［参考范文］I strongly aGREe with the author on the claim that image generally serves to be a better means of communication than language， and this is no exception when the audience is a large group. Though everyday we speak one or several languages to express ourselves， the Achilles‘ heel of language makes it incompetent in certain critical case.
That Achilles‘heel is “misinterpretation”， a characteristic of language，particularly conspicuous when it comes to multi-language situations. Among countless misunderstandings in this way ever since people begin to speak， one heartbreaking tragedy can effectively support this claim. The story begins with one American boy who fell in love with a Japanese girl， but neither expressed their feeling for each other at that moment. One day when the boy was to leave the girl for a period of time，he left her a note with the word “shine” on it. The word “shine”，initially indicating her shining beauty as the boy later said，shocked the Japanese girl when she see it， and so despaired at the note that she committed suicide three days later. The reason， later discovered，is that the girl with poor English interpreted the word as “shi-ne”，which is “go hell” or “die” in Japanese. In the case nobody can deny the crime of language，since the young girl would not have perished were it not for this grievous misinterpretation. Therefore we see the harmful， in this case fatal， consequence that may be brought about by the Achilles’ heel of language.
Not only for individual. When it comes to the communication to a large group， as especially indicated in the statement， misinterpretation can be equally disastrous. As a result of globalization， groups of complex constitution are common nowadays. For example，in corporations we can often see people from different nations or cultural backgrounds working together. Therefore misinterpretation becomes inevitable when an idea is expressed in the form of language. For people of different native language， translation is necessary yet possibly deviant， sometimes erroneous. Even for those of the same native language， misinterpretation is still possible in that they may have distinct interpretations of the same word according to their childhood， when their cultural background instilled them with such distinct explanation to their subconscious. The more the people，the more diverse the translation. In this sense， language is hardly capable of carrying ideas or values with no distortion. Thus， especially to large groups，language cannot be recognized as an effective means to communicate.
Now it is time to pay attention to the more favorable method， that is， the use of image. Referring to the love tragedy written above， I believe the result joyful if the boy had drawn a “red heart”， the universally acknowledge sign of love， on the note instead of the “shine”， or “shi-ne”. As a matter of fact， the differences between cultural backgrounds are irresistible， yet image is little restricted by such differences and better accepted by the world. Another compelling example is the universally applied “skull” which stands for “poisonous”. It does not matter if a child know nothing about the English on a chemical-containing bottle， as he/she will learn precisely that the bottle is filled with poison the moment he/she sees the “skull”. Comparing with language， image is advantageous in this manner. Moreover， with the development of technology， televisions are already widely used for communication. The use of image is promoted by this use itself， as television is one modern form of organizing image. Hence image becomes more influential and fathomable universally comparing with language， by which image is proven to be more effective.
In conclusion， I believe image is better than language when communicating to a largesgroupsas misinterpretation of image occurs much rarely. It is advisable for all of us to frequently use image insgroupsto express our ideas explicitly.
