WHO ARE THE FRIENDS OF SEMANTICS?
53
hal, one enormous step in their solution would be to clarify the
linguistic situation.
This
is the revolutionary way out!
"The thinking of the American people is in danger of being impris·
oned by Ambiguous Words. We are often the dupes of Nouns, the
slaves of Substantives. Our capacity to face realistically and intelli–
gently our gravest national problems, is frequently paralyzed by a
few terrifying combinations of the Alphabet. We are indeed in need
of a devastating attack on a certain Kind of Capitalism-the kind
that consists of the tyranny of misunderstood Capital-letter WQrds.
The time has come to Overthrow the Dictatorship of the Vocabulary."
(Save America First,
p. 15.)
These Pan-linguistic assumptions explain the semantic cure–
ails. Except for certain modes of expression, neither has anything
in common with the discoveries of Carnap and Tarski. And even
these expressions have been badly mangled by Chase, Hayakawa,
and Frank. It is necessary to be blunt to clear up the current con·
fusion. The essential distinction between the pseudo-semanticists
and the analysts they cite is that the former do not use logical
analysis as part of the scientific method. Rather they have used
badly garbled semantic phrases and the prestige of these great
scientists for essentially anti-scientific ends. Their work cannot be
considered a genuine application of this new study.
It
is rather a
fad, in the case of Korzybski-a cult. This is indicated by their
misunderstandings of even the most elementary points in the theory
of meaning. They have perpetrated a series of errors and confu–
sions that have become so current as to be generally identified with
the assured results of semantics. We select a few of the outstanding
factual errors and erroneous inferences.
1.
"The two-valued versus the infinite or multi-valued orientation."
This is the battle promoted by Mr. Hayakawa. In one cramped
corner, the two-valued corner, we have the savages-PARTISAN
REVIEW
and Mr. Hayakawa's other opponents-people with the
"two-valued orientation" who are handicapped by the belief that a
statement is either true or false. In the other corner we have the
advance-guard, those who recognize that a statement may be true,
or false, or both, or neither, or any of an infinite number of things.
Tarski and Lukasiewicz are presented as the mentors of this
"infinite-valued" position.
Anyone acquainted with the literature on so-called n-valued
