question

[Taka]

The sentence:

Culture shock is simply a removal or change in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home.

My book says the construction of this sentence is:

Culture shock is simply (a removal in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home) or (a change in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home).

I think it's weird. It doesn't even make sense. My understanding is:

Culture shock is simply (a removal of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home) or (a change in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home).

In other words, "in meaning" modifies "a change" only.

Which interpretation is correct?

[Tdol]

I agr5ee- it would have to be a 'removal of meaning'. Unless it's sloppy writing, I'd go for your interpretation.

[Taka]

I agr5ee- it would have to be a 'removal of meaning'. Unless it's sloppy writing, I'd go for your interpretation.

Thank you, tdol. :D

(Even if it were "removal of meaning", would it make sense?? Signals without meaning...what are they??)

[twostep]

I agr5ee- it would have to be a 'removal of meaning'. Unless it's sloppy writing, I'd go for your interpretation.

Thank you, tdol. :D

(Even if it were "removal of meaning", would it make sense?? Signals without meaning...what are they??)

Aside from any grammatical aspects - why can culture shock not be a simple removal of signals? Different cultures have different signals but they do not necessary use the same signals and be it for different meanings.

[Taka]

I don't understand the underlined part, twostep:

Different cultures have different signals but they do not necessary use the same signals and be it for different meanings.

[twostep]

I don't understand the underlined part, twostep:

Different cultures have different signals but they do not necessary use the same signals and be it for different meanings.

they do not necessary use the same signals for the same meaning or for a different meaning.

In the southern US it is considered polite and respectful to call women "mam" which is short for madam. Where I grew up that is what you call the proprietor of a cat house. Same signal but sure different meanings. Miau!

[Taka]

they do not necessary use the same signals for the same meaning.

Yes, I know. And that would be "a change in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home."

But I don't understand what you mean by this:

(they do not necessary use the same signals) for a different meaning.

Did you mean to say "they do not necessary use the same signals for the same meaning; they might use them for a different meaning"?

Plus, I don't understand your "be it for" grammatically...

[Casiopea]

Culture shock is simply a removal or change in meaning of many of the familiar signals one encounters at home.

I agree with ya'll.

The familiar signals one encounters at home are either changed in meaning (e.g., mam ~ Madame, as twostep notes) or they are removed.

All the best, :D

[Tdol]

I agr5ee- it would have to be a 'removal of meaning'. Unless it's sloppy writing, I'd go for your interpretation.

Thank you, tdol. :D

(Even if it were "removal of meaning", would it make sense?? Signals without meaning...what are they??)

Dodgy signs at best.

[Taka]

So, I should have said "It hardly makes sense even if it were removal of meaning."