We've all heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." But I think we would all agree that this well-known phrase is more idealistic than it is a reality. Language is powerful, and words can evoke strong emotions that are difficult to control.
This seemed to be the case at an international cricket game last Tuesday between India and Australia. Harbhajan Singh, a member of the Indian cricket team, became very upset after he was dismissed from the game. He claimed that the members of the Australian team had used "vulgar language" with him, acting in a very personal and arrogant manner. The tension between the teams became so strong that the cricket umpire had to separate the enraged Singh from the Australians in fear that a fight would occur.
This article brings forth the question: Why are words so powerful? In a sense, they are just phonemes strung together. Words are simply noises for which we as the speakers and listeners create meaning. They have no intrinsic meaning, but rather acquire the meaning that is given to them by those who use them.
Why is it that words can cause such emotional pulls? For Singh, was his anger just a result of the words he heard and the meaning he derived from them? Or did his anger arise from the way in which they were said-the speaker's tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures? Can words alone be that powerful, or does it take a combination of several aspects of the language to evoke strong emotions? Do human beings really have the capacity to simply ignore language that is hurtful, or is there some type of innate reaction to language and its meaning that humans have developed over the years as langauge has evolved?
Author Michael Lee claims that relationships between people can be greatly influenced by the words that they use in communicating and solving problems. He believes it is extremely important to "filter out" the good words from the bad words, in order to always use positive phrases instead of negative phrases. He emphasizes, for example, the difference between calling someone "slim" or "thin". The connotation of the word can cause the listener to interpret the message the speaker is trying to convey differently than the speaker intended. Words that suggest discouragement or failure often upset the listener. Lee stresses the importance of word choice in building strong relationships. He definitely believes that words can hurt others and that the way in which they are said can change the way one would normally interpret them.
I definitely believe that words are not just words; they convey much more meaning than just the sounds they contain or the letters that spell them. There is something deeper within each word. Perhaps it is only something that a speaker of the language can understand, but at times it seems that the meaning of words can be understood without even knowing what was said. The way in which a word or phrase is said gives it it's own unique personality. A single word can have multiple meanings, and the context in which it is said and the manner in which it is said has an enormous impact on the connotations that it carries.
So perhaps it is not so much the word itself, but how we as human beings interpret the word, the way in which it is said (or the circumstances it is said in), and the connection that the word has to our personal feelings and well-being. We as humans cannot really "ignore" words, because for us they have a much deeper meaning. The message we get from them and the way that we interpret them depends on our background and personal experiences, our current mood and feelings, and the context in which we hear them.
A word represents the mind and thoughts of an individual; it is the way in which we voice our innermost thoughts and beliefs. Considering this, a simple phrase can be a window to the mind, and suggests real feelings, judgments and emotions. The simple sounds that words are made up of carry such a bigger meaning.
It is interesting to me, however, that the ever-famous saying still seems to be omnipresent. I plan to tell my children that words do hurt, that it is perfectly acceptable to feel sad or offended by the words of another person, and that they should do everything in their power to choose them wisely so that they do not hurt others. It is a nice idea though... I wish words could never hurt. I think the world would have far less problems if this truly was the case.
Links:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/indian-spinner-slams-vulgar-aussie-language/2007/10/03/1191091193080.html
http://selfhelp.articlesarchive.net/building-solid-relationships-using-the-power-of-words.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Re Michael Lee's advice...
I had a counselor at school who would always make us use "I" statements. For example, instead of telling a friend, "You were mean to me," we were supposed to say, "I felt hurt by what you did." We always made fun of how corny it was, but it actually made a difference--it became less of an accusation than an explanation. So, yes, I definitely think phrasing affects how we react!
The power of language is undeniable, as you say, and it seems that words CAN hurt! Why, then, do we tell children that words don’t have to hurt? I think you are onto something when you say that words don’t have intrinsic meaning, but that we as listeners CONSTRUCT meaning from the words, the tone of voice, the context and every other aspect of the linguistic situation at hand. However, it would be inefficient to completely build up meaning from scratch every time we listened to someone speak, so perhaps there are some general principles we simply assume in most discourse situations. The philosopher and linguist Paul Grice identified what he called conversational “maxims” that listeners generally assume of the speaker. These include that the speaker is telling the truth and believes what they are saying and that the speaker will try to convey the information that is relevant, along with several others. Of course many contexts will negate these maxims, but they are sort of the default settings we use during discourse. How might these maxims come to bear on the tension-filled cricket match? What was Singh assuming about the Australian team’s intentions? Do you think if we could become aware of our default settings we could become more “immune” the hurtful powers of language, especially during something like a competitive sporting event?
Post a Comment