758 Gender, Sexuality and Language
Leap W L & Boellstorff T (2004). Speaking in queer
tongues: globalization and gay language. Urbana-
Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Livia A & Hall K (eds.) (1997). Queerly phrased: language,
gender, and sexuality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
General Semantics
K Allan, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
General semantics was initiated by Korzybski
(Korzybski, 1958 [1933, 1938, 1948]) and propa-
gated through the journal ETC., by Chase (Chase,
1938, 1954) and by Hayakawa (Hayakawa, 1972
[1949, 1964]). Its aims are ‘‘The study and improve-
ment of human evaluative processes with special em-
phasis on the relation to signs and symbols, including
language’’ (Chase, 1954: 128). Korzybski wrote:
The present-day theories of ‘meaning’ are extremely
confused and difficult, ultimately hopeless, and proba-
bly harmful to the sanity of the human race.
...
There is a fundamental confusion between the notion
of the older term semantics as connected with a theory of
verbal ‘meaning’ and words defined by words, and the
present theoretical term general semantics, which deals
only with neurosemantic and neurolinguistic living
reactions of Smith1, Smith2, etc., as their reactions to
neurosemantic and neurolinguistic environments as
environment (Korzybski, 1958: xxx).
General semantics was (and is) supposed to have
therapeutic value: ‘‘In general semantics we utilize
what I call ‘neuro-semantic relaxation,’ which, as
attested by physicians, usually brings about ‘normal’
blood pressure’’ (Korzybski, 1958: xlvii) – but
no attestations are in fact supplied. The heir to
semantics-as-therapy is neuro-linguistic program-
ming (Bandler and Grinder, 1975, 1979, 1982;
Grinder and Bandler, 1976; O’Connor and Seymour,
1990).
General semantics has a mission to educate people
against the dangers of being hoodwinked by propa-
ganda, euphemism, gobbledygook, and even ordi-
nary, everyday language. In part, the movement was
a response to the affective and all too effective jargon
of 20th century European totalitarianism (both fas-
cism and communism) and of McCarthyism in the
Okamoto S & Smith J S S (eds.) (2004). Japanese language,
gender and ideology: cultural models and real people.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Philips S U, Steele S & Tanz C (eds.) (1987). Language,
gender and sex in comparative perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
United States. So a constant theme is ‘‘Don’t be bam-
boozled by what is said, search for the meaning
and substance in all that you hear.’’ Bolinger blames
general semantics for giving rise to the jibe That’s just
semantics in which the word semantics has the sense
‘pettifogging’ (Bolinger, 1980: vii).
General semantics ‘‘tells you what to do and what to
observe in order to bring the thing defined or its effects
within the range of one’s experience’’ (Hayakawa,
1972: 157). More precisely, the literal meaning of a
statement expressed by sentence S is given by defin-
ing the method for observationally verifying the
conditions under which S is properly used. There are
several problems with this method. First, as Ayer
(Ayer, 1946: 12) admits, there is no upper limit on
the number of conditions on S’s use. Second, verifica-
tionism interprets ‘‘conditions under which S is prop-
erly used’’ as ‘‘conditions under which the truth of the
statement expressed by S is true’’; consequently,
values other than truth must be found for types
of illocutionary acts such as requestives, directives,
expressives, permissives, and declarations. Third,
Hayakawa (Hayakawa, 1972: 54) contrasts the sim-
plicity of using a tapemeasure to verify the truth of
This room is fifteen feet long with the impossibility of
operationally verifying to everyone’s satisfaction
Angels watch over my bed at night or Ed thinks he
dreamt he was in bed with Marilyn Monroe. Such
sentences are judged meaningless and therefore syn-
onymous with one another – which they are not.
Fourth, operational semantics affords no account of
the compositionality of meaning. Fifth, general se-
mantics has little or nothing to say about semantic
relationships within a language.
In sum, general semantics has little to offer the 21st
century linguist; but for what it does offer, check out
the Institute of General Semantics.
See also: Psychotherapy and Counselling; Taboo, Eu-
phemism, and Political Correctness; Use Theories of
Meaning.

Bibliography
Ayer A J (1946). Language, truth and logic (2nd edn.).
London: Gollancz.
Bandler R & Grinder J (1975). The structure of magic I:
a book about therapy and language. Palo Alto: Science
and Behavior Books.
Bandler R & Grinder J (1979). Frogs into princes: neuro-
linguistic programming. Moab UT: Real People Press.
Bandler R & Grinder J (1982). Reframing: neuro-linguistic
programming and the transformation of meaning. Moab,
UT: Real People Press.
Bolinger D L (1980). Language: the loaded weapon.
London: Longman.
Chase S (1938). The tyranny of words. New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
Chase S (1954). The power of words. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.
Grinder J & Bandler R (1976). The structure of magic II.
Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.
Generalization
E Mathieu, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Linguists make generalizations: that is what they do
for a living. To make a generalization means having
a look at a set of phenomena, for example a set of
sentences, a set of sounds, and seeing what they have
in common. First, one needs to describe and ana-
lyze data accurately, and then one needs to generalize
over those data. Concentrating on word order and
the status of ‘subject,’ consider the Old French (OF)
example in (1) as a way of illustration.
(1) et li baron regardent les letres.
and the barons look at the letters
‘The barons look at the inscription.’ (La
Queste del Saint-Graal, 5, 22)
In (1), we note that the order is Subject-Verb-Object
(subject ¼ li baron; verb ¼ regardent; object ¼ les
letres). This is the first observation we make about
OF word order. In (2), we see, however, that the
situation is slightly more complicated.
(2) ceste costume ai je toz jors tenues.
this habit have I all days held
‘I have always held this habit.’ (La Queste del
Saint Graal, 5, 7)
In this example, the subject (je) is postverbal while the
object (ceste costume) is preverbal. The question that
Generalization 759
Hayakawa S I (1972 [1949, 1964]). Language in thought
and action (3rd edn.). New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.
Korzybski A (1958 [1933, 1938, 1948]). Science and
Sanity: an introduction to non-aristotelian systems
and general semantics (4th edn.). Lakeville, CT: Interna-
tional Non-Aristotelian Publishing Corporation.
O’Connor J & Seymour J (1990). Introducing neuro-
linguistic programming: the new psychology of personal
excellence. Wellingborough: Crucible Press.
Paulson R E (1987). Language, science, and action:
korzybski’s general semantics a study in comparative
intellectual history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Relevant Website
http://www.general-semantics.org – Website of the Institute
of General Semantics.
arises is thus: is French an SVO language (i.e., with
Subject-Verb-Object order) or an OVS language (i.e.,
with Object-Verb-Subject order)? If we were to look
at a corpus of OF texts, we would note that there are
no attested cases where the subject is postverbal with-
out the presence of an element in the preverbal zone. All
sorts of elements can appear in that position always
forcing the verb to be in the second position, hence the
term used for such configurations: V2 (most commonly
associated with languages like German).
Thus, our first generalization is the following: in
OF the subject is preverbal, except in cases where the
preverbal position is occupied by something else.
Now, let us consider a second generalization in
connection with the first. In OF, referential and non-
referential subjects were possible, but a special envi-
ronment was necessary for them to be licensed.
Whereas Spanish and Italian allow a null subject in
contexts such as (3), OF does not. (3) is an example
from Spanish.
(3) habla español.
speak-3SG.PRES Spanish
‘He/she speaks Spanish.’
Traditionally, the fact that languages like Spanish and
Italian allow null subjects is explained by the fact that
rich inflection is present on the verb (this inflection
has a pronominal property and can ‘stand for’
the nominal). OF did not have uniform (i.e., for all
persons across tenses) rich agreement (cf. Roberts,