Culture and Connotation

The subjects of Osgood's early research were Americans, but he was intrigued by the possibility of cross-cultural studies and went on to explore the dimensions of affective meaning in twenty-six different language communities (Osgood, 1974a; 1974b). According to Osgood, the major dimensions of affective meaning in all these cultures were the same: evaluation, potency', and activity. "But why E, P, and A?" writes Osgood:

One reason is that, humans being a kind of animal—just peruse any day's newspaper—the most important questions today, as in the day of the Nean­derthal, about the sign of a thing are: first, is it good or is it bad for me? (is it a cute Neanderthal female or a sabertooth tiger?); second, is it strong or is it weak with respect to me? (is it a sabertooth tiger or a mouse?); third, is it an active or a passive thing? (is it a sabertooth tiger or merely a pool of quicksand that I can carefully skirt?). Survival of the species has depended upon answers to such questions. (Osgood. 1974a, p. 34)

From his cross-cultural research Osgood has compiled the Atlas of Affective Meanings. The 620 concepts in this atlas run the gamut from "Accepting things as they are," "Accident," "Marriage," and "Masculinity," to "Master," "Yesterday," "Youth," and "Zero." Although Osgood found certain definite cultural variations, many concepts were evaluated similarly by members of a great many different cultures. One such concept was "the days of the week." Monday was generally evaluated as the worst day in the week; things tended to improve after that, gathering momentum on Friday and reaching a peak on Sunday, the best day. For Iranians, on the other hand, the worst day was Saturday (comparable to our Monday), and Friday (the Moslem holy day) was the best. A closer look at a concept such as "adolescence" yielded another interesting comparison between cultures. American teen-agers evaluated adolescence as "slightly Bad and quite Weak, but very Active" whereas the Japanese teen-agers felt that adolescence was "very Good, Strong, and Active" (Osgood, 1974b, p. 83).

The great appeal of the Semantic Differential is its flexibility. The procedure is so general that it can be precisely tailored to the needs and interests of the experimenter, who can test the emotional valence of any concept at all.

Private and Shared Meanings

In psychology and semantics much research is based on the distinction between denotation and connotation. The Semantic Differential, for example, is said to measure "connotative meaning." But when we examine it closely, the distinction between denotation and connotation seems to break down. All people who speak English are members of the same linguistic community; yet within that community certain groups exist for whom even the primary associations, or denotations, of a given word are different.

Take the case of the Americans and the British. In England you take a "lift," not an "elevator"; if you ask for the "second floor," you get the "third." You take the "underground," not the "subway." You "queue up"; you don't "stand in line." You go to a "chemist's," not a "pharmacy." The list seems virtually endless.

Private Meaning

We can all use language idiosyncratically, assigning meanings to words without agreement and in effect creating our own private language. We can decide, for example, to call trees "reds" or "cows" or "haves." Schizophrenic speech is often private in this way, but schizophrenics are unaware that they sometimes use language in a way that is not shared by others: they use the words they have re-created and expect to be understood. When one young patient was admitted to a hospital, she continually referred to her father, a lawyer by profession, as "the chauffeur." Everyone with whom she spoke found this reference bizarre. Only in treatment was it learned that when she called her father a "chauffeur," she meant that he was completely under her mother's domination.

In a popular cartoon, "Cathy," Cathy is seated in a car and talking to the driver on her way to someone's house. Cathy is doing all the talking. First frame: "The invitation said 'casual,' but I think they meant 'dressy.' Not 'dressy dress' but 'casual dressy.' " Second frame: "Winter 'casual' is always dressier than summer 'casual.' The hostess might be 'dressy dressy' but then 'dressy' is always dressier for the hostess." Third frame: "If a guest comes 'dressy dressy' when 'casual dressy' is implied, it's humiliating . . . unless her 'dressy dressy' is less dressy than the hostess or if two or more guests also go with a 'medium-to-dressy dress.' " In the fourth and last frame, Cathy and escort are seen entering die home of the hostess— Cathy is wearing a dress, her hostess is wearing jeans.

Shared Meaning

Presumably, if we assign private meanings to words, we are aware that we can use them to communicate with someone only if we let that person know what the referents of these words are. Shared meaningrequires some correspondence between the message as perceived by the sender and the receiver. Two friends, a husband and wife, an entire family, or a group of physicists may decide to use language in a way that makes little sense to others. Among themselves, however, they can communicate with no difficulty.

The same phenomenon occurs among members of many other kinds of groups. Actors understand each other when they talk about scenes being "blocked."

Physical therapists refer in their work to "triggerpoints" and "jelling pain." There is an extensive vocabulary that describes the various moves possible on a skate­board. Skateboard enthusiasts talk about "ollies," "bonelesses," "720s," "thread the needles," and "slob airs." For the subgroup that uses this language, the meaning of "bonelesses" and "thread the needles" is always clear. Group members have no difficulty understanding one another when they use language in this way because they share a code. Communication difficulties emerge only when they expect meaning to be shared by those outside the group. This is a recurring expectation, especially in a country such as the United States, where so many different ethnic groups coexist.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 972