BOR to probe into salary of suspended dean — Page 3 Philippine Collegian Opisyal na lingguhang pahayagan ng mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas - Diliman 24 Enero 2012 Taon 89, Blg. 23
Sayaw ng dragon Pagsasanib ng ritmong Tsino at Pilipino Kultura
9
Dibuho nina Ysa Ventanilla Calinawan at Richard Jacob Dy
Instruments of war Kultura Pahina 8
Ironies Editorial Page 2
Isang mensahe para sa aming mga tagapaglathala Lathalain Pahina 6-7
Multiple meanings Terminal Cases Delfin Mercado A recent study by cognitive scientists in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has arrived at an ironic conclusion: language – the primary tool of the human race to exchange information – is actually poorly designed for communication. Language evolved, the scientists argued, not for the need of passing on and receiving information accurately, but rather as a way to structure our own private thoughts. The scientists use the existence of ambiguity as evidence – if the evolution of language was brought about by the simple need to convey information between the speaker and the receiver, there should only be a few languages, with each having a set of words with just one specific meaning, thus facilitating clear and concise conversations with little or no chance for confusion. Instead, what we have are hundreds of languages and dialects, each with a set of words with multiple meanings – meanings that can only be discerned with the aid of context. Scientists propound that ambiguity actually makes language more efficient by allowing speakers to reuse short and efficient sounds in various situations, sounds which listeners can disambiguate easily with context clues. The study further illustrates how shorter and simpler words have the most number of meanings. Clever, if one thinks about it. Why use hundreds of thousands of distinct words to convey each particular thought, when one can reuse simple words? And the key is context – without context, listeners would be lost in the labyrinth of ambiguous words. And lost I have become. You seldom talked. And when you did, you spoke in a language so cryptic that nobody can ever discern what you really mean. Take that text message you sent me last week: “Doing good. You’ll see me tomorrow.” I anticipated your return but to no avail. Tomorrow dawned, and I didn’t see even a hint of your shadow. A week has again passed. Still, I haven’t seen you. Did I get something wrong? Have I misinterpreted your message? Or was this your real message – for me to hope for your return and be disappointed, over and over. Perhaps this “miscommunication” is brought about by the utter lack of context. Talking to you is like communicating in a vacuum – I don’t know what to expect, I don’t know where you are coming from. This is the problem with nascent relationships between strangers: they don’t know each other enough to understand the words they speak to each other. Or rather, the lack of words. For you hid yourself in that impenetrable cloak of silence you have donned since the beginning of this year. Except for that text message, I haven’t heard anything from you lately. What were you telling me? What was the point you were putting across? Somehow, I knew the answer to my question. But I prefer to wait. Wait and hope, as my interpretation may be wrong. There are countless interpretations, and what I think you mean is only one of many possibilities. ●
philippinecollegian.org