We have been having some interesting discussions in TOK investigating language as a way of knowing. As I pointed out last Friday, it seems like we are more interested in focusing on the problems and limitations with language, instead of trying to explain its benefits. But we also had some interesting ideas to share about the differences between written and spoken language, as well as whether or not we should preserve our current language structures, or let them evolve naturally over time.
The idea of how we control forms of communication is always interesting, whether that be looking at the Google empire’s effect on book publishers or interesting technology that can be used to provide order for the pictures we take. We also looked at a website–readability–that handily converts any online article into a page that resembles that of a book. I find this interesting: we now have websites that make other websites look more like books. Lastly, I briefly mentioned a study conducted at Stanford that looks at new technological literacies (Facebook, PowerPoint, Twitter and the like) and how these might be a benefit instead of a hindrance to our learning how to communicate in writing.
I propose we try to reinstill our faith in our language(s) by articulating in writing some insightful comments below. Over the course of this week, every student should write two comments, hopefully one that addresses at least one of the questions below, and one that responds to another student’s comment. When commenting, please use your real first name.
We will be joined by Mr. Drew’s TOK class from Mira Loma High School in Sacramento, California, which I am excited about collaborating with; hopefully there will be other chances in the future.
If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
How does technological change affect the way language is used and the way communication takes place? How might innovations in language, such as Internet chat or text messaging, be assessed: as contributions to or asaults against how language and communication “should be”?
And, a big broad one:
How does the capacity to communicate personal experience and thoughts through language affect knowledge? To what extent does knowledge actually depend on language: on the transmission of concepts from one person or generation to another, and on exposure of concepts or claims to public scrutiny?
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
(first question)
I speak two languages fluent, German and English and I’m learning my third language (Spanish) right now and I personally think that there is no difference what I know in one language and not in the other because I can translate what I learnt in German into English and viscera. Of course there are some differences especially if you write, there are different rules depending on the language you are using.
I also think that when you know more than one language you have a broader knowledge because you learn different things in different languages but you can always translate it to the language you need to know the information in.
I personally think that language provides a different framework for reality because when you learn languages you also learn about that language culture which makes you know more about different countries that speak the same languages.
First Question:
I don’t think that Language would affect what people would know and not know. Language is a form of communicating ideas from one person to another. I think we are able to think without a language, we just need a language to put our thoughts into words.
However, I personally think a multi-lingual person has more freedom of thought because each language and culture have different ways of expressing themselves. They have greater freedom of thought because they have different ways to express themselves.
So language helps us communicate our thoughts and put our thoughts into words, but it doesn’t restrict us from the actual thought.
I agree with Corina and I do not necessarily believe that a certain language determines what we know. However, the ability to express certain things in a particular language, can be limited. For example, in class we discussed that, I believe it was Chinese, heavily limited what someone could express emotionally. And this fact could affect reality. If languages limit what, and to what extent, our emotions are expressed, how could anyone know how we are feeling? As for what Corina said about being able to have a broader knowledge if you speak more languages, I do not fully agree. I understand that if you know multiple languages, you can translate it in to whatever language expresses it best, but that is assuming that the person you are talking to speaks and understands the language you are switching to, and not everyone speaks every language. (this would be a limitation)
Language, and the understanding of that language, heavily affects knowledge. If your mother does not understand your text message reading, “yo mom i cnt txt rite now.n class.” (mother i can not text right now because I am in class) she will not understand what you are trying to say and continue texting you, asking what time you get out of practice, or whatever, and potentially get you in trouble. Though text talk is very popular, formal writing will always be favored in classes.
Technological change affects the way language is used and the way communication takes place. For example, when text messaging or emailing a friend, shortcuts in language may be used. We might not use complete sentences, while also using improper grammar. From this, these innovations can be assessed as assaults against how language and communication should be. The language loses its value and can bring about knowledge issues in the understanding of the information being communicated. However, when emailing a person of higher authority such as a teacher or a parent, the language used tends to be accurate and clear. In this situation, the innovations in language are contributions to how communication should be. In addition, new technology allows for faster communication, which is more efficient for someone with a busy lifestyle.
In response to the second prompt:
Modern technological advancements have greatly changed language and the way we communicate. From text messaging and chat speak, it almost seems as if entirely new languages have been created. “Lol” has stopped being just an acronym for laugh out loud and has become its own word meaning to laugh out loud; it even has its own conjugations (lolled, loling, etc).
Many people view this language alteration negatively. It’s not as formal as proper English and this new text/chat speak shouldn’t be used in the classroom or professional settings. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it isn’t something that we can stop. Language is always evolving. At one point in time, our “proper” English was slang and informal but as people and cultures change, so does the way we communicate. I mean, no one talks like Shakespeare anymore but during his time, that was the language of the day.
Shakespeare is a wonderful example to bring up when discussing changes in language. While writing his plays, Shakespeare created many new words to express his ideas. We consider him literary genius. The very same thing is occurring today with modern technology. We are adapting our language to better express our thoughts and feelings with more efficiency. In essence, we are no different from the Bard himself.
If language is always evolving, then is there really any way that language and communication “should be”? For the current working generation, there is a standard of what is professional and should be used in that environment. Our generation has a completely different idea and when we move up, we will use what we feel “should be” used in a professional environment. Then our children will change it again.
Language is a living organism and will forever alter and change, just like the people who use it.
In response to Sarah Ritz’s comment:
You wrote that ” [tech] language loses its value and can bring about knowledge issues in the understanding of the information being communicated. However, when emailing a person of higher authority such as a teacher or a parent, the language used tends to be accurate and clear.”
I disagree with this statement. Personally, I don’t believe that the change in language causes it to lose its value. Shortcuts and word alterations are becoming more widely known and most of our generation has a collective understanding of these. This relates to the seminar that we had in class today. The scientists had an understanding of their language amongst themselves and there were no knowledge issues between them and their writing. The same goes with the way people communicate in every day life, including texting and emailing.
You then continued to say that we change our language when approaching higher authority. This is true in that we change our language into something that they would understand. However, I don’t understand your claim in that it is “accurate.” Is this in comparison to our evolved tech speak? This tech speak is accurate and clear in itself. The claims are more relative to the person being communicated to. My mother may not understand “g2g” but that doesn’t make my statement any less accurate. It may not be clear to her, someone who hasn’t learned text speak, but it is to the friends that I text often. It is simply a matter of what has or has not been learned.
Regarding question number 1, I don’t think that knowledge varies from language to language with a bilingual person, or at least not the knowledge that you know yourself. What differs is the use of language to express ideas to others, since it is a way of knowing that primarily deals with communicating knowledge to others (that is a main purpose of language). Some languages are definitely better equipped for communicating certain types of knowledge to others though. My first language was Chinese (Cantonese to be specific), and I speak 3 dialects of Chinese, plus English, obviously. Even within those Chinese dialects, there can be big differences. Cantonese and Mandarin (2 dialects of Chinese) use the same written language, but spoken language is quite different. Mandarin is much more formal in tone, as opposed to Cantonese which is considered much more ‘colorful’ (particularly when it comes to insults…). I find directly translating from Cantonese to Mandarin near impossible without losing some of the original meaning. Still, switching from one language to another does not affect how I perceive the translated phrase. It would only affect someone else’s knowledge.
As far as personal knowledge goes, that deals with the idea that thoughts are dependent on language. That can be true, particularly when it goes beyond things we can perceive through our basic senses. However, maybe it’s just because we aren’t aware enough of our own thinking processes, but I don’t think knowledge (stored in us as thoughts) is like an internal monologues in our heads. Knowledge can be emotional (oftentimes words are not equipped to describe feelings) or even pictorial. Language can shape our thoughts to an extent, but I don’t think you can go as far as saying it provides a different framework for reality. Also, language is inextricably tied to culture. And even if a person speaks more than one language, they may still identify more with one language’s culture. It’s impossible to separate out all these variables and say whether it is language that is affecting the way they perceive reality, or if it’s culture.
Depending on the circumstances, knowing multiple languages may or may not affect the way somebody knows something. For example, Corina mentioned that she can easily translate her ideas back and forth between German and English. However, these two languages are from the same family and very closely related. I recently listened to a radio show (http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/11/30/numbers/) that mentioned an indigenous tribe in the Amazon rainforest that had a peculiar marriage of their language and mathematic system. Long story short, they simply don’t have words for numbers above five. In addition, they perceive numbers on a logarithmic scale due to the way their language deals with mathematics.
English and other Western languages all deal with numbers on a linear scale, whereas this tribe deals with them in a completely different way. When asked what number is in the middle of 1 and 9, we would reply with 5. 1+4=5, 5+4=9. However, members of this tribe would reply with 3. Their logic is 1×3=3, 3×3=9. We can see that because our languages deal with numbers differently, we have a different framework for reality, even with an area of study thought to be relatively unwavering.
In regards to the first prompt, I believe that the experiences of knowing two languages do not alter your understanding or perception of what you already know. For example, let us look at the word, “love.” The basic definition of Love describes affection for another or an object, and this definition is shared amongst all of different languages. English and Korean word for love are same in describing how we perceive the basic definition of love, however these languages offer different ways for an individual to express these definitions. As a Bilingual, I speak both Korean and English. One of the most interesting knowledge derived from being able to use both of these languages was how English language allows for an individual to be more expressive than Korean language in a dialect. For example in an English dialect, I can say, “Oh my god, I just love my new phone,” and there will be nothing wrong in saying this. However in a Korean dialect, I have to say, “My new phone is very convenient and very stylized,” because you can’t love a machine but only appreciate it. I believe that perhaps in English language, the word “love” is used excessively, and therefore we may lose the in-depth meaning of that word. This doesn’t mean that we loose the values of the word “love” in America, but sometimes we have to rely on the specific situation when we say this word to elevate its value (like saying “I Love You” to your wife after a fancy date at a really expensive restaurant ). All languages depict one frame work of reality, because they share a common definition. Though some language may offer different levels to perceiving emotional definition, ultimately all languages will be able to communicate in a concordant form of language in regards to the frame work of reality.
This is a reply to Kevin Mark’s comment.
Do you know how the indigenous tribe in the Amazon rainforest speaks? If so, is there a significant contrast to the languages spoken by the English and other western countries which lead to a logarithmic perception of numbers?
Earlier, you had mentioned that English and other Western countries perceive their numbers linearly. Do you think how they speak their language influenced their perception of linear numbers?
I think it is really interesting how you had tied our perception of language to those of numbers. I agree with you that there is a relationship between how we perceive language and understand numbers. Also from you example, I can see how our perception of different languages depicts the different frameworks of reality.
If people speak more than one language, they still know the same things in each language, as long as they know the languages well enough to express the same ideas. It is not a matter of the subject that affects the knowledge issues here, but a matter of fluency. I feel that I can express myself much better in English than in any other language. However, I translated one of my college application essays into Portuguese for some of my friends in Brazil, and one of them said it was very formal and well-written. Perhaps I only think I know things differently in English than in Portuguese because English is clearly the one that comes more naturally for me, but to someone who speaks Portuguese as their primary language, it’s more real-sounding for that person in Portuguese than it is for me because the words have real meaning to them rather than representing a stand-in word in the primary language like they do for me. Because of these reasons, it is possible to say that language provides a different framework for reality. When I speak in Spanish or Portuguese, I feel as if my words do not have as much of an impact if I were to instead speak in English.
New technology in communication drastically affects the way language is used. Today we have rapid ways to share information across vast distances. This collaborative blog is a prime example. I can type this, hit “submit comment,” and it will be posted for people all around the world, including in Norway, in a matter of milliseconds. Fifty years ago, if I wanted to contact someone in Norway, I’d have to make a phone call. Another fifty years, and I’d have to send them a telegraph. Another hundred, and I’d be writing a letter to send by ship. Somehow. In letter-writing, I might use a much formal register. However, since this is a school assignment I am already using a very formal register. If I were talking to a friend, though, my letter-written word would be more formal because I would have more time to think about what I had to say and to write it. I am a very quick typer, though, so I tend to think as I type and don’t edit much of what I say. I think innovations in language, such as Internet chat or text messaging ultimately harm the language. I don’t text, and when I chat online, I use correct punctuation and grammar. A few abbreviations here and there don’t bother most people, but it can sometimes be taken much too far. For example sum ppl typ lyk dis n u hav n ida wt thur sayng. For native English speakers, that last sentence might not be so hard to decode, but it only exacerbates the language barrier between cultures.
Communicating personal experience and thoughts pose a challenge. Personal experiences and emotions cannot be accurately explained and put into words. Each person sees things differently and experiences things differently, so it is difficult to form these experiences and thoughts into understandable words. I usually think in pictures rather than words, so it’s hard to describe what I see in the detail I see it. Things that are so apparent in my mind, such as setting, often slip my consciousness when I am telling other people because it’s such a large part of what I’m seeing, they should be able to see it, too, right? Knowledge does not depend on language to a large extent because most things can be experienced by a variety of people. In this way, everyone can gain the knowledge in the same manner, and it is much easier than if the knowledge was given to them in the literary or spoken form. Language is not required in experience, so experience transcends the knowledge issues associated with language.
@Corina:
I agree with you. Everything is translatable except for a few colloquial phrases or verb/grammar uses that aren’t present in the language you’re translating to. I think what’s most important is the vocabulary. What you learn in school (Is it all in English) you may know the word for in German because it’s so random, and you wouldn’t use it in everyday language. The word “derivative” in IB Math, for example.
Is it efficient to learn the same things in both languages, or do you think you should specialize different with different topics in each language depending on when, where, and in what context you use those languages?
Do you think when learning languages that it’s just as important to learn the culture associated with the language in addition to the language itself? In some cases, this wouldn’t be very practical because there is so much and so many cultures associated with languages such as Spanish and English. They are spoken in so many countries in so many different areas that each one has its own slang, accent, and customs.
Question One:
What people know is not different in each language if they speak more than one language. I know English and Russian, and what I know is not affected by the language spoken, although the ability to express my ideas in one or the other language is different. Some phrases in Russian or English are hard to translate into the other, and I catch myself sometimes using English when speaking to a friend in Russian. This is caused when I think that I would express my thoughts better in English, and that Russian is limited to express my idea. I have an understanding of what my idea is, but in order to make sure that the person I am speaking with understands better, I can choose to use Russian or English. The problem arises when a person does not know one of the languages, and I have to talk in one. At times it is hard for me to express myself in just one language, and it takes time for me to think of an appropriate way to express myself in the language the person I am speaking understands so that they can understand my point.
If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
We can know something without having to express it to another person. Language always has been a method of communication and not a means of reaching some unknown reservoir of knowledge within ourselves. Yes, it does help us come to some profound conclusions, but language itself cannot plant new ideas or knowledge into our minds. We can already think with pictures, sounds, and feelings; words are not necessary. So to say that speaking in a different language somehow changes what you know, in terms of factual and objective knowledge at least, is not relevant or accurate. However, I do believe language can alter how you feel about certain things. I speak Hindi occasionally at home; this doesn’t change what I already know about my culture and its traditions, but it always manages to make me feel more connected to my Indian heritage. In that sense, I do believe whatever language you are speaking, at any given point in time, influences the way you perceive that specific reality. When I’m speaking Hindi, I feel obliged to be respectful and deferential, especially if I am speaking to someone who is much older than me. When I speak in English, while I am still courteous to my elders, I get to my point much quicker and I don’t have to make an extra effort about making my comments sound especially respectful. Language and the culture that is associated with it greatly affect the way a person perceives a specific reality. It influences the way we interact with our surroundings and we cater our behavior to suit what that specific language calls for.
Question 3:
Because language is a way of communication, types of languages (or methods of communications) can affect the way we know. I think this idea is a part of why there are such specific structures for languages, in order to make them as ‘universal’ as possible and obtain a better understanding through that structure. For instance, if a person speaks Hindi, while another only speaks Gunwinyguan (an Aboriginal language), then there are going to be obvious difficulties in the process of sharing thoughts or ideas. So, in this sense, knowledge does depend on language, but not so much that one cannot have knowledge without a language, because even if the person speaking Hindi (addressing my previous example) was unable to dictate his thoughts to the person speaking Gunwinyguan, the fact that he has an idea or information would not go away, it would just become very un-useful being unexpressed.
To a certain extent, all knowledge limited because there is no form of communication that is perfect enough to be used universally although English comes close, not every single person can speak even that language worldwide, and ideas might get lost through translation. For example, I speak three different languages fluently, my first language being Urdu, then Punjabi, and then English, clearly. Urdu and English are very different in their sentence structure, so a common phrase such as “my little princess” in English would be literally translated as “little princess, one who churns milk”. It is probably very strange, but calling someone a princess, also has connotations such that they are the ‘rulers of milk=> hardworking, which is not at all what it means in English. Therefore, direct translations involve cultural sayings or references that the other person would not know, and this could also cause a breach in the knowledge.
Languages are changing constantly, like the example many people have already given, with text messaging and e-mail lingo, slang and all of the unprofessional types of things that can come into play, so as a way of knowing, language has so many limitations, I feel that it would be impossible to determine the validity of a statement simply through the way it is presented.
—————
Response to Teddy Yoon:
So, I agree with the statement you make saying, “I believe that perhaps in English language, the word “love” is used excessively, and therefore we may lose the in-depth meaning of that word. This doesn’t mean that we loose the values of the word “love” in America, but sometimes we have to rely on the specific situation when we say this word to elevate its value”, which is probably very true, but don’t you think that this type “de-valuation” is probable in other languages too? It is not as if English is the only language that makes that change, because like we’ve discussed in class, language is always evolving, so it might even be beneficial that certain words are losing their ‘value’, which will bring in change eventually.
Also, I don’t see why you say that “All languages depict one frame work of reality, because they share a common definition”, because I don’t feel that reality can have a frame work in correspondence to language at all, because it varies so much, and you discuss it yourself in your post. I feel its safe to say that language is a very weak way of knowing, and that we can only concur ideas from multiple ways of knowing (of which language can have a part), but not solely based on one element alone.
In the larger sense, people’s knowledge is not limited by what language they speak. This is why we can read translated works and still understand the plot and the theme that the author is trying to convey. But on a smaller level language can be a little more difficult to translate. It is impossible to directly translate anything since many words in different languages do not have the exact same meanings. For example, it is often said that the hardest word to translate is the Fuegian word Mamihlapinatapai which roughly means “looking at each other hoping that either will offer to do something which both people desire but are unwilling to do.” Although it is possible to translate this word into English, the cumbersome translation makes the word lose meaning and significance. Often the translator is forced to clarify the translation. For example, in the book This Earth of Mankind, the translator sometimes clarifies whether the speaker is using the familiar or honorific verb tense in Dutch which is nonexistent in English. This loss of context affects our knowledge of the characters and how they stand in society. Even though languages don’t translate directly, the amount someone can know is not enhanced greatly by speaking more than one language just their perspective of a topic is.
In response to Kevin’s post, I agree that the main reason German is accessible to English speakers and vice versa is because of their close relation to each other. The Amazonian tribe’s number system I found very interesting. I am curious to know how this counting structure works for larger numbers. Also (but maybe I misunderstood this) I think that the Amazonian counting is a good example of how a single idea may translate the same (for example the number 3), but its perspective relationship to other objects changes drastically depending on the language spoken.
Corina,
I definitely agree that knowledge is never limited to a specific language. We can always translate ideas into different languages so that they can access people on a global level.
However, in addition to the issues that different grammatical rules can cause, there is also always the problem of losing important messages or feelings in translation. There are often sayings in a specific language that are a reflection of a specific society and its culture, and the tone and the implications of the saying are often lost on people from different cultures.
As for your last statement, I couldn’t agree more that the unique realities that are set up by different languages show a great amount about that specific culture.
If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
Human perception varies in many different ways and is affected by many areas of knowledge. Each thought that we create becomes new and shows the ultimate ingenuity possessed by our creative minds. However, it can also be noted that knowledge, on the other hand is deeply affected by other factors. One of these factors becomes language. If we look at language as a way of perception and receiving ideas, different types of it represent different spheres of knowledge. As an example emotion and reason can not provide the same result in an argument. In a similar manner, two separate languages, that hold rich culture and history, cannot coexist, at least according to my experience. I have come to the United States with a solid understanding of my native Bulgarian language. It served as a lens that I perceived the world through. Since my emigration to America, the English language has opened a new understanding of completely different characteristics of life. One of these is education, which I perceived very differently in Bulgarian than in English. Even though, I consist of one, complete character, the different languages provide me with different spheres of knowledge, similar to the way reading glasses are different from glasses used for far sight. Both serve the purpose of sight, just as bot language serve as communication, but their purpose makes them completely separate entities.
Nikola Dosev
How does the capacity to communicate personal experience and thoughts through language affect knowledge? To what extent does knowledge actually depend on language: on the transmission of concepts from one person or generation to another, and on exposure of concepts or claims to public scrutiny?
Languages soul purpose is communication. Its cause of creation was the ability of its practical use as beings share ideas and perceptions in a society. However language is highly underestimated in one area, and that is its strenghth to give people the ability to formulate thoughts, not only communicate them. Based on this observation, language ultimately becomes the main ingredient of knowledge. If one could not formulate coherent thoughts through vocabulary, could knowledge even exist? Well, in class we observed a video about an autistic girl who comprehends and thinks differently than any other human. She thinks by her perceptions and surrounding, rather than language. Her argument is very strong, as she shows her own way of knowing. However her presentation is carried out in English by a computerized narration which creates heavy irony. Doesn’t the translation of her thoughts into English counter the idea that language is not needed?
Ultimately language becomes the main part of the puzzle of knowledge. It is the piece that connects the dots in out chaotic mindsets and sheds light on an ignorant existence we would be bound to, without it.
This is a response to Iliya’s comments on question 1:
Iliya, I understand your point of view and definetly agree that there are similarities to the way two languages are expressed. However, don’t you think that the “difference” of expression you speak of is ultimately the one separating the two languages? In this sense, if we can conclude that some thought is produced by language, the two – Russian and English – ultimately separate your judgement and create a knowldge issue. Every think that becomes intranslatable from one language to another becomes lost, doesn’t it? You cannot ever fully express what you meant in the other language unless directly refering to it. Therefore, doesn’t your statement contradictory in a way, as it showed that languages are both the same as well as completely different to a persona?
2) Technological change has greatly affected the way language is used and the way communication takes place. In the past, when carefully written out letters would be sent to other parts of the world, language was meaningful. However, as newer forms of technology began to emerge, the use of formal language began to wane in many aspects of daily life; now, as we have text messaging and email, the language that is used is short and to the point. Although this takes away the personal touch, it also makes communication more efficient and allows for exchange to be quicker. Before, it would take weeks to be able to communicate; now, a simple phone call or text message is instantaneous. Innovations in language, such as email, may be an assault against how language and communication ‘should be.’ When letters would be sent out individually, they carried a sense of privacy and language and communication were valued. Email, although a faster form of communication, removes any sentimental value a message may have had when it is sent to multiple people at once. However, I also believe that language has changed greatly over time, and as a result, people’s definitions of what ‘formal language’ is and should be have also changed.
How does the capacity to communicate personal experience and thoughts through language affect knowledge? To what extent does knowledge actually depend on language: on the transmission of concepts from one person or generation to another, and on exposure of concepts or claims to public scrutiny?
The capacity to communicate personal experience and thoughts through language provides the ability to gain more knowledge, however, I do not think that it guarantees more knowledge. The best way to try to understand how some else feels or what they think is to have communication, to have an exchange of ideas. If we have this capacity, then we are more likely to be able to understand a part of the world around us. But of course this is also dependent on other factors as well. If we are trying to convey our thoughts to someone else, apart from being able to communicate as well, the other person needs to have an open mind to your point of view. The same goes for ourselves. What good does it do to be able to communicate if we do not allow our minds to actually consider the issue at hand in more ways than just what we percieve. So in other words, communication is only effective (in more complex situations) if we allow ourselves to comprehend the issue, not just the words.
This leads me to the another point: language is only one way of obtaining knowledge, and therefore not effective alone. Ways of knowing something are so connected that they cannot be used alone; they are dependent on each other. However, when dealing with passing on knowledge, language is absolutely necessary. (Just a side note: I consider language to mean communication between two or more parties- communication in the sense that ideas can be conveyed; also I don’t think language is necessarily something spoken- for example, I think body language can convey ideas.) There is no way to pass on knowledge between people if some kind of language isn’t involved. So I don’t necessarily think that knowledge depends on the transmission of ideas/concepts, but it does if the type of knowledge being searched for is knowledge from another person. Then the exposure of concepts is very important because otherwise, how would we be able to get concepts from another person? I don’t think that knowledge is dependent on public scrutiny. Sometimes this can bring out truth that leads to knowledge, but sometimes it doesn’t.
@ Silpa Jetty
I agree with your statements about how letters were personalized, and how now, with the text messaging and emails, communication is no longer as personal. People who wrote letters put more thought into what they wrote and wrote long letters, because it would take a while for them to get to the recipient and for them to respond back. I used to write letters to my friends in Russia because they did not have internet access, so I could not email them. My letters were generally long, covered many topics, and it took me a while to write them because I put a lot of thought into what to say. Now, a short email is sent, and a reply is received in a short amount of time. It takes a few minutes to write an email and not much though is placed into it, which makes technology to be an assault against language.
Text messaging and chatting is a very quick form of communication, but can lead to misunderstandings between the people communicating. Because this form of communication is so fast, people tend to type faster and hit “enter,” and if there was a mistake in what was typed, this could lead to misunderstanding. This can also be fixed very easily, so it would not cause major problems. I myself try to make my responses quicker and to the point, but sometimes they need more explanation.
Reply to Nidhi:
I agree with your idea that “words are not necessary.” Words can often be helpful because they help us to explain something that may be intangible and that we can not think of any other way to explain, but there are ways to explain besides using words. However, I do feel that a mechanism for language is needed, be it a sign, a look, a kiss, words (spoken), letters, etc. Something is needed to communicate, but not specifically words.
I also agree with you on that language does affect how you perceive the world. But I think this has to do with the structure the language represents. The structure of a language usually reflects the structure of the society that language is used in. Cultures that are more strict in terms of a hierarchy usually have languages that demand respect to that hierarchy. I think this perception affects how we want to communicate. I know I personally like to speak in Spanish sometimes or English sometimes, depending on whether I want to be more relaxed or more respectful.
In response to Corina’s post, I agree that it is easy to know something in one language and then translate it directly to another language. However, I believe that in many instances, the original meaning of the message can be lost when it is converted to a different language – especially if what is translated is a reference to a cultural aspect of society.
I speak Telugu and English fluently and when I try to translate from one to another, the translated result doesn’t make as much sense because the entire context changes. For example, there are many phrases in Telugu that when they are translated directly into English, it’s just jumbled words with no meaning. To understand it, one must have a prior understanding of the cultural implications.
I also agree that if you know more than one language, you may have more of an insight into aspects of the society itself, which may enhance your knowledge.
1.
Regardless of what language a person is speaking in, the knowledge they possess remains constant and would not be any different when speaking the two languages. There is a clear separation between the realm of what you know and attempting to communicate it to others. The purpose of language is not to influence what we know, but rather to allow us to convey what we know to others in an exchange of ideas. Drawing from my bilingual background, speaking in two different languages does not at all put me into a “different reality” or alter my perception of the world.
This being said, I feel that knowledge issues can potentially come up when trying to communicate an idea formulated in a language when the idea was formulated in a different one. Some languages are naturally better at expressing certain ideas than others, and a conversion between two in order to convey the idea to others can result in a lot of the meaning being “lost in translation.” For example, In the Russian language the word skushno is apparently extremely different to translate to a different language. If translated to English, it would probably turn out as simply a “dreary boredom,” when in actuality its significance is so much more than that. This is one of many examples of how while language may not alter our knowledge or provide a different framework for reality, it still plays a role in how accurately it allows us to communicate our knowledge to others.
In response to Nikola’s comments on the last question, I disagree that language is the “main ingredient” of knowledge. Language is definitely necessary to communicate with others, but other ways of knowledge can be just as important A newborn baby may not grasp the concepts of language, but does that mean they know nothing? They can sense when they are hungry, they can perceive outside stimuli, they learn from consequences of their actions. I am more inclined to agree with Veronica’s comment that the ways of knowing are interdependent.
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf
^Also I just wanted to share a study I found on the different ways that the Mandarin and English languages treat time.The study explores the idea that language plays a role in shaping conceptions of time and spatial reasoning, and I found it relevant to the first question.
@Kim Procida
I fully agree with you that technological advances in communications has altered language. We also increasingly see chat speak cropping up into everyday conversational language as well. I definitely agree with your view that language is constantly evolving. It is clear from the history of language that language has always been changing. Going one step farther, I would think that the changes to language generally occur to make the interface between one’s knowledge and conveying it through language more accurate and simplistic. In this regard, it could be argued that we should completely embrace this new evolved form of language! “Proper English” is mainly just in place because of culture. In the end if we can convey the same idea in the same way, if not better, then there really should not be any issues with using a new form of language. I don’t think there is a set way that language “should be” because as you said, language has always been changing, and will continue to do so. Restricting the evolution of language would not be a positive since we would use “formal English,” but rather a detriment seeing as we can no longer improve the interface linking knowledge to communication.
How does technological change affect the way language is used and the way communication takes place? How might innovations in language, such as Internet chat or text messaging, be assessed: as contributions to or asaults against how language and communication “should be”?
New technology has been very helpful to us in many different ways. It makes it easier for us to communicate with each other and this is a huge contribution to our language. Making it easier to communicate with each other means that we can share our opinions and this can easily help us enrich our knowledge.
Do we use the same language when we write an English essay and when we’re chatting with friends on Facebook? The answer is yes and that’s because we are communicating using the same language (English) even though we write in different ways. When I chat with my friends I often use abbreviations (idk, g2g, ect.) but I’m still using the same words (maybe not the fancy ones I’d put in an essay) I would use in a travel writing piece.
Technology has helped me a lot in improving my English. I moved to Norway four years ago without knowing anything but a few words in English but now I speak it just as well as my mother tongue Italian. Studying every subject in English has helped me but perhaps I have learned more by chatting with friends and learning how to use spoken English.
A question to those who might want to respond to my comment:
When chatting with our friends, do we use written language, spoken language or a mixture of both?
I agree with what Corina wrote about different languages. I speak three different languages fluently (English, Italian and Spanish) and this has helped me understand different cultures much better.
Learning a language in high school often means that we learn a lot about the culture. For example, IB wants Spanish B students to learn about the Spanish culture so that we can compare it to our own. My situation is different to most people because Italian and Spanish cultures are quite similar. English is very different to Italian but I’m still able to translate anything from one language to the other and the other way around.
I believe that knowing three different languages has helped me become a more knowledgeable person and it is very helpful to understand others.
In response to the second question.
This technological change that we’ve adopted has taken control on how we use our language, spoken and written. There are millions who frequently use new advances such as AIM, Skype, Facebook to name but a few. Our new literacy that has evolved from these means of communicated have now been utilised into to our language. Take SMS or texting for example. We’re allow to send quick messages to people for little less than it would take to call us. However if we we’re to write everything we were going to say, we would most likely exceed the limitations we have on sending a text and we would have to send two texts to get everything we want to say. This is why acronyms have been adopted. Many acronyms that we have adopted from this “text lingo” have been adopted our day-to-day vocabulary. These acronyms now have created a meaning, we apply them to our speech like they are words.
With these technological advances, I believe that our definitions on how language “should be” will change and on how language should be “restricted” because of the ways we’ve begun to language.
In response to Andrea’s question that do we use written or spoken language or a mixture when we talk to our friends.
We don’t necessarily use written language while we talk to our friends but if you mean through means of AIMS, etc I believe we use a verbal informal language but we just write it down. If we are in the present of our friends, we will still be using an informal language may it be with the use of acronyms that we have adopted from the technological advances.
In response to the first question, Corina & Andrea.
Even though I come from an English speaking country, the vast majority of us have completely different ways describing things or speaking to one another. I come form the moray coast of Scotland and I would say within a 15 mile radius there is about 12 different dialects. Even though the structure in the way we communicate is like english, it would be very hard for a native English-speaker to understand.
I think the way we juggle between language is very natural and systematic however, when you constantly think in one language and you want to translate into another, a lot of the times some meaning and understanding can get lost in the translation. This is only the case in English because when I am verbally talking with relatives in the States, there is some misunderstanding between our accents.
However I do agree with Corina and Andrea that languages and accents, etc make us more culturally aware and it builds on how we are able to understand others.
I also agree with Corina when she says that language gives us a broader knowledge and that it helps us understand new cultures. I speak three languages, one of which I am learning at school. In school when we learn a new language, we not only learn the grammar and the verbs, but we are starting to read and learn about the culture (like Andrea said). This helps us when we travel and helps us understand people more, because we have been introduced to more than one culture. My parents are both from different places in the world, that speak different languages and therefore at home I switch between languages and learn about both cultures everyday. This gives me a much broader knowledge because I think in more than one language, I can translate between languages easy and quite often, and I don’t just base things to my own culture.
In response to the second question:
Language is always evolving. English is a language derived from older languages such as Latin. The language used by older generations is not the same as the language that is being used by the younger generations today. Language has changed and adapated to suit the new mode of communication that is technology. Acronyms such as BRB, LOL, g2g, TTYL, and various others are being used more and more often as the electronic era evolves. Right now, those acronyms are used in place of longer phrases. BRB- be right back. LOL- laugh out loud. g2g- got to go. TTYL- talk to you later. In the future, however, this may not always be the case. Perhaps these acroynms will take on a meaning of their own, and future generations will recognize these acroynms as word and phrases without having to break them down into their basic forms. As Declan stated, “these acronyms now have created a meaning, we apply them to our speech like they are words.”
This change has already begun to take place, with people using phrases like LOL in spoken conversations in order to convey the image of someone laughing out loud. These new acronyms were originally for several different purposes. One purpose is to convey emotion if a person is communicating with someone in a situation when body language cannot be used, such as online chat. Another purpose is to enhance the speed of conversations- it takes much less time to type BRB instead of “be right back.”
Perhaps someday a new English language will be formed. The language we now know as English may be merely the basis of this new language. Just as English is derived mostly from Latin and several other languages, future generations may speak and communicate through a language that uses combinations of English derivitives.
Question 1:
Anything in one language that supposedly cannot be understood in another language is due mostly to cultural context. Language is a limited means of communication that benefits us more than harms us because in order to communicate the same idea between two people of different languages forces us to work harder to understand if we really know what we claim to know. For example, in korean there is a term called “aegyo.” The most simple and straightforward definition of this word that can be translated into English is “cuteness or to be cute.” However, “aegyo” can mean several different things in different situations. “Aegyo” is generally a form of physical body language that people use in order to persuade another person to give them whatever it is they want such as attention/emotions or tangible objects. It can be used on a person as a form of flirtation or it can be used on parents, for example, as a demonstration of adoration. In Korean, someone could say “please, pretty please” in a whining voice and a frowning face and it would be seen as “cuteness.” In America, most of the time, that would only be seen as annoying. Perhaps the other person would give in to the whining because it is annoying rather than cute. Even in growing up in different parts of the country where different dialects exist can bring up issues in what we “know” or do not “know.” One example is when a friend was telling me how she had gone to a different state and asked for a “coke.” Where we live, coke is often translated to be the brand of soda, Coca-Cola. However the vendor instead of giving her that type of soda, continuously asked her what kind of coke she wanted. Perhaps what we know in different languages is not so different, but rather that we communicate it differently. Thus it affects the understanding of the person receiving the knowledge.
Everyone lives in their own reality. That reality is shaped by not only language but by all of the ways of knowing: what we can perceive and experience for ourselves. Language can provide a framework all on its own with for example, a specific cultural ritual. But because our world is so interconnected through technology and information diffuses so easily from one language to another, our realities have become more or less the same.
Response: Andrea
I agree with the benefits technology has provided us in promoting communication between different groups of people. It has increased not only the knowledge that we can receive but also the rate at which we receive. I think, however, that through the use of texting as a form of language it has changed our usage of it. For example, I use the word “lol” so often when chatting that I have caught myself saying it aloud while having a conversation with someone else. Also, I think that reverting to a short-cut way of speaking online has affected my vocabulary by restricting it to words that are easiest and fastest to type. It demonstrates how the structure of language is not as important anymore yet it expands the potential of exchanging knowledge.
To answer the question about chatting with friends, personally I use both depending on the situation. In freshmen year I talked with a friend in math class mainly through a notebook because we weren’t allowed to speak aloud. Sometimes written language on the arm of a friend also can prompt curiosity (and therefore conversation). Both written and spoken word are important. Not to mention, body language can be just as effective and at times, more truthful than the use of words (where lying may be easy to do).
In response to Sarah Shin:
Language is an integral part of culture, and I agree with the idea that communication through language can often result in miscommunication because of differences in culture. Different cultures have different words and phrases for things or occurances that other cultures do not necessarily require. For example, does a culture or community that subsists in a warm, snowless climate require as many words for snow as a culture that lives in a very cold and snowy region does? The answer is most likely no. Of course, if someone from the warm culture was asked to describe snow, they could probably do so very effectively. Someone from the colder climate could most likely do the same, but would perhaps require less words and descriptions to express what they mean. Their language would have more descriptions for snow because snow is an essential part of their culture. As Sarah said, “perhaps what we know in different languages is not so different, but rather that we communicate it differently. Thus it affects the understanding of the person receiving the knowledge.”
If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
Well, in a sense, yes. Because language is the best form of communication of our thoughts and ideas, our ideas can only be interpreted through our language. Rather than language being supportive and expansive network, it IS the crippling effect on society. We can not fully understand what someone is sharing because the words they speak (or write) are general interpretations of the complex though complex within our minds. In the Inuit language, there have been 23 recorded words for “snow”, all representing some different type of snow. Some which is falling, some which represent the density and the composition of the snow, while in English we have changed these nouns into verbs. “Falling Snow”, “Hard Snow” “Slushy Snow” “Iced Snow” etc.. I agree with Sarah Shin with the cultural differences between people. How “aegyo” represents cute in korean, but cute has different definitions in diferent cultures. Earlier in one of our TOK classes, Mr. Quale made reference to how when he was in North Africa, young boys would give him a thumbs up. In Western culture, a thumbs up represents a sign of approval. But in this society it represents an urbanized greeting, similar to the american “Whats up?”. Normal behavior varies between culture, same as language. To express language without words is the use of body language, but the body language is very similar to the spoken language. They have generalized patterns and gestures for what is implied, and can be offensive. Another hand gesture is the reversed peace sign. Where the back of the hand is faced towards a person, and the index and middle finger are extended. In the US, this is seen as a urbanized greet, but in the UK, this is seen as a vulgar hand gesture which offends most people. Language is the only limiting factor to us a people, if we are able to break this bind, then we can become a more humane and peaceful society. Conflicts can and have arisen from something as stupid as a syntax error. To this, this makes me personally embarrassed to have an inferior method of communication.
I am impressed with the wonderful ideas generated from these discussions so far. I mentioned to my class that I am uncertain whether using the term “colloquium” is correct for an online activity of this nature–since literally this term denotes the idea of people coming together to talk–but I think I’m finding that as I follow these responses, the term fits fine here.
The use of “@ + name” in order to suggest that he or she is replying to someones’ specific ideas is an interesting example of how language changes based on the technologies (and keys on the keyboard) available to us. This might be a twitter-created symbol that was developed to show we are replying to a specific “tweet.” I’m not certain, and I feel stupid having just used “tweet” as a noun. But it makes me think about things like Twitter, which intentionally limits your language production to 140 characters, even though you have access to an entire keyboard instead of a keypad on a phone.
Teddy’s ideas about the idea of “love” reminded me of a little article I read yesterday in the NY Times: “Even in English, a Language Gap” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/fashion/06love.html). The author points out examples where “subtext does not often transfer between languages.”
I also like the ideas generated not just about different languages, but different dialects as well. One could argue that texting, facebooking, twittering, chatting are all interrelated dialects unto themselves. It’s teenage skaz 2.0!
I found Ilya’s and Silpa’s ideas about the art of letter writing particularly interesting to me as well. Being one who can remember communication “pre-email” and “pre-skype,” writing letters was a form of communication that felt very genuine and real, and something that email can never completely replicate. I can equate it somewhat to the Kindle phenomenon. People tell me, “It’s almost just like reading a book, and you can download books instantaneously. It’s so easy.” My thought process is always the same: “But they are not books, and they never will be. Plus, how many books do you think I can read at once?” Maybe I’m just turning into an old person without realizing it. But sometimes the “more stuff communicated faster” argument just doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree fully with Veronica Martinez when she says “when dealing with passing on knowledge, language is absolutely necessary.” I believe that we perceive, learn and receive knowledge in many different ways. We then process and reason and through this we obtain knowledge. In this process I believe language is vital. In some cases we gain knowledge when others communicate with us. We learn and perceive and this transaction can occur ,for example, in the form of written, spoken or sign language. There, of course, are many other factors that are important when it comes to obtaining knowledge. I do think that once we have that knowledge, however we gained it, to pass it on, or communicate it to someone else, some form of language is needed. People convey their knowledge by writing about it or speaking about it, telling stories, performing plays, writing novels, poems etc. These all involve language. Even when it comes to displaying through emotions, facial expressions, sign language and other forms of body language, they are all still language. one can’t simply look at another person and will them to understand. Without communicating their knowledge through some form of language, the other will never understand it.
This is where the bilingual thing comes in for me. I speak both English and Dutch fluently and I agree with most people that I can still communicate in both languages and translate them. In this way knowledge is not hindered. I do however, believe that if someone is talking to you in a language that you are not 100% comfortable with and they try to convey a certain message, a deeper meaning or share something important with the person, if their knowledge of the language is not hugely extensive, (if for example people speak it fluently, it’s just not their first language) I feel that people could sometimes miss what that person was trying to convey and then in a sense knowledge would be lost. The knowledge that you could have gained form that person did not register properly in your mind and in that case language got in the way of knowledge. The person trying to convey the knowledge would have not succeeded in passing on what they know because of this barrier. I think it could be said, that what the people know is different. they still have knowledge of the event. The one person knows what the other person told him, but he doesn’t experience it in the same way, it doesn’t have the same meaning to him. If you learn and obtain knowledge ( in some cases)by hearing it from other people, if the meaning you learned or perceived is different, than knowledge is different.
Personally I find that when I try to convey a message in a certain language, a experience I had or a specific way I felt, for example in Dutch to someone who is English, I find that I cannot explain it right. I can’t convey how I felt and I find myself desperately grasping for words to describe it. I often give up and decide that the story might not be as important as I thought it was simply because it doesn’t come across as important in English. For me the meaning changes ad thereby the knowledge I am trying to convey changes. Sometimes I can’t explain it properly, sometimes I simply can’t find the words. I find that there are no adequate words to describe certain things in Dutch and vice versa. An example is coming back to the word love. There is no one world for love in Dutch, If you talk about love as a thing there is one word, but to say I love you, you need to string together a sentence to explain it. In Dutch it is more of an emotion that can be felt and is hard to explain, in English however there is just that one word that is supposed to capture it all, these days as Teddy Yoon stated before love is used excessively in the English language and could now mean multiple things such as like and want.
Also, it has happened sometimes that I gained certain knowledge in a certain language and therefore whenever I revisit that thought or experience, I do so in that language . An example is at school in Holland I had French classes and I learned some French, then I came to an English school and took French classes and learned more. Later whenever I saw those words and translated them in my head, I first translated them to Dutch and then from Dutch to English, because that is the way they are registered in my mind. I guess they mean the same thing in all languages but in my mind that is not quite the case and they mean something ever so slightly different.
“11 – Felicia Grady”
Though not completely, i do agree with Felicia that “If people speak more than one language, they still know the same things in each language, as long as they know the languages well enough to express the same ideas.”, that even though a language can have 12 different words for different types of snow, another language can most probably just be able to actually describe the snow it self, but using several words. But in some languages, taking myself as an example with Arabic, different situations or feelings etc. even if translated, have a different effect. Like i believe I’ve mentioned in class before, the word “dog” in Arabic is usually understood as a very bad word, but this is where culture and surroundings come into play. In most Arab countries dogs are not (or at least not usually) pets, they tend to be loose in the streets and are fairly filthy, therefore resulting in the word having a more negative connotation to it.
Personally i don’t believe that everything can be described in words, this reminds me of the old saying “A picture is worth a thousand words”, in some cases this true, like for example war, it cannot truly be described in words, at least not so well that people that have not experienced it before feel as if they have. But a poet does exactly this, or at least tries.
The more i read both English and Arabic i realize how much more “rich” the Arabic language is. Now i know that saying this just might fail me in English, but it is true. I have come across some words that actually have no translation in both single words or phrases or even in full sentences. But it seems that all of these words are straight from the original written Arabic. I can understand if this is as confusing as this may be, seeing as how languages are supposed to evolve for the bettor not for worse.
I’d like to conclude with answering one of the questions, though I believe I’ve already answered number one, but I would like to touch on three. I believe that knowledge doesn’t really depend on language, but the transfer of knowledge does. So you might have a scientific breakthrough in something, but without language, you will not be able to share it with others, and that is what science was all about when first practiced, and “philosophy” or even “TOK” if you so wish to call it, was at first scientists discussing their thoughts and ideas to each other and learning from one another. so really, if we go down to the depths of knowledge, we would not have the knowledge we do today and maybe even none at all if it were not for language. Language, or should i say “communication”, is a large part of our society, culture and civilization. We would have none if not for it.
Question 1
I don’t believe language affects what we ourselves know, but however it can affect the way we communicate the knowledge from one language to another, and there after to others. When we our selves have learnt something it is what it is in our minds and nothing else. When passing on a piece of knowledge after having it translated it can become something else to the other person. For example I speak three languages fluently, so does my sister. When we speak to each other we switch between these different languages in order to make the point we are trying to make much more easily and in fewer words. But sometimes is not just about conveying the message at a faster rate, sometimes the words needed to explain something simply don’t exist in a certain language. I find myself often annoyed at the fact that I can’t directly translate the phrase “doesn’t make any sense” into Swedish or Norwegian. This example (couldn’t find a better one right now) doesn’t take anything away from the meaning of the knowledge, but it makes it more difficult for me as I have a hard time trying to find other words to use.
Another example by be when a book is translated, when I read a book in both English (which was the original) and Norwegian I found that the Norwegian version wasn’t as good. The language I believed was beautiful in the English version had been translated into something much less. Perhaps this was done by a bad translator, but it seems to often happen, some of the meaning behind the words is lost. I have had similar experiences when watching television shows from other countries with subtitles. I find myself wondering if I missed something, yet in reality I didn’t understand because there was no direct translation. My mother who isn’t fluent in English often complains about something in a show, only to have me tell her that the subtitles explained it all wrong. First we may blame whoever wrote this subtitles, but than have a difficult time translating them ourselves.
I agree in what Abdul said about “a picture is worth more than a thousand words”, as this was what was going through my mind as I was reading everyone’s responses. We can’t really describe everything by only using words, and therefore somewhat of the knowledge will be lost, not only because we fail to find an ideal translation.
In conclusion I believe its not just about knowledge being lost in translation, from lanaguage to language, but also lost in translation from one person to another because words can’t explain everything.
If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
It seems that most people here would say that language does not provide a different framework for our reality, yet at the same the agree that it is impossible to convey the exact meaning of a ‘text’ into another language. Isn’t this heading towards contradiction? Since we cannot express an idea across different languages doesn’t that mean that speakers of each language will observe the same things through a different lens or framework? The Amazon tribe provides evidence for this, so do the differences between the korean and english words for ‘love’.
My theory is that our languages are adapted to our practical needs(the Amazon numbers), our culture(In korean we can’t love objects) and our national history. The historical experiences of many countries influence the language(the british language is stereotypically posh, possibly due to it’s colonial history). The history part probably requires more explanation on a cultural background and might even fit within it but i’m not sure yet.
First of all,wow,mad respects to all you guys for writing such deep and interesting comments.
(Question 1)
Language, our friend wikipedia defines language as “a particular kind of system for encoding and decoding information.” Although language is the basis of our communications, language has so much more meaning and knowledge in its depths. I speak fluent English and French, and I’ve been taking Spanish is school for about 8 years now so i speak it with confidence as well. I don’t necessarily think that my lack of a certain word and understanding in one of my languages will affect me in my other languages because using my knowledge in all my languages i can translate and come up with a “somewhat” correct answer. The main difference occurs in speaking the language, i think that when it comes to speaking more than one language, it is always much easier that writing or reading more than one language. I personally think this because since language all derives from the somewhat the same place, using your knowledge of language you could figure out meanings of things. I think that an individual with more than one language, has a more “fortified” and “consistent” knowledge because you learn many different things in different languages, but if you have trouble with one language, you can always turn to your other and get the info you need, and simply plop that answers into place.
To conclude my attempted comment, as an individual I think language as a whole provides a different framework for reality because along with the knowledge of a language, you know the culture and history of the language as well. Thus giving you an edge to learn the language of a country with similar language much easier.
Regarding the second question, there is simply no way language ‘’should be”. Naturally it is used as a tool in communication and then by default it is often wrongly perceived as a regimented, structured, and organized system. Obviously language has descended from these roots but in modern day it has taken a more radical form. Language can be more accurately described as an organism, under constant evolution and change. Certainly it would be more efficient to have an entirely consistent system, yet this deprives the language of its integrity. Language is a tool for the people, meaning that its alteration is inevitable. Over the years our words and grammar have been under gradual adaptations as they have been for centuries before. Language conforms to the needs of the people pertaining to communication with a clear path towards simplicity.
The new technologies that have been introduced in the last few decades have only helped to nurture this development. With different mediums to convey language across, language will again be subject to a higher degree of inevitable adaptation and alteration. Use of services such as chatting, email or facebook can, and probably will, hinder textbook grammatical consistency. However before we can determine whether this is beneficial to or an assault of the integrity of language we need to define what language is and what its function is in society.
Language is in essence a system of encoding and decoding symbols which is basically communication. Nonetheless, we can ask ourselves whether or not this definition is obsolete in a postmodern world. It is definitely relevant of course, but it may not be the only relevant definition or interpretation of the word. Perhaps language can just be seen as any method of communication or transfer of ideas. Given the countless mediums and codes in which information can be conveyed, it seems more logical and accurate to view all language as an aggregate organism under inevitable evolution which technology can only cultivate.
@Anita Kayugira
Whether or not language provides a framework for reality is a complex thought problem. I do agree that for many types of thoughts, language’s presence is not entirely necessary. Our minds do not think solely in the context of words but also in visuals, meaning that regardless of whether we have language or not, we will be able to think about certain things. What boundaries this would impose however, is a different question entirely and it is difficult to quantify exactly how much of our minds the use of language opens up to us.
I think it is straightforward that basic thoughts such as recollections of events could exist without the aid of language. However, this deduction does not take into consideration complex and abstract thoughts. Analysis of things such as emotions or philosophical ideas may be impossible to think about without a language as a framework for interpretation. Some things are simply too complex to be illustrated as visuals and the mind is forced to put it into the context of words. Nonetheless, we must also ask ourselves where language comes from. Like all words, abstract concepts must have been put into words from ideas in someone’s mind. And the same applies to all other complex ideas. Perhaps it is a more likely and logical conclusion to suggest that it is difficult or near impossible to think about such concepts without the use of a language. This obviously indicates that language has done wonders for the average person’s thought processing, because even if my opinion proves incorrect, it is irrefutable that language offers an intricate landscape through which people can express their ideas.
1. If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?
Although I agree that different languages possesses fundamental differences that distinguishes them from others, they do not re-structure our interpretation of the world around us. I was introduced to Farsi at a very young age, and when I became fluent in English, I did not experience any significant change in what I knew. There were difficulties with translating from one language to the other but that was more of a grammatical issue, not my inability to understand a certain concept. If I did encounter an issue, it was generally with the vocabulary used to associate something from one language with that of another.
Languages constantly evolve and adapt as our knowledge and understanding increases, which is why we see different languages adopt words that are not original (television, telephone, iPod, etc.). I understand that there are cultural aspects embedded into each one, but this does not limit our knowledge based upon what language we use. We may have a broader idea of how a language operates, the mechanics involved, and proper use of particular words, but our reality is not contorted. We still live on the same earth and interact with human beings just as everyone else does, which makes me question how my reality may differ from someone else who simply utters different words from his/her mouth.
Response to Bart:
I do agree with your statement that “languages are adapted to our practical needs,” but does this mean we cannot convey these practical needs in another language? As mentioned earlier, the idea of snow may be stressed in one language, but this does not implicate that it cannot be conveyed in another. This is the beauty of language. It is connected to other languages in some way that allows us to interact. We must not forget that each language uprooted itself from that of a previous one and is associated with distinct principles from that of its predecessor. It is impossible to completely shift the framework of one language from that of another, therefore, a piece of the earlier languages identity must be maintained.
Question 1.
I think that the reality is not affected by the language one speaks, because, in my opinion, the knowledge is not defined by language. Knowledge is what you know, meaning you can make sense of it in any language. Different languages can have different structures, vocabulary and syntax, but still, that cannot affect the knowledge. For example, science or maths. No matter what language you speak, they dont change, because they are fixed set of laws for any language. Those laws are universal.
For reality, I am not sure whether that is correct or not, but I think that when you speak different language, it’s like stepping in a different atmospher. It is hard to explain, but the way you feel is different. Different language does not really provide a different framework for reality, but it makes you feel different. For me, I cannot always switch to a different language, while speaking English.
It is not impossible, but it may be a little bit hard, because you are in a different atmosphere.
Second Question: I believe that the change in language occurring due to new advancements in technology is an example of how language is naturally evolving. I feel that the language that is used on websites like twitter and facebook as well as during text and instant messaging is a form of slang. It has evolved into what it is because of the need to relay information faster. I think social need often influencs th echange in language. Just as there are forms of slang in different languages, “IM talk” is just a simple way to express ideas using technology. I don’t feel that this evolution of language is an assault on what language should be because this form of language is just used to pass on information and not fully develop one’s ideas. I don’t think anyone with the desire to express an idea thoughtfully would do so in casual chat speak.
In response to Anita. I agree that speaking more than one language allows people to express themselves more thoroughly because of each language’s unique connotations that come with certain sayings and words. For example, my Spanish teacher told us how calling someone “mi vida” or “mi cielo” can’t really be translated perfectly into English because the meaning is stronger than simply saying “you are my sky”. Since he and his wife speak both English and Spanish, they have many ways to express their love for each other.