An
established definition to a word does not mean that is the way that we view
that word when it is used. It is a regular practice to have two words with comparable
but still different meanings function as if their meanings are the same. This
is the case for the two words that we are used in our everyday vernacular,
being ‘hear’ and ‘listen’.
I felt that these two words needed a second look
primarily for the fact that they are interchanged so often that their true definitions
are lost in translation so to speak. When one thinks of hearing the are far too
often willing to overlook the comprehension component that needs to be there.
Take an interaction between a father and his son. With the father telling the
son to do something thing, then checking for understanding by asking if the son
is even listening to him. How easy is it to see the son’s response as being I heard
you dad? Whereas if he was to say I was listening to you dad.
For me the definition of listening is the act of
comprehending a message that was communicated to you, whereas the act of
hearing is the physiological process of converting vibrations into sound. With hearing,
there is no required component involving the notion of what the receiver does
with the sound that they take in. This can be seen in the old Charlie Brown
cartoons when the teacher is talking and all that Charlie Brown hears in a
bunch of undiscernible sounds.
The deeper question lies within the notion of implied meaning
vs the understood meaning. Whether or not it is still listening if the meaning
that was transmitted was not the same as the intended meaning that was encoded.
These deeper question can only be address once we have a more complete
understanding of the meanings and the differences between hearing and
listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment