Difference between "sounds" and "seems"

[ChiSquare8]

Could anybody tell me the difference between "sounds"and "seems". One of my students asked the rules and I could not formulate any!

Examples:

It sounds like a good plan
It seems like a good plan

thanks

[Andrew Patterson]

Well, I think you have to look at the literal meaning of the words to understand the metaphore. Both are tentative. "Sounds" suggests that you heard that it was good from someone else, and although I don't think that you would necessarily have to be told by someone else, it is probably more likely. "Seems" suggests that it is more your own (tentative) opinion.

[lolwhites]

It's an interesting question, but I suspect in some ways the wrong one! The question your student should be asking is "Why do sound and seem both go with like a good plan?" And what about look like?

The difference doesn't show itself in the context you give. However, consider these:

That sounds like a motorbike. (I can hear it)
That seems like a motorbike. (?????)
That looks like a motorbike (?????)
It sounds like he's enjoying his holiday
It seems like he's enjoying his holiday
It looks like he's enjoying his holiday

[ChiSquare8]

That is the whole point! What is the difference in this example? The examples that you pointed out the distinction is very clear.

[woodcutter]

Perhaps what lolwhites is trying to say is that you will most likely say "sounds like" if you just heard the plan, "looks like" if you just read the plan, and that "seems like" could be both?

[Stephen Jones]

That is the whole point! What is the difference in this example?

There is no difference whatsoever in meaning in the two sentences you give.

[LarryLatham]

There is no difference whatsoever in meaning in the two sentences you give.

Then I'm confused about something, Stephen. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If what you say is true, then how does a speaker, faced with two "identical" sentences, and wishing to utter the meaning represented (equally) by both, choose which to say? What I don't understand is, let's suppose a speaker opens his mouth and words begin to issue forth. The first word comes out smoothly (no problems for the brain to solve). Now comes the preparation for the second word. How does the brain choose? Does it flip a mental coin? Does it alternate usage (let's see: last time I used "sounds", so this time I'll say, "seems")? Since both sentences are "identical" in meaning, either can be used with equal facility, so somehow, a choice must be made. If they are identical, there is no basis on which to make a selection. How can the speaker's brain resolve this problem? You might expect to often hear someone start with one word, and then belatedly choose the other, yielding "soueems", perhaps, or maybe "seeounds".

Larry Latham

[revel]

Hey guys and gals!

I myself agree with the comment that both "sounds" and "seems" in the examples given at the top of this thread are communicating the same thing in everyday speech. In everyday speech a lot of what we say is not listened to for the words but rather for the meaning of the entire utterance.

And yet, if this were a playwrighting workshop, I would be more picky. Is the character who says the sentence someone who believes hearsay? Then I would have that character use "sounds". Is that person, on the other hand, one who needs visual evidence of the truth of the matter? Then I'd put "seems" into the line. The artists working with the script would then find textual support for their creative decisions.

peace,
revel.

[Stephen Jones]

You keep raising this question Larry, and so I am going to have to answer.

By any one of a million totally irrelevant stimuluses

Perhaps something is going on in his head that makes him feel 'ow" so he chooses 'sounds'. Perhaps something else completely irrelevant makes him think 'ee' and he chooses 'seems'. Could be to do with the cacophony or harmony of the sentence. There will always be some small factor to tip the scale one way or the other and prevent this indecisive freezing of linguistics powers that you are imagining.

And even if there was a shred of evidence to suggest that this indecisiveness happens, it could only affect the ideolect, not the language. So whatever might make you choose 'seem' over 'sound' one one occasion would be cancelled out by what would make me choose 'sound' over 'seem' in the same.

[woodcutter]

One could also say something "feels like" a good plan. I think feel, sound, or look would be referring to the use of the sense. "Seem" is perhaps referring more to the internal working of the mind.

[LarryLatham]

You keep raising this question Larry, and so I am going to have to answer.

By any one of a million totally irrelevant stimuluses

Perhaps something is going on in his head that makes him feel 'ow" so he chooses 'sounds'. Perhaps something else completely irrelevant makes him think 'ee' and he chooses 'seems'. Could be to do with the cacophony or harmony of the sentence. There will always be some small factor to tip the scale one way or the other and prevent this indecisive freezing of linguistics powers that you are imagining.

And even if there was a shred of evidence to suggest that this indecisiveness happens, it could only affect the ideolect, not the language. So whatever might make you choose 'seem' over 'sound' one one occasion would be cancelled out by what would make me choose 'sound' over 'seem' in the same.

OK, Stephen. But your argument seems to me to support my thesis rather than yours. These "somethings" going on in the head of the user could hardly be irrelevant, since they seem to produce different outputs. These "somethings" appear to have something to do with subtle shades of meaning or appropriateness in the particular context as judged by the user at the moment.

To my way of thinking, in a certain important sense at least, it CANNOT BE that two sentences containing different words have meanings which are identical in all respects. It wouldn't make any sense for that to be true. There must be some difference, however slight in some contexts, despite the possibility that the sentences may carry similar pragmatic messages. In communicative use, different sentences--even those with identical wording--can have different meanings when used with different intonation, or in different registers, or in different contexts. Sometimes phrases can be interpreted literally, sometimes metaphorically. Skilled users of a language know that real meaning in an exchange is frequently negotiated between producer and receiver. It is not going too far, I believe, to say that the complete meaning of any word, or phrase, or sentence, or sometimes even longer sequence cannot be flatly described without qualification.

That said, teachers still face the student who asks: "What does '@#$%&*' mean, teacher?" And one must come up with some sort of answer to satisfy the moment. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking we have fully answered the question. After all, we may not always even understand the question. What do you say when a student asks: "Teacher, what is the meaning of 'life'?"


Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

These "somethings" appear to have something to do with subtle shades of meaning or appropriateness in the particular context as judged by the user at the moment.

Why?

[LarryLatham]

Because they sometimes produce "sounds" and sometimes "seems" and sometimes "looks" and sometimes "feels". Whatever is going on in the brain delivers a different output depending on the results of the process. There is evidently some kind of processing happening. On what could it be based other than nuances of meaning or contextual appropriateness? Choice, unless it is merely a random selection, has to be intentional, even when it might be subconscious.

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

I'll repeat the word in all caps any one of millions of IRRELEVANT stimuli.

That is to say there is no requirement for what tips the balance to have anything to do with the matter in hand. Both spoonerisims and freudian slips clearly show us that other things but the meaning affect output.

Secondly remember that even if there was a valid difference for the individual speaker, when we say "there is no difference" we are talking about the aggregate of users.

The problem you have postulated Larry is a chimera, a mirage. [/b]

[LarryLatham]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you, Stephen.

Your reference to spoonerisms and Freudian slips does not apply well to this discussion, since we are not talking about slips of the tongue here. We are (or at least I am) talking about making a choice between several different words to fit into a particular place in a particular sentence. All of the resulting sentences may have similar pragmatic value, but they are undeniably different sentences. Once the sentence has been uttered, that a choice has been made seems self evident to me. How can this choice be made except either by random selection or by references to differences in meaning or contextual appropriateness? The differences may be slight (in some contexts, but greater in others), but how can you deny they exist? How else would one choose?

...when we say "there is no difference" we are talking about the aggregate of users.

Not so. We are talking there about general pragmatic value, not meaning. Meaning differs in each individual. Every person who reads a given book or article, or who hears a given speech or even a given sentence will have a personal interpretation. Any person, no matter how expert in the subject, who undertakes to tell you what it means is blowing smoke unless he qualifies his remarks by saying, either explicitly or by implication, he is telling what it means to him. Meaning, however we might refer to it in generalities or in dictionaries, strikes individual people in different ways, and also perhaps differently on separate occasions. An utterance is made by an individual, not by "the aggregate of users", and that individual often must choose between several reasonable ways to use different words and structures to get his point across. His mental processing eliminates all but one of the ways, which way he believes conveys his exact meaning in the best manner as of that unique moment. He needs some basis for doing that. In their responses above to ChiSquare8's original question, Andy Patterson and Lolwhites as well as Woodcutter have offered some thoughtful possibilities. That's probably as far as we're going to get on the question, exactly because meaning is such a personal thing. When somebody says, "It sounds like a good idea to me", all we can really say about it is that's what he said. He alone knows (and perhaps only subconsciously) precisely why he said it that way (why, in the context of this discussion, he chose "sounds" rather than other possibilities), but our job as hearers is to try to interpret as best we can. Maybe all we will succeed in getting is the pragmatic value, but on certain occasions there is the possibility we can squeeze more from it by 'reading between the lines', and trying to guess what mental gyrations might have made him choose a particular word. Or even that particular sentence in that particular conversation.

Have you ever thought to yourself, after your girlfriend says something to you: "I wonder why she said it that way?"

This is no chimera and no mirage. These are critical issues in communication.

Larry Latham