Michael threw a bunch of questions at me which I found interesting and so I'll pass them along here and see what happens.
1) What are your thoughts on the relationship between the development of language and the everyday social interactions?
As I mentioned in the last post I believe that language shapes our mental and physical environments in very concrete ways. So that as we become more dexterous with our language instrument we are able to more accurately represent ourselves in a way that is in a higher correspondence to reality (internal and external). If we consider that higher correspondence to limn "truth: then as we evidence that truth in our communications and behavior we become more accessible and useful in our social interactions.
2) Does increased literacy lead to different behavior?
It must. An increase in facility in any activity will alter our behavior; no differently than learning to ride a bike or shoot pool or adjust your ability to caress so that it increases pleasure for your partner. Literacy is a skill set like any other and its acquisition will change the potential of behaviors we can choose to example. It broadens the horizons by giving us more choice, I guess you could say.
3) Is it correct to change your behavior based on what you attain from literature, in the sense that you give people higher expectations and are uninterested in the more simple give and take interactions.
That depends I suppose on whether you are an intentional social climber or not. Just because a person is well-read or at least has a fairly good aptitude with language, doesn't mean they have to cut themselves off from interest and pleasure of the vernacular context they occupy day to day. There's as much poetry and wisdom in the words of the simplest (uncomplicated) of folk as is in any erudite rhetorician.
4)a Is this behavior "stuck-up"/elitist? 4b)Or should we suspend the realm of literature and the hypothetical when we interact?
a) Well, if someone engages in fancy words use as a social weapon to intimidate those with whom they interact, rather than as a elevating clarification and precision tool to avoid being misunderstood, then yeah, they're a a prig and a stuck-up elitist undeserving of anyone's (except perhaps other prigs) attention.
b) No. Its the translation thing again - accessibility. A concert pianist can easily adapt to playing polkas at a wedding and really enjoying it. And then, once the wedding participants are comfortable and happy with his or her presence and interactions and recognize communication with the player, shifting over to a intricate and sophisticated classical piece they might otherwise be intimated by will be easily accepted and heard. Its all context and intent, I think.
What say ye, y'all?
Leave a comment