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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.