily as the signifier of the true meaning. So in a sense, meanings may fail but words never do.
In his blog post, Kiernan related some of Walter Ong's ideas to Locke's. One statement that he made in his blog that really stood out to me was that “it is through word choice and explanation that the reader starts to paint the visuals of the written source in their own imaginations”. I think that this statement completely explains my proposition that words don’t fail, because our imaginations are what guides the meanings we associate with a word. Back to the red. example from aboive, when you hear or see that word, you think color, blood, Valentines Day, love, apples, tomatoes, etc. But, there is obviously one true “meaning” tied to the word red, but its purpose was to invoke these meanings in the mind of the hearer, so how could that suggest that the word red failed if it technically did its job? That is why I think your statement is the answer to my question; because our imaginations are where we develop the meanings and understandings we associate with a word.
In his blog post, Kiernan related some of Walter Ong's ideas to Locke's. One statement that he made in his blog that really stood out to me was that “it is through word choice and explanation that the reader starts to paint the visuals of the written source in their own imaginations”. I think that this statement completely explains my proposition that words don’t fail, because our imaginations are what guides the meanings we associate with a word. Back to the red. example from aboive, when you hear or see that word, you think color, blood, Valentines Day, love, apples, tomatoes, etc. But, there is obviously one true “meaning” tied to the word red, but its purpose was to invoke these meanings in the mind of the hearer, so how could that suggest that the word red failed if it technically did its job? That is why I think your statement is the answer to my question; because our imaginations are where we develop the meanings and understandings we associate with a word.
Locke, John. "From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 814-827.
Hey, Alex!
ReplyDeleteI loved your take on Locke’s argument and I completely agree with you! Words don’t fail, because there is no one right interpretation of a word. Like you mentioned, our experiences and attitudes shape how we understand the situation and put everything into context. Words do have specific meanings attachment to them – I actually talked about connotations in my post this week – but your background and mindset determine how you react upon hearing, say, “banana.” I’m just not 100% sure about what you mean when you say that meanings may fail, in contrast to words. Do you mean that since there is no “true” meaning, we are unable to successfully manipulate it or understand it?