Two different types of sensibilities and the use of "I think"
Interesting observations on the use of such qualifiers as "I think" by Paddychicken. He was taking to "a friend of a friend"--"a hyperactive kid with strong opinions, a sharp mind and a very fake exterior (or so I thought)", the latter of which Paddychicken attributed to the kid's "thick American accent":
This is also tied to the archtypically British taste for the understatement--of which a little bit rubbed off on us Singaporeans, by the way. Think of the locution, "it's not bad"--the typical American would most probably have said "it's very good", or even "awesome!" I still remember the first time I was asked if I liked my food in the US. My "this is not bad at all!" was (mis)taken for my saying or implying that it is "not good"--rather than the intended opposite. Also related is the habit of not actually saying something but implying it, sometimes by purposely not saying something.
Needless to say, these are all matters of degrees. And worst still, the British are past masters of both the understatement and the most slapstick and most unreservedly bawdy comedy; Monty Python and Blackadder being--in my opinion--excellent examples of precisely the strange combination of these two extremes.
Now since I do--if you might pardon my saying so--have a slight preference for the Anglo/British- as opposed to American-type sensibility on these matters (not in all respects though), ahem, perhaps you might consider the following remarks on the highlighted part of Paddychicken's disquisition. Now it seems to me that it is highly indicative of the very difference I was drawing above in sensibilities and thus associated expectations in a conversational setting.
For those with more of the American-type sensibility and conversing with others having the same sensibility, the default expectation of an assertion is that it is a personal opinion. That's why the qualifications indicating that it should be so taken are either redundant (or indicate an additional level of uncertainty). Which, by the way, suggests that the American-type sensibility is characterised by the expectation that people would be totally forthcoming with their opinions, whether or not backed by anything. In the best instances, we have "strong opinions" coupled with a "sharp mind"; in other cases, we have "strong opinions". It is thus not surprising that those with such a sensibility will find someone from the other side strangely unsure of himself.
For those with more of the Anglo/British-type sensibility and living among others with the same sensibility, the default expectation of an assertion is that it is backed by something solid. Otherwise, it would be prefaced by the qualifiers, or just not said at all. Being forthcoming with one's personal opinions is considered brash, vulgar--ahem, American.
But of course, these are just my personal opinions.
coda: Since I am at it, let me quote Christoph Harbsmeier on the Classical Chinese literary-rhetorical sensibility, which has a small connection with the above. In Classical and Literary Chinese:
Somehow, the conversation drifted to the use of the words "I think" as a figure of speech. It was interesting to find some commonality in our distaste for these words. He said that this was a sign of weakness - if you think something it means you don't know. It means you are incompetent.Actually, my own sense is that a contrast between a more American-type as opposed to Anglo/British-type sensibility is probably at work here. The latter is much more characterised by the "I think" (and similar) qualifications. It is not unusual to hear older British academics--whom everyone knows to be among the foremost experts on a subject--to preface his remarks by saying "Now I don't really know a lot about his..." even as he goes on to discuss that very subject, complete with many qualifications and "ahems"!
My own personal gripe was that these words are redundant. If you are giving an opinion, you can just state it. No one should misconstrue that you are giving facts, unless you specifically cite an authoritative source. If I say, "LKY is baiting the opposition parties to run for election in a GRC so they will lose everything", what else could this be but my own personal opinion? Even if I were to substantiate this claim with a 20-page academic paper, it would not be a fact. So why bother to start any sentence with "I think..."? It only serves to weaken the argument because it discredits the self-assuredness of the speaker.
The next time you are in a discussion, especially with a bigshot. Take a listen and see how many people start their spiels with "I think". (Emphasis mine)
This is also tied to the archtypically British taste for the understatement--of which a little bit rubbed off on us Singaporeans, by the way. Think of the locution, "it's not bad"--the typical American would most probably have said "it's very good", or even "awesome!" I still remember the first time I was asked if I liked my food in the US. My "this is not bad at all!" was (mis)taken for my saying or implying that it is "not good"--rather than the intended opposite. Also related is the habit of not actually saying something but implying it, sometimes by purposely not saying something.
Needless to say, these are all matters of degrees. And worst still, the British are past masters of both the understatement and the most slapstick and most unreservedly bawdy comedy; Monty Python and Blackadder being--in my opinion--excellent examples of precisely the strange combination of these two extremes.
Now since I do--if you might pardon my saying so--have a slight preference for the Anglo/British- as opposed to American-type sensibility on these matters (not in all respects though), ahem, perhaps you might consider the following remarks on the highlighted part of Paddychicken's disquisition. Now it seems to me that it is highly indicative of the very difference I was drawing above in sensibilities and thus associated expectations in a conversational setting.
For those with more of the American-type sensibility and conversing with others having the same sensibility, the default expectation of an assertion is that it is a personal opinion. That's why the qualifications indicating that it should be so taken are either redundant (or indicate an additional level of uncertainty). Which, by the way, suggests that the American-type sensibility is characterised by the expectation that people would be totally forthcoming with their opinions, whether or not backed by anything. In the best instances, we have "strong opinions" coupled with a "sharp mind"; in other cases, we have "strong opinions". It is thus not surprising that those with such a sensibility will find someone from the other side strangely unsure of himself.
For those with more of the Anglo/British-type sensibility and living among others with the same sensibility, the default expectation of an assertion is that it is backed by something solid. Otherwise, it would be prefaced by the qualifiers, or just not said at all. Being forthcoming with one's personal opinions is considered brash, vulgar--ahem, American.
But of course, these are just my personal opinions.
coda: Since I am at it, let me quote Christoph Harbsmeier on the Classical Chinese literary-rhetorical sensibility, which has a small connection with the above. In Classical and Literary Chinese:
Whatever the audience can understand from the context is preferably omitted in literary style. Explicitness is felt to be vulgar. It is not by chance that there is no word for scilicet 'i.e., you should remember, that is to say' in Classical Chinese. What you should know is omitted for the very reason that you should know it. (Language and Logic, 144)As the Master himself puts it: 辭達而已矣！(LY 15.41).
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home