“You said ‘untiringly’ twice.”
“I did not.”
“Are you saying that ‘you did not’ or that ‘you did, Not’?”
“I did not say untiringly twice, Not.” (Everett, Pg 11)
This is a short excerpt from “I Am Not Sidney Poitier” that we read and analyzed in class. When I initially read this passage, I had to stop and read it over once more in a slower fashion. In this scene, two characters, Not Sidney and Betty, are talking about Ted Turner when the misinterpretation arose due to the accidental application of the first part of Not Sidney’s name. This confusion was evident when Not Sidney posed the question, “Are you saying, ‘you did not’ or that ‘you did, Not?’” It was fascinating to observe how the usage of the term “not” resulted in this miscommunication.
Usually, “not” is used as an auxiliary verb that forms the negative. However, in this instance, it acts as an individual’s name. Without proper grammar and clarification, this misunderstanding could result in unnecessary confusion. If Betty meant “I did not,” then it would mean a negative connotation. On the other hand, if she meant “I did, Not,” then it would be a positive connotation. These responses are complete opposites of each other and as a result, can relay very opposing messages.
In class, we also discussed how incidents like these occur in everyday life. I doubted this and concluded that these forms of miscommunications couldn’t possibly occur in common conversations or discussions. However, as I continued to contemplate this idea, I was hit with an epiphany: a similar situation had occurred between my grandmother and me. Two summers ago, I was listening to the piano version of the song One Summer’s Day from the movie Spirited Away. There was a part in the melody that I personally loved, so I quickly shouted, “This is my favorite part of the song! The harmony is just perfect!” My grandmother rushed into my room a few seconds later with a worried look on her face. She asked me what was wrong and why I had called her so urgently. I remember staring at her in utter confusion. However, it didn’t take me too long to realize what had happened. In Korean, the word for grandmother is 할머니 and it is pronounced as hal-mo-nee. The words harmony and 할머니 sound almost identical to each other when said quickly.
In different languages, one word could constitute for one meaning, while in another language it can mean something entirely different. In this case, the term “grandmother” in Korean has an almost identical pronunciation as the English word “harmony.” However, these two words mean completely different things and generally have no association with each other in either language. As a result, in a general conversation where both Korean and English are being spoken, the usage of either word, 할머니 and/or harmony, can result in a Schrödinger effect. Schrödinger’s theory is based on the thought experiment, Schrödinger’s cat, which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this experiment, a cat is placed in a steel chamber, along with a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, a hammer, and a small radioactive substance. When the radioactive substances decays, the Geiger counter will detect it and trigger the hammer to break the vial, releasing the poison. However, radioactive decay occurs at random, so there is no way to predict when it would happen. So, until the box is opened, a scientist would not know whether the cat is alive or dead. As a result, the cat is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until it is observed. Like the theory, either word could be in effect at the same time, and the individuals would not truly know what word was intended until clarification is provided.
It fascinates me that this form of miscommunication is possible in common conversation and also across two different languages. This example adds a layer of complexity to this type of miscommunication observed in Everett’s novel. I wonder if this form of miscommunication will act as an important theme in this novel.