Work had converted my home into a Bread-and-Breakfast motel, but in the few minutes that I got before I drop off to sleep, I reread Language in Thought and Action by S I Hayakawa. I had borrowed this book from the library when I was doing my MBA. But now I own a copy and reading it, I realise why I thought it worth the price.

The book talks of how the words we use relate to our concepts (thought) and to the real world (action).

This was the book that taught me to differentiate among reports (of verifiable facts), inferences, and judgements. This distinction might seem obvious but is very frequently obfuscated, both by writers and readers. For example take this “report” on discrimination against SCs/STs in IITs (Ashwini sent it to me asking for my comments.) How many verifiable facts can you find in it, as distinct from judgements and sweeping generalizations?

The book also talks of the difference between extensional and intensional meanings of a word.

Once when I told someone that I was a capitalist, he responded with: “So you believe in exploitation?”

The intensional meaning that I assigned to capitalism was very different from the one he assigned to it. The only way such differences can be resolved is to speak of the word in the extensional sense. This is easier said than done. If I?and you disagree on what constitutes a cat, I could point to a real cat and we’d have the same extensional definition of a cat. In case of capitalism, I’d have to point to the process of capitalism to explain what I mean by capitalism.

Perhaps the most important thing the book talks of is levels of abstraction. All words we use are abstractions. But as we move up the abstraction ladder we leave out more and more details. For example, if we accuse security forces of “Human Rights violations”, we are leaving out the details of what exactly they are doing, whether they are committing atrocities like torture and rape or misdemeanors like locking up someone for two days without access to a lawyer. Even the word “torture” leaves out important details, like whether they are pulling out fingernails or shining bright lights at suspects’ eyes.
When I construct an argument, I always try to move between levels of abstractions, just to make sure that I actually know what I am talking of.

The book covers a lot of other things, about ritualistic communication, about the symbolic uses of language. It has an interesting section about how advertising is similar to poetry though I think the book is somewhat unfair to advertising.

I owe a lot to Language in Thought and Action. It has helped me clarify my thinking and see through bullshit. If you’ve been dazzled and awed by the way I construct my arguments, I recommend that you read the book to see what makes me tick

Yup – I’m trying out my brand new Amazon Associates link. I’ve shamelessly sold out to commerce- shoot me. Seriously speaking, I’m just experimenting with the idea that the only advertising that works on the net is advertising that’s so effectively disguised that it isn’t really advertising. The Amazon Associates thing is one example. Everyone benefits from the deal. I do. You do because you get to read more on the book. Amazon benefits if you buy the book.
For Indian readers, here is the Fabmall link. Not very informative I’m afraid.