In a great movie Sound of Music, Maria sings a song that goes, "Let's start from the very beginning- it's a very good place to start." Starting with the Haspelmath reading, I learned the most basic concept- the concept of a word. We then built up to complex lexemes and morphemes, how to break up words like read-er, kind-ness, un-friendly, un-happy, the fact that chameleon is monomorphic (cool), the fact that we morph words based on the context and the tense to sound the way we want them too.
Moreover, I learned that linguists describe language in process terms- aka, language is an action! Everyday, we are building a world around us out of language. Starting from the very first concept- a word, and building up complex vocabularies and mechanisms for describing experiences. Hiking in Pt. Reyes this weekend, my friends and I had a conversation about how we remember events. We thought about why we liked surfing, and how, if you tried to explain it to someone you would only be able to explain the pieces- there would be no way to grasp the whole thing. And yet everyday, with language, we try to explain what's in front of us, this huge nebulous thing that is the world, placed into a limited (though extensive) lexicon.
In the Slobin reading, that was very much on my mind. When you consider the differences between Spanish and English speakers (English speakers use words like "climbing" "clambering" "popping out" Spanish speakers don't), it's easy to wonder about how we express motion, how we build up stories and sequence our worlds. When the Australian aboriginals focus on paths and journeys, it is due largely to their culture that this is the case. I remember learning in world religions all about the song maps they used to locate water and resources in the desert. Thus, not only did their world shape their language, but language, in an amazing and magical way, shaped their world.
The Atkins Levin reading fascinated me and I was left wanting to learn more. Not only were there some beautiful sentences with those synonyms, but it was pretty unbelievable how language is built- wherein slight changes of meaning in words largely affect their behavior, and our implicit understandings of how language is used (i.e. that all speakers of the English language can agree it should be milk-shake and not milk-tremble or that a lip should quiver and not quake) Kind of crazy when you really think about it, and I'd love to learn more.
You made some great points in your blog post. First I really liked how you brought up the Slobin reading's discussion of Australian aboriginals and how they focus on paths and journeys in their language. It is very interesting how culture contributes to language structure/linguistics. Another example of this is how the word for "China" in Chinese is "中国“ which literally means "middle country" because China back in the day thought they were the center of the world. Their culture and cultural notions affected their language. I think this starts to bring us into the realm of historical linguistics, which I find very fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI also like your point about how we say "milk-shake" and not "milk-tremble." I supposed that this term gradually caught on after one person invented the term, and to that person "shake" sounded more appropriate than "tremble." Shake doesn't have the same connotations that "tremble" has. "Tremble" holds somewhat of a negative connotation, so perhaps that's why it was not chosen to represent that particular dessert. But why was it not called "milk-shimmy" or "milk-stir"? Again, it is very fascinating and I'd like to know the history behind this term as well.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post! For me, the discussion of the limitations of our language fascinates me the most. You mention the inability to fully describe the experience of surfing using our lexicon. We build our world out of the words we use but often do not notice how these words can limit our conception of reality. When English speakers choose to describe actions with different details, they select for and create their interpretation of what happens.
I also agree that the discussion of the shake family of words illustrated this point about the nebulous nature of the world around us. The idea that we understand language innately surfaces here. We know that shake and tremble and quiver have different connotations and describe the world differently, despite inherent similarities. Thus, the power of language is that of connotation. When we associate certain words with certain things, we cannot describe what is before us without carrying these associations with us.
I like that you used a part from each reading to tell this story of building up language. For me the readings were very dry and really just made me not want to speak anymore let alone think about language, but you frame them in a very refreshing light. And you're right. What we do with language is an incredibly beautiful things. How we subconsciously decide what should go where and when things are proper enough to be voiced is a fascinating process. I also, found the interchangeability (or lackthereof) of words to be a neat discussion in the Atkins Levin reading because while all possible combinations and orderings of words are used by today's speakers some of them just intrinsically sound better than others.
ReplyDeleteGenuinely intrigued by the discussion of the aboriginals using words as an integral part of knowing their world and without them really not being able to navigate efficiently. Kind of insane, how often we go without words juxtaposed with how crucial they can become.
I definitely relate to the thoughts here on Slobin. I agree that it's really interesting how the language we use shapes our world and our experiences of it. I'd have to look up an example but I'm fairly sure that there our words for emotions/experiences that exist in some languages and not in others. Therefore, when you grow up speaking a specific language, there may be identifiable emotions or experiences that you can talk about with other people that individuals raised with other languages may have never created a word for and therefore never refer to. And beyond that, even the way a language works and the methods it offers for expression limit the ways in which you can feel, I'd argue. Super interesting.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point about our language shaping our world, as I find myself thinking about this quite a bit. It's interesting that this world-shaping device seems to fall into certain tacit rules that the population as a whole seems to agree on, for the most part. This is also relevant when thinking about language as a core feature of humanity; something inseparable from our species that develops similarly in humans across the globe.
ReplyDeleteI think that what you say about language only conveying pieces of a truth is interesting. We try so hard to convey the whole truth of what we have experienced, but doing so is impossible. I think that it is interesting to think about how we are able to empathize and fill in the gaps that this language "barrier" causes.
ReplyDelete