Last week I was assigned to read an explanation of Pavio’s
Dual Coding theory in my psychology class.
This theory essentially claims that people are more prone to easily
memorize or retain words which convey concrete physical meanings –which conjure
mental images as well as mental definitions—more so than they are prone to easily
memorize or retain words which refer solely to abstract concepts. In my subsequent psychology lab, we tested the
theory via an experiment, the results of which demonstrated that those of us
who were forced to try and speedily memorize and record random strings of concrete
words in succession (dog, horse, etc.) fared better than those of us who were given
the same assignment...yet had to grapple with abstract words (love, death, etc.).
Apparently, John
Locke was onto this concept centuries ago.
He claims that the meanings of words become murky “Where the ideas they
stand for have no certain connection in nature…” (818) Later on, he elaborates that “the names of simple ideas are, of all others,
the least liable to mistakes…” (823) I believe that this idea also consistently
present throughout his essay.
It struck me as very interesting that before this phenomenon
had really been nailed down by science, people had already detected its
presence and influence on communication. Eventually, however, the field of psychology still clarified it. Many fields, rhetoric among them, seem as though they ought to be largely
dictated by common sense. (Really, what should be more common-sense based than
a conversation, debate, or dialogue?) Yet like a social science, rhetoric proves highly intricate and
puzzling upon close investigation. Hence
why many so fields and specific discourse communities absolutely require that
stricter definitions be placed upon more commonplace words frequently used in
conversations within these groups. Locke
touches on this matter when describing how fixed definitions are a must in the
field of philosophy, because when seeking or arguing a truth, there should be little or no room for interpretation of key concepts.
Overall, John Locke points out an inevitable fact: language
is organic and prone to constant change.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Locke seems a little grim about the
situation. But couldn’t the malleability
of language be used as a powerful rhetorical tool?
I saw a lot of the common sense you are talking about reading Locke's dense ten-page essay. It seemed as though he was calling on people to focus on these basic ideas before tackling the more abstract and unconventional ideas of philosophy and such. Though he was hard to understand at times, I agreed with a lot of what he was trying to say because it was so in line with a lot of the obstacles we face today in language, knowledge and perception. His essay really registered for me. I don't know if I can be persuaded to believe there is such a thing as a fixed definition of any term. I feel like they can be so easily distorted to fit in multiple situations. Fixed definitions could explain why so many synonyms and antonyms exist in our language, leaving little room for ambiguity. I still think definitions can be skewed or altered in some way to promote various ideas. Perhaps they are necessary in Locke's book, but this doesn't seem like a product of the common sense he so consistently stresses.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of what words we retain the most is fascinating! I hope you bring this up in class because that is really interesting, especially relating to how we view memory within the rhetorical canon. I might be skeptical but I always thought people tended to remember words/ideas/people/places/things that will provide them with something. People are memorizing in order to gain something. For us as students I find myself often memorizing things in order to get a grade rather than for sheer pleasure of learning. I wonder if that could be applied to rhetoricians looking at what ideas have come forward throughout the rhetorical tradition and which ones seem outdated.
ReplyDelete