Response to HK's Q

Q: "Only language tries to tell us what we see. Language does not simply, or even actually, identify things. Rather, language itself raises the question of definition." What does the author mean by that language does not "identify" things? Do you agree/disagree?

A: I agree with the author's idea that language raises the question of definition rather than identifies the object itself. In the reading, it mentioned that we read stop signs and react to the command by responding to the landscape. We don't merely read the word 'STOP' and think internally that this is the command so this is what we must do. Instead, we know there is meaning beyond the word because we've taken drivers education. We've been on the road before in situations where a 'STOP' sign signified that more than one car may be approaching an intersection & that it is best to survey our surroundings. Language in itself is literal, but it becomes more meaningful with context. And we face language in the landscape every day. We don't question road construction signs or the penalty that comes with hitting a worker. We know that beyond the words that are written on the sign, there are such things called ethics & the importance of driving safely to avoid deaths or injuries in a narrow or confined space where workers walk around.