Hor and a basic understanding of Paper 4 Question 2
Every day, a different language is being spoken at every second. There are thousands of languages across the globe that are used differently and have different features of language. Some of these differences in usage include changes in tense, grammar, and accents. Language is understood through the relationship between languages and and the self.
A Stanford University researcher, Lera Boroditsky, explores the relationship between language and the self. She explores this relationship by using a teacup for reference. In an instance where a cup is broken, Boroditsky explains that it would likely be said as “she broke the cup” in English. On the other hand, however, it would be said differently in other languages such as Japanese or Spanish because “intent matters.” If the cup was broken accidentally, it would be said that “the cup broke itself.” Only if it was deliberately done, does the verb form matter in this case. It is evident here that languages differ as they are based on actions and thoughts in most cases.
Lera Boroditsky also explored the linguistic features that may inform more fundamental differences in how cultures convey their relationship to concepts such as space, time or gender. This is a relationship between language and self-identity. An individual’s self-identity is the awareness of their own unique characteristics in relation to the social groups that are around them. It is influenced by surrounding situations that happen over time.
It should be noted that Boroditsky’s work is directly supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which was developed in 1929. This hypothesis states that the lexis and grammatical structure of a language directly determines the way that the speakers view the world, since the vocabulary available either restricts or enlarges their perspectives. Linguistic determinism is also seen in the text. As mentioned previously, the broken cup discussion shows how languages respond to accidents. This discussion highlights how different cultures and languages think. Those who speak English tend to immediately place blame on someone for an accident. However, in other languages, there is a thought process behind it and blame is not immediately placed. This shows how a person’s language influences the interpretation of a similar issue in a different manner from another who may speak another language.
Another supporting theory of Lera Boroditsky’s work is John Locke’s Tabula Rasa, ‘blank slate,’ theory, which states that at birth the mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. This is seen in Lera Boroditsky’s research as she gives an example of time. Boroditsky explains that “some languages require their speakers to include temporal information in every utterance.” To show this, Boroditsky exemplifies the Perivian Yagua tribe, whose language has “5 distinct grammatical forms of the past tense.” These distinct grammatical forms each relate to different time periods. Each of these forms support John Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory as the Yagua have grown up with these language rules, and therefore do not think similarly to other languages. Because of this, the language that they are taught and raised with has an impact on their sense of thought when it comes to particular concepts.
A connection to Howard Giles’ Communication Accommodation theory can be seen in Lera Boroditsky’s work as well. This theory seeks to explain and predict why, when, and how people adjust their communicative behavior during social interaction, and what social consequences result from those adjustments. It can be inferred that people adjust the way they speak to others or around others to accommodate their surroundings.
It can be concluded that language and the self are directly related to each other and influence the way we think, act, or say things. However, it is apparent that the thought is most reflective of language.
Hey Hor
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading this blog, even though it seemed kind of bulky and hard to read,
A01- While reading your blog, it is seen that you have a detailed understanding of the text. You understood the context, meaning, and the audience and referenced specific points . You also showed understanding of context, meaning and audience by showing that there “She explores this relationship by using a teacup for reference. In an instance where a cup is broken, Boroditsky explains that it would likely be said as “she broke the cup” in English. On the other hand, however, it would be said differently in other languages such as Japanese or Spanish because “intent matters” Showing the difference in contexts. Due to this I give you a score of 8 marks
A02 - Your blog, although it had errors, the errors did not impede or interrupt communication between you and the readers. You also had good written ideas that were expanded on and developed clearly with good evidence. For example, your idea of linguistic features that Lera Boroditsky mentioned. I thought that this idea was good since it was introduced in a separate paragraph and all of the idea was developed in that paragraph, For this section I give you a score of 4 out of 5
A04- while reading your blog, It was very clear and understood the text and content as well as reference to wider study of linguistic issues and concepts. You proved this by talking about the Communication Accommodation theory. Due to this, on this section I will give you a score of 8 marks
Total of 20/25
ReplyDeleteHey JORGE!
AO1: There is a clear understanding of text which is seen by “A Stanford University researcher, Lera Boroditsky, explores the relationship between language and the self.” and “It should be noted that Boroditsky’s work is directly supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which was developed in 1929.” This is because the quotes show that you kind of understand the meaning/context/audience of the text since you talk about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, the relationship between language and the self is not necessarily correct since it is actually about the link between language and thought. But it was a good point.
There is a clear reference to specific points which can be seen by quotations such as “Lera Boroditsky also explored the linguistic features that may inform more fundamental differences in how cultures convey their relationship to concepts such as space, time or gender.“ and “It should be noted that Boroditsky’s work is directly supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which was developed in 1929.”, “Boroditsky explains that “some languages require their speakers to include temporal information in every utterance””, and finally “A connection to Howard Giles’ Communication Accommodation theory can be seen in Lera Boroditsky’s work as well.”.
[5]
AO2: The blog has effective expression seen by the conclusion at the end, “It can be concluded that language and the self are directly related to each other and influence the way we think, act, or say things. However, it is apparent that the thought is most reflective of language.“ with zero errors.
Content is fully relevant which is seen by the consistent focus on the question at hand.
[4]
AO4: The following theories are used: “It should be noted that Boroditsky’s work is directly supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which was developed in 1929. This hypothesis states that the lexis and grammatical structure of a language directly determines the way that the speakers view the world, since the vocabulary available either restricts or enlarges their perspectives.”
“Linguistic determinism is also seen in the text.”
“Another supporting theory of Lera Boroditsky’s work is John Locke’s Tabula Rasa, ‘blank slate,’ theory, which states that at birth the mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences.
A connection to Howard Giles’ Communication Accommodation theory can be seen in Lera Boroditsky’s work as well. This theory seeks to explain and predict why, when, and how people adjust their communicative behavior during social interaction, and what social consequences result from those adjustments. It can be inferred that people adjust the way they speak to others or around others to accommodate their surroundings.”
[6]
TOTAL: 15