create your own visited country map
or check our Venice travel guide
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
some more background
I also presented an oral in a class (Theory of Knowledge) at my high school that was on a topic similar to this one. Here's my speaking notes from the oral:
Ways of knowing: perception, language
Areas of knowledge: ethics, language, philosophy, psychology, sociology
Exercise: close your eyes, open them, and focus on a random object. The word for that object should appear as soon as you focus on it, the object is instantly defined and categorized. For example: a chair is a chair; it could be used as a table, a shield, or a plate, but we recognize it instantly as a chair and associate it with sitting down.
-in linguistics, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (SWH) states that there is a relationship between the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it
- language is the means for expressing ideas and understanding the world. It’s the medium through which we communicate and interrelate. Author George Lakoff said that all language is a metaphor: to some extent, this is true; language is a clunky way of grouping things together and of labeling things. For instance, if I say the word ‘house,’ we all picture a different house, this is because language is general, not specific. Also, the word ‘house’ has nothing to do with a house itself, it’s a signifier that stands for what a house is.
- My theory is that language shapes reality. ◊
Problems of knowledge:
Limitations of knowledge: perception this all depends on how I perceive my own thought process. Normally, I think in words and my thoughts are only understandable when I can phrase them. But sometimes, I can have feelings that I can’t explain in words: does this reflect my lack of vocabulary, or an inability of language to encompass thought?
verification I can’t verify that language shapes how I think or that language is necessary for thought. Without an alternative to language, I have no way of knowing that my thought process would be any different. I also have no way of knowing if I can picture concepts without words to describe them, because what I do think of is in words I can describe.
Bias: my analysis of the link between thought and language is based on my own personal perspective. But everybody uses and understands language differently: people think in different languages and have different styles of thought. For some people, thought may precede definition and explanation.
Uncertainty: (of verification) Nietzsche, a postmodernist philosopher, developed a concept of the genealogy of thought, whereby we should seek to understand how we interpret the world by tracing the evolution of thought. Postmodernism claims that people don’t define language, but language defines people. However, when we examine language, the biggest problem is the uncertainty of verification that we can’t critically examine a system using the tools of that system. We have to be able to step outside of language in order to evaluate it holistically, but this is impossible, we can only evaluate it from within itself.
Communication: Another problem is how do I communicate this evaluation to other people and to myself without using language?
Analysis:
How does language shape reality?: we can run a few empirical litmus tests.
-for instance: if I say the word ‘nigger,’ you probably feel an instant repulsion. This word is associated with racism, hatred, ignorance, intolerance, oppression… Our visceral response to this word marks to power of language over us.
-Another example is how we label things: pro-abortion people call themselves “pro-choice” and anti-abortion “pro-life”. This plays into our values: as living beings, we value life, and with free wills, we value choice. But you won’t find people labeling themselves ‘anti-life’ or ‘anti-choice’. Just like with the N-word, language plays off of our values and personalities to determine how we view the world.
-another experiment is contemplating how we think in different languages. Based on my personal knowledge, there are three examples that come to mind:
in Spanish and French, there are gender specific pronouns: ‘el sol’ is masculine, ‘la luna’ is feminine. This may determine the characteristics those language speakers attribute to genders and therefore may determine how genders relate. It can be used to reinforce gender power structures.
Possessive signifiers: in Spanish, we usually say “I’m going to the school”. In English, we say “I’m going to my school.” In English, possessive signifiers are much more common, making English a more possessive language. This could make people feel and act more personally possessive. It draws distinctions based on ownership and membership. It is good for fostering capitalist systems. Languages like Spanish, alternately, may be more conducive to anarchism. (Spain is the only example of a country with successful 20th century anarchism).
Slavic languages like Serbian don’t have articles like ‘a’ or ‘the’. Instead of ‘this is the house’, people say ‘this is house’. This lack of definite and indefinite articles creates a lack of differentiation between things. It may influence people to think in more general terms and not to value specific things over general ones, which is an attitude very conducive to communism.
-an empirical example: of how language shapes reality is of explorer Daniel Everret, who examined the Piraha language of an Amazonian tribe. There were only three number words: one, two, and many. He found that adults were unable to learn even simple mathematics or to easily recount numbers higher than 3.
-fictional examples: George Orwell’s 1984 deals with a totalitarian society with a new language called Newspeak. Newspeak is aimed at discouraging revolution; the underlying idea is that, if people can’t form the words to express the ideas underlying revolution, then they cannot revolt. ‘Bad’ is replaced with ‘ungood’ and ‘freedom’ as a concept is linguistically eliminated. Ayn Rand’s Anthem deals with a similar society where the word ‘I’ is eliminated. People have to refer to themselves as ‘we’. People are thus forced to consider themselves as part of a mass and thus to think selflessly and collectively, which eliminates individuality and unites people.
Divergent points of view: linguists like Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker believe along the lines of the idea that thought is independent of language, and that language is itself meaningless in any fundamental way to human thought, and that humans do not even think in what is called “natural” language, (any of the languages that we actually speak or write), but rather, we think in a meta-language that precedes any spoken language; this language of thought is called “mentalese”.
Experiment 1: Scientists conducting experiments found that, when people tried to commit difficult phrases to memory, they could often remember the ‘gist’ of the phrase but wouldn’t be able to recall the phrase exactly. This suggests that thoughts can be stored without depending on language.
Experiment 2: Scientists also found that people could perform functions in processing spatial information and visual information without language. For instance, when images were rotated and people had to match them up with the non-rotated image, they would identify the matching images without linguistically labeling them. Also, scientists have asserted that some animals are capable of developed thought even without language to give it a context.
Claims/Counterclaims: we come to a stalemate between these two schools of thought because there are problems of knowledge that prevent us from being able to make universal conclusions. For instance: (bias) what if our methods of thought are all different from each other? (perception) What if thought originates on a subconscious level before we become conscious of our thoughts (like when we recall things we had forgotten)? (verification) We have a chicken-and-egg problem of being able to identify what comes first: thought or phrasing of thought: we can’t phrase a thought if it doesn’t exist, but maybe we can’t have a thought if there is no way to phrase it. (uncertainty) We’re trapped inside language, so the only tools we have are linguistic ones, meaning we can never evaluate language from an external perspective (it’s being trapped in a box and trying to find out what color the outside of the box is).
This problem is most relevant to the study of linguistics, but is prevalent in all areas of knowledge because of the ramifications of language in all fields.
My personal opinion: I face the same problems and limitations of knowledge faced by those who make the claims and counter-claims relating to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but my opinion is that language does shape reality for us. Unfortunately, I am biased by my own thought process, I’m uncertain due to my inability to objectively examine language, and I’m unable to verify how my thought process works in order to determine the connection between language and thought. It’s impossible for us to be able to conceive of many abstract concepts like freedom or spirituality without having language to define them, so I feel that language is necessary once we reach certain levels of thought. I also think that the connection grows: as we learn and use language more and more, our thought becomes more dependent on language because we have more tools to outline our thoughts and we therefore use them more, strengthening the connection. Therefore, I believe that language does shape reality.
Ways of knowing: perception, language
Areas of knowledge: ethics, language, philosophy, psychology, sociology
Exercise: close your eyes, open them, and focus on a random object. The word for that object should appear as soon as you focus on it, the object is instantly defined and categorized. For example: a chair is a chair; it could be used as a table, a shield, or a plate, but we recognize it instantly as a chair and associate it with sitting down.
-in linguistics, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (SWH) states that there is a relationship between the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it
- language is the means for expressing ideas and understanding the world. It’s the medium through which we communicate and interrelate. Author George Lakoff said that all language is a metaphor: to some extent, this is true; language is a clunky way of grouping things together and of labeling things. For instance, if I say the word ‘house,’ we all picture a different house, this is because language is general, not specific. Also, the word ‘house’ has nothing to do with a house itself, it’s a signifier that stands for what a house is.
- My theory is that language shapes reality. ◊
Problems of knowledge:
Limitations of knowledge: perception this all depends on how I perceive my own thought process. Normally, I think in words and my thoughts are only understandable when I can phrase them. But sometimes, I can have feelings that I can’t explain in words: does this reflect my lack of vocabulary, or an inability of language to encompass thought?
verification I can’t verify that language shapes how I think or that language is necessary for thought. Without an alternative to language, I have no way of knowing that my thought process would be any different. I also have no way of knowing if I can picture concepts without words to describe them, because what I do think of is in words I can describe.
Bias: my analysis of the link between thought and language is based on my own personal perspective. But everybody uses and understands language differently: people think in different languages and have different styles of thought. For some people, thought may precede definition and explanation.
Uncertainty: (of verification) Nietzsche, a postmodernist philosopher, developed a concept of the genealogy of thought, whereby we should seek to understand how we interpret the world by tracing the evolution of thought. Postmodernism claims that people don’t define language, but language defines people. However, when we examine language, the biggest problem is the uncertainty of verification that we can’t critically examine a system using the tools of that system. We have to be able to step outside of language in order to evaluate it holistically, but this is impossible, we can only evaluate it from within itself.
Communication: Another problem is how do I communicate this evaluation to other people and to myself without using language?
Analysis:
How does language shape reality?: we can run a few empirical litmus tests.
-for instance: if I say the word ‘nigger,’ you probably feel an instant repulsion. This word is associated with racism, hatred, ignorance, intolerance, oppression… Our visceral response to this word marks to power of language over us.
-Another example is how we label things: pro-abortion people call themselves “pro-choice” and anti-abortion “pro-life”. This plays into our values: as living beings, we value life, and with free wills, we value choice. But you won’t find people labeling themselves ‘anti-life’ or ‘anti-choice’. Just like with the N-word, language plays off of our values and personalities to determine how we view the world.
-another experiment is contemplating how we think in different languages. Based on my personal knowledge, there are three examples that come to mind:
in Spanish and French, there are gender specific pronouns: ‘el sol’ is masculine, ‘la luna’ is feminine. This may determine the characteristics those language speakers attribute to genders and therefore may determine how genders relate. It can be used to reinforce gender power structures.
Possessive signifiers: in Spanish, we usually say “I’m going to the school”. In English, we say “I’m going to my school.” In English, possessive signifiers are much more common, making English a more possessive language. This could make people feel and act more personally possessive. It draws distinctions based on ownership and membership. It is good for fostering capitalist systems. Languages like Spanish, alternately, may be more conducive to anarchism. (Spain is the only example of a country with successful 20th century anarchism).
Slavic languages like Serbian don’t have articles like ‘a’ or ‘the’. Instead of ‘this is the house’, people say ‘this is house’. This lack of definite and indefinite articles creates a lack of differentiation between things. It may influence people to think in more general terms and not to value specific things over general ones, which is an attitude very conducive to communism.
-an empirical example: of how language shapes reality is of explorer Daniel Everret, who examined the Piraha language of an Amazonian tribe. There were only three number words: one, two, and many. He found that adults were unable to learn even simple mathematics or to easily recount numbers higher than 3.
-fictional examples: George Orwell’s 1984 deals with a totalitarian society with a new language called Newspeak. Newspeak is aimed at discouraging revolution; the underlying idea is that, if people can’t form the words to express the ideas underlying revolution, then they cannot revolt. ‘Bad’ is replaced with ‘ungood’ and ‘freedom’ as a concept is linguistically eliminated. Ayn Rand’s Anthem deals with a similar society where the word ‘I’ is eliminated. People have to refer to themselves as ‘we’. People are thus forced to consider themselves as part of a mass and thus to think selflessly and collectively, which eliminates individuality and unites people.
Divergent points of view: linguists like Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker believe along the lines of the idea that thought is independent of language, and that language is itself meaningless in any fundamental way to human thought, and that humans do not even think in what is called “natural” language, (any of the languages that we actually speak or write), but rather, we think in a meta-language that precedes any spoken language; this language of thought is called “mentalese”.
Experiment 1: Scientists conducting experiments found that, when people tried to commit difficult phrases to memory, they could often remember the ‘gist’ of the phrase but wouldn’t be able to recall the phrase exactly. This suggests that thoughts can be stored without depending on language.
Experiment 2: Scientists also found that people could perform functions in processing spatial information and visual information without language. For instance, when images were rotated and people had to match them up with the non-rotated image, they would identify the matching images without linguistically labeling them. Also, scientists have asserted that some animals are capable of developed thought even without language to give it a context.
Claims/Counterclaims: we come to a stalemate between these two schools of thought because there are problems of knowledge that prevent us from being able to make universal conclusions. For instance: (bias) what if our methods of thought are all different from each other? (perception) What if thought originates on a subconscious level before we become conscious of our thoughts (like when we recall things we had forgotten)? (verification) We have a chicken-and-egg problem of being able to identify what comes first: thought or phrasing of thought: we can’t phrase a thought if it doesn’t exist, but maybe we can’t have a thought if there is no way to phrase it. (uncertainty) We’re trapped inside language, so the only tools we have are linguistic ones, meaning we can never evaluate language from an external perspective (it’s being trapped in a box and trying to find out what color the outside of the box is).
This problem is most relevant to the study of linguistics, but is prevalent in all areas of knowledge because of the ramifications of language in all fields.
My personal opinion: I face the same problems and limitations of knowledge faced by those who make the claims and counter-claims relating to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but my opinion is that language does shape reality for us. Unfortunately, I am biased by my own thought process, I’m uncertain due to my inability to objectively examine language, and I’m unable to verify how my thought process works in order to determine the connection between language and thought. It’s impossible for us to be able to conceive of many abstract concepts like freedom or spirituality without having language to define them, so I feel that language is necessary once we reach certain levels of thought. I also think that the connection grows: as we learn and use language more and more, our thought becomes more dependent on language because we have more tools to outline our thoughts and we therefore use them more, strengthening the connection. Therefore, I believe that language does shape reality.
Why I'm in this class...
I'm really interested in different languages, because I'm from Washington DC, which is a city with a huge international background. I went to an international (IB) school, where all of my friends were from very eclectic backgrounds, and my neighborhood was a mix of whites, Ethiopians (black), and Salvadoreans (hispanic). So I've always been exposed to different langauges and cultures. As well as this, my parents both work for the World Bank, and so we all travel a lot. My father is from Serbia, and we often visit there, as well as many other countries (the Bank sponsors some of our vacation time as 'home leave'). My mother is from San Francisco, but spent time living in Barcelona and the Philippines as well.
I speak Spanish fluently (we were required to take a language in school) and I speak decent Serbian. As such, I've always been interested in the discontinuities between different languages.
I speak Spanish fluently (we were required to take a language in school) and I speak decent Serbian. As such, I've always been interested in the discontinuities between different languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
