What do you think?
Rate this book
Language In Action: A Guide To Accurate Thinking, Reading and Writing
Hayakawa's landmark work on semantics. An engaging look at the use of an everyday skill that shows us why it is necessary to study it. The importance of language cannot be overstated. This book contains an in-depth treatise of thought-terminating phrases, other manipulative secrets of semantics, and an extensive bibliography.
231 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1939
About the author
S.I. Hayakawa
39 books39 followersSamuel Ichiye Hayakawa was a Canadian born American academic and political figure of Japanese ancestry. He was an English professor, served as president of San Francisco State University and then a United States Senator from California from 1977 to 1983.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 20, 2015
1) Words are not things.
2) Words never say all about anything.
3) The meaning of words are not in the words; they are in us.
4) No word ever has exactly the same meaning twice.
5) Cow1 is not Cow2.
If I can keep reminding myself of these fundamental axioms of semantics and linguistic dynamism, I'll become more understanding as a person.
2) Words never say all about anything.
3) The meaning of words are not in the words; they are in us.
4) No word ever has exactly the same meaning twice.
5) Cow1 is not Cow2.
If I can keep reminding myself of these fundamental axioms of semantics and linguistic dynamism, I'll become more understanding as a person.
September 18, 2017
This summer, I was infected by an interest in semantics. Before then, I might use the term as dismissive, to state that a certain discussion does not matter too much - "that it's just semantics". Reading Hayakawa's "Language in Action" completely changed my perspective. Now I think nothing can be more important than the impact of words.
In the early pages, Hayakawa distinguishes between the world of senses and the world of words. A recurring theme is that our senses are extremely limited and deceiving us. In effect, most technology is being developed to extend the our senses. The world of words, on the other hand, is much bigger (see also Why Read). Languages extend our world, enabling us to describe imaginary worlds.
Words are cooperation mechanisms. This is somewhat surprising since we cannot use the same word even twice in exactly the same meaning. Think any word, for example a banal one such as 'car'. It has very different connotations for people - your brand new car, your first car, your freedom, family trips, a killing machine, a polluter, ... Even for a single person, the word cannot retain its meaning, since an hour later, your new car has aged a little, as has your perception of it.
If this applies to relatively simple terms such as car, how will people then think differently about equality, justice or any of the isms. These terms are often hotly debated. If we would spent more time explaining the values and ideas behind them, we may find that we're arguing issues on which we actually agree. Take liberalism, which is associated with socialism across the Atlantic. In Europe, it rather means less government, individual freedom, appreciation for entrepreneurship, taking personal responsibility, ... In this sense, how can America not be the most liberal country?
Hayakawa defines civilisation as "getting something for nothing". Most things are passed on to us from previous generations without charge: works of art and literature, laws and customs, the organisation of society, many of the buildings and roads we use, ... Imagine that we had to rebuild society from scratch - that would mean a much harder life for quite a few generations.
Societies might then be seen as cooperation mechanisms, and language is the tool we use to cooperate. Humans are not the only species to use language, but we're the only one that has taken language to the symbolic level, and in doing so, we could organise cooperation on a very large scale (compared to troops, herds, flocks or schools).
Successful cultures are therefore cultures that can organise collaboration on a larger scale, that can build larger pyramids or put men on the moon. To make larger groups collaborate depends on the public acceptance of the rich narrative that such a culture can project for its participants. Such narratives are provided for example by religion or history. The narrative needs to have integrity, otherwise it easily pops like a bubble while it has to last for generations.
Hayakawa is concerned with language as a cooperation tool. We should stop treating it in such a cavalier manner. Considering that we largely think like savages and babble like idiots, the cooperation function of language may easily collapse, according to Hayakawa.
A section I particularly enjoyed is the one on dictionaries. Hayakawa gives us some insight into how dictionaries are constructed and argues convincingly that we give too much authority to them. A dictionary writer is a historian, not a law-giver - he mainly reflects how a word has been used in the past, not how a word should be used. This is worth remembering the next time you consult a dictionary. A similar comment can be made on grammar: why are we more concerned with punctuation and prepositions than with the meaning of words.
Another section is on context. Just like the for the archaeologist, an artefact is useless without a record of the place and layer where it has been found with details of the surrounding objects, a phrase should always be seen in its context. Ignoring context, a very common occurrence in the media, is stupid at best. At its worst, it can be vicious. For every good quote, we can find an equally good quote saying exactly the opposite. Such is the power of context.
One of the uses of language is directive. Words control future events to an enormous extent, which is the reason why writers write and preachers preach. Almost all directive language contains a promise - just think about campaign messages - but these promises are too easily broken. Each broken promise undermines a little bit the trust we have in the cooperation mechanism we call language.
Hayakawa makes a most important distinction is between the intensional and extensional meanings of language (indeed, both terms spelled with an 's'). The intensional orientation of language focusses on connotation, i.e. what words evoke in us. This part can only be expressed in words. The extensional orientation focusses on denotation, i.e. what the words point to. Agreement is only possible on extensional meaning - intensional observations are deeply personal and unknown. When we are arguing or debating, we're too often oriented internally to what a word - e.g. an ism - evokes within us, without telling the other about these rich connotations because they are too personal.
Hayakawa summarises his book in nine rules to promote one's extensional orientation. Reading has a tendency to move us in the opposite direction, to produce excessive intensional orientation. We can avoid this by undertaking reading as a guide to life, i.e. to ensure a utilitarian purpose for all reading.
"Language in Action" is full of gems such as the above. It is a very practical book. Chapters are short. At the end of each chapter, there are some exercises. Hayakawa also invites readers to start collecting examples of dysfunctional communication that undermines language.
In the early pages, Hayakawa distinguishes between the world of senses and the world of words. A recurring theme is that our senses are extremely limited and deceiving us. In effect, most technology is being developed to extend the our senses. The world of words, on the other hand, is much bigger (see also Why Read). Languages extend our world, enabling us to describe imaginary worlds.
Words are cooperation mechanisms. This is somewhat surprising since we cannot use the same word even twice in exactly the same meaning. Think any word, for example a banal one such as 'car'. It has very different connotations for people - your brand new car, your first car, your freedom, family trips, a killing machine, a polluter, ... Even for a single person, the word cannot retain its meaning, since an hour later, your new car has aged a little, as has your perception of it.
If this applies to relatively simple terms such as car, how will people then think differently about equality, justice or any of the isms. These terms are often hotly debated. If we would spent more time explaining the values and ideas behind them, we may find that we're arguing issues on which we actually agree. Take liberalism, which is associated with socialism across the Atlantic. In Europe, it rather means less government, individual freedom, appreciation for entrepreneurship, taking personal responsibility, ... In this sense, how can America not be the most liberal country?
Hayakawa defines civilisation as "getting something for nothing". Most things are passed on to us from previous generations without charge: works of art and literature, laws and customs, the organisation of society, many of the buildings and roads we use, ... Imagine that we had to rebuild society from scratch - that would mean a much harder life for quite a few generations.
Societies might then be seen as cooperation mechanisms, and language is the tool we use to cooperate. Humans are not the only species to use language, but we're the only one that has taken language to the symbolic level, and in doing so, we could organise cooperation on a very large scale (compared to troops, herds, flocks or schools).
Successful cultures are therefore cultures that can organise collaboration on a larger scale, that can build larger pyramids or put men on the moon. To make larger groups collaborate depends on the public acceptance of the rich narrative that such a culture can project for its participants. Such narratives are provided for example by religion or history. The narrative needs to have integrity, otherwise it easily pops like a bubble while it has to last for generations.
Hayakawa is concerned with language as a cooperation tool. We should stop treating it in such a cavalier manner. Considering that we largely think like savages and babble like idiots, the cooperation function of language may easily collapse, according to Hayakawa.
A section I particularly enjoyed is the one on dictionaries. Hayakawa gives us some insight into how dictionaries are constructed and argues convincingly that we give too much authority to them. A dictionary writer is a historian, not a law-giver - he mainly reflects how a word has been used in the past, not how a word should be used. This is worth remembering the next time you consult a dictionary. A similar comment can be made on grammar: why are we more concerned with punctuation and prepositions than with the meaning of words.
Another section is on context. Just like the for the archaeologist, an artefact is useless without a record of the place and layer where it has been found with details of the surrounding objects, a phrase should always be seen in its context. Ignoring context, a very common occurrence in the media, is stupid at best. At its worst, it can be vicious. For every good quote, we can find an equally good quote saying exactly the opposite. Such is the power of context.
One of the uses of language is directive. Words control future events to an enormous extent, which is the reason why writers write and preachers preach. Almost all directive language contains a promise - just think about campaign messages - but these promises are too easily broken. Each broken promise undermines a little bit the trust we have in the cooperation mechanism we call language.
Hayakawa makes a most important distinction is between the intensional and extensional meanings of language (indeed, both terms spelled with an 's'). The intensional orientation of language focusses on connotation, i.e. what words evoke in us. This part can only be expressed in words. The extensional orientation focusses on denotation, i.e. what the words point to. Agreement is only possible on extensional meaning - intensional observations are deeply personal and unknown. When we are arguing or debating, we're too often oriented internally to what a word - e.g. an ism - evokes within us, without telling the other about these rich connotations because they are too personal.
Hayakawa summarises his book in nine rules to promote one's extensional orientation. Reading has a tendency to move us in the opposite direction, to produce excessive intensional orientation. We can avoid this by undertaking reading as a guide to life, i.e. to ensure a utilitarian purpose for all reading.
"Language in Action" is full of gems such as the above. It is a very practical book. Chapters are short. At the end of each chapter, there are some exercises. Hayakawa also invites readers to start collecting examples of dysfunctional communication that undermines language.
November 27, 2013
It had some good points. One was pointing out fairly clearly the difference between reporting on facts versus adding your interpretation. The other was that people generally explain definitions by going up in levels of abstraction rather than down. So if you ask, what is red? Most people would say, red is a color. What is a color? Color is a property of an object. But it's more effective to say, see that fire engine? It's red. See that traffic light where people are stopped? The light is red.
But overall the book has this somewhat strange muddy theory of concept formation that I couldn't stand. And the author seemed to impart an almost mystical quality to some kinds of language, when I think much simpler explanations of why people behave the way they do (with respect to language) would suffice.
Also, I think I read almost a hundred pages to get those two points I mentioned. I couldn't finish the book.
But overall the book has this somewhat strange muddy theory of concept formation that I couldn't stand. And the author seemed to impart an almost mystical quality to some kinds of language, when I think much simpler explanations of why people behave the way they do (with respect to language) would suffice.
Also, I think I read almost a hundred pages to get those two points I mentioned. I couldn't finish the book.
September 24, 2021
I have read Language in Action (and Language in Thought and Action) over the decades as a guide for understanding and dealing with this world's litany of affective communication filling our media and thus our minds. It is a firm foundation.
January 18, 2020
Though book is old, it's still useful in understanding how one can spoil communication, and what techniques you can use to be alert.
September 2, 2020
The study (and academic discipline) called “communication” has roots in the work of Hayakawa. Chapter 1, “The Importance of Language” pushed the study of of the field beyond correct spelling and where the commas go.
The fact oncoming WW2 showed the need to understand language as well as weapons.
Chapter 2 expands mere words to symbols, expanding the work of understanding language that goes beyond what we assume. He explains the “one world, one meaning” fallacy of languages (p. 65) He lists 19 words that represent something about AIR (72)
In Chapter 5, Words that Don’t Inform, he has a powerful example of words with an example: “The moon is bright tonight, we are able to tell by the wither she is making a meteorological observer of indicate that she wants to be kissed.” (76) Unfortunately, we readers in 2020, his example reminds us of the problems language about gender 80 years ago (76-77)
There’s lots of good one-liners such as “The most interesting and perhaps least understood of the relations between words and things is the relation between words and future things.” (102)
He challenges much of how we thought (think today) words and language:
“Definitions, contrary to popular opinion, tell us nothing about things.”
Near the end of the book, he uses the word communication. He saw a major change coming in our world about how we connect with each other. There’s a short piece about communication and race and about science. He devotes a full chapter to “Effective Communication. (Chapter 12)
If I were still teaching communication classes, I would use this book in many ways for today’s students.
The fact oncoming WW2 showed the need to understand language as well as weapons.
Chapter 2 expands mere words to symbols, expanding the work of understanding language that goes beyond what we assume. He explains the “one world, one meaning” fallacy of languages (p. 65) He lists 19 words that represent something about AIR (72)
In Chapter 5, Words that Don’t Inform, he has a powerful example of words with an example: “The moon is bright tonight, we are able to tell by the wither she is making a meteorological observer of indicate that she wants to be kissed.” (76) Unfortunately, we readers in 2020, his example reminds us of the problems language about gender 80 years ago (76-77)
There’s lots of good one-liners such as “The most interesting and perhaps least understood of the relations between words and things is the relation between words and future things.” (102)
He challenges much of how we thought (think today) words and language:
“Definitions, contrary to popular opinion, tell us nothing about things.”
Near the end of the book, he uses the word communication. He saw a major change coming in our world about how we connect with each other. There’s a short piece about communication and race and about science. He devotes a full chapter to “Effective Communication. (Chapter 12)
If I were still teaching communication classes, I would use this book in many ways for today’s students.
August 7, 2012
I first read the fifth edition copy, but after reading several reviews comparing it negatively to this, the first edition, I had to track it down. The core of the book really remains unchanged. Many passages are identical with mostly organizational changes that didn't seem to enhance or detract from either edition.
The one part of the first edition that isn't found in the later edition that I really thought added to the work was at the end, the examples from literature and other publications. I highly recommend purchasing this copy if you can find it for those, which have short commentaries from the other before each selection and really help in identifying what he has been talking about the entire book.
The one part of the first edition that isn't found in the later edition that I really thought added to the work was at the end, the examples from literature and other publications. I highly recommend purchasing this copy if you can find it for those, which have short commentaries from the other before each selection and really help in identifying what he has been talking about the entire book.
November 12, 2015
Perhaps one of the most elegantly written books on the linguistic aspect of Korzybski's General Semantics. Hayakawa provides a new take on the symbolic process and how we can understand it to dissect, interpret, and understand language. A few of the most important concepts in the book:
-Intensional and Extensional definition of words.
-Explanation of the "Ladder of Abstraction" using Bessie the cow.
-Indexing words to emphasize hidden connotations and alternative uses.
-A primer on the concepts of "affective", "descriptive", "figurative" and "evocative" language with clear examples and exercises.
-Emphasis on the distinction of judgments, inferences, and verifiable phrases.
-Intensional and Extensional definition of words.
-Explanation of the "Ladder of Abstraction" using Bessie the cow.
-Indexing words to emphasize hidden connotations and alternative uses.
-A primer on the concepts of "affective", "descriptive", "figurative" and "evocative" language with clear examples and exercises.
-Emphasis on the distinction of judgments, inferences, and verifiable phrases.
Read
March 4, 2013i really can't understand you. first you ask me do you want to read this book then you say:"date i finished this book" !!!!!!!!!????????????
i wanna read this book
i wanna read this book
September 1, 2015
Hayakawa's book explains the syntato-semantics of language
based reasoning. Furthermore, he does this in a very read-
able and understandable form.
based reasoning. Furthermore, he does this in a very read-
able and understandable form.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews