In contrast to Shakespeare's taunting question, "What's in a name?", Gregory Berns suggests there might be something significant in one's name...even if the individual we're talking about is a dog.
From What It's Like to Be a Dog:
"How do animals treat names? If an animal doesn't have the faculty to understand that words are symbols, it is unlikely that they can translate their names into a sense of self. More likely, animals learn that a particular utterance means something interesting is about to happen and that they'd better pay attention. Whenever someone said (to the dog Callie) 'Callie,' Callie directed her attention to whoever made that noise. I never got the sense that she equated her name with 'me.'
"The experience of animal trainers would support the attention-grabbing function of names. 'Callie, sit,' is thought to be more effective than 'Sit, Callie.' ... Callie responds better to the first because her name gets her attention for the subsequent action. The reverse order requires her to remember the action that precedes her name."
* * * * * * *
Not to equate humans with canines, but the same holds true. In a conversation or group discussion, it's always better for someone to say "Dewey, what do you think about XYZ?" than "What do you think about XYZ, Dewey?"
The second phrase could very well get the response: "I'm sorry, what were we talking about?"
Truth is...when God says, in Isaiah 43:1, "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine," it not only comforts me; it gets my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment