Advanced reading from Englishinny.com the place for English learning

            It is a useful assumption that one’s individual map of the world dictates his approach to a given situation: his view of himself and his relation to his world determine how effectively he plays the language game.

            It is this assumption, simply stated, that lies at the base of psycholinguistics: the study of the relationships between language and the behavioral characteristics of the speaker. The relationship has been variously stated: “Use what language you will, you can never say anything but what you are.” (Emerson) “We get our view of the world probably as much from the words inside our heads as from independent observation.”(Jerome Bruner) “No matter what we see, it is ourselves that we report."”(Steinbeck) The limits of our language mark the limits of our world.

            A telling example of this assumption was evident in a favorite utterance of Richard Nixon. He used it for several years of his political life until it became the object of satire in criticism and political cartoons. From then on, his speechwriters deleted it from further use. Whenever Mr. Nixon wanted to stress his point, he would instruct us with “Let me make one thing crystal clear.” In so admonishing us, he implied that anyone with the eyes to see and the intelligence to interpret a particular situation would come up with his perception.  He did not seem to understand, or care to concede it important, perhaps, that the point he was making was his point-of-view, which was not necessarily the point-of-view of other competent seers and interpreters of the world stage. What he was making “crystal clear” was not a necessarily acceptable truth of a situation, but an unclouded view of how Mr. Nixon saw himself in relation to his particular view of the world. There was nothing tentative about his observations; they left little room for argument or change.

            Recently, I got a letter from a friend.  For a long time he has been seeking to adjust his individual map of the world, his view of himself in relation to the world as he sees it.  The results have been frustrating and seemingly fruitless.  It is not necessary to elaborate in detail a case history. It is enough to  say that his view of the world has  been limited, and his effectiveness in the language game has generally reflected that limitation.  The words inside his head have restricted his view of himself.

            The letter I got was a brief one. The gist of the message was focused in a haiku:

            Hungry eyes in darkness

            dream butterflies –

            but even they have shadows.

The writer by all outward appearances sees no way out of a stifling situation. To be consistent with his view of himself and the world, however, the last line should perhaps have read, “even they have no shadows.” But he didn’t say that. The dreamt butterflies do cast shadows, so there must be some light somewhere. It will be interesting to see if this fortuitous choice of language foreshadows an expanding map, an acceptance of the tentativeness of a temporarily limiting situation. 

            Such amateur psychology I have been indulging in, you will recognize as something we all do.  It’s a marvelous dividend of playing the language game.

              Bill Reynolds