The Philosophy Of Language

Somehow, this week, there is an article I found which pretty much sums up the subject I was trying to touch upon in my last post. The first paragraph reads "We are symbol makers because we can conceptualize. A symbol is an empty sound until we associate a meaning with that sound, until we fill the symbol with an idea, a notion, a concept. We look at nature and we name things, categorize items, classify types, and define the properties of objects. The symbols become numinous, take on lives of themselves, then spread like viruses from person to person, from generation to generation, from age to age."
The author of the article basically focuses on the premise which I have repeatedly brought up that language can control or shape reality. He focuses specifically on the manipulation of language and the connection between language and past experiences that can bias people when they hear certain phrases. Following his example, we may think of red people wearing animal skins and feathers when we hear the phrase 'Native American.' As he says, our personal experiences shape how we interpret different 'symbols' of communication. I completely agree with the idea that this happens, but in order to evaluate it, it's necessary to consider the counterpoint: do words have a definite, unbiased meaning? I think that our initial education tends to instill in us the belief that language is definite, that words do have a specific meaning. The American school system's stress on the importance of facts to analysis highlights the ability of the dictionary to accurately define what a word represents. Thus, when we chance upon a word in literature that we don't understand, we can look that word up in the dictionary to obtain the exact meaning (this approach obviously wouldn't work for most non-literal meanings or for idiomatic phrases). As such, the general concept of language seems to be that words are concrete symbols which we use when their meaning applies. But does that mean the context of their usage has no effect? Consider the word 'Nazi': in modern society, the Nazi movement is almost non-existent, and instead, American history education is specifically geared to show the harms of Nazism. So would using the word 'Nazi' in 1930's Germany and modern America bring up the same meaning to different people? The standard definitional approach in American grade school education would suggest that these two words would have the same meaning. While it probably can't be argued that the meanings in the two respective contexts would be mutually exclusive, I think that it's possible to assume the two parties involved would not interpret the words in the same manner. Different connotations would arise for both parties: for the German, perhaps one of a better economy, better infrastructure, and national pride (positive connotations). For the American, one of rights infractions, genocide, and war (negative connotations). Note that my analysis here makes rather sweeping generalizations, but they should be justifiable without requiring explanation, given the assumption we're all operating on the same historical and cultural information and understanding (which itself is a heavy assumption).
Thus, when the author of the article asks "Do the meanings that you give to symbols divide you or separate you from others who are just like you? Are the meanings for the symbols in your head accurate definitions or do you react to the connotations (the emotional content) associated with those symbols by past experience or cultural conditioning?," I think the notion he supports has some validity. I think we react to different symbols based in large part upon the past contexts in which we've encountered those symbols. As such, I think it's possible to reaffirm what I was saying in my last post (sorry I didn't step it up and disagree with myself), and to agree with the author, when he says "Language shapes reality because we create symbols that represent objects and abstract concepts."

article: http://www.swans.com/library/art13/gsmith97.html