The Rickford reading mainly focused on the fact that although American quantitative sociolinguistics studies the African American speech community extensively, what does sociolinguistics give back to the African American speech community? And as an even broader question, what does linguistics give back to the world? I think it was an important piece to draw from to understand the sociological implications of linguistics research, but also research in general. I personally related to this question myself, when I was conducting a survey in my community to collect data for a high school research project, however, there was no clear follow up that necessarily gave back to the community in exchange for the data collected. However, I am not sure that it needs to be so transactional, especially in cases where the return is not as relevant or natural. I believe that the study by sociolinguists on the African American speech community already is a contribution back to their speech community, as the speech community is gaining insight into their speech.
The Lupyan reading showed that humans categorize many things that at their roots are the same and inseparable. I believe that language is a two-sided weapon. Language can be used for forming unity, and for teaching or learning things (contrary to one of the views presented, e.g. Gleitman & Papafragou, 2005). I agree with the view that language can express goals effectively, as demonstrated in the humans vs. vehicles task, avoiding ambiguity that would otherwise be introduced without language. However language can also become a barrier to our understanding and actions, often leading to obstacles in our thoughts and actions, implicitly creating inaccurate mental models and associations. Race, status, and stereotypes are typical divisive thought paradigms that have led to conflict at both the local and global scales ever since humans originated on Earth. Language can also hinder creativity and curiosity; for example an Apple designer once mentioned that he no longer is able to come up with fresh perspectives and ideas on his own; he relies on his 4-year-old daughter for inspiration, as his daughter is only just beginning to learn language and has not yet learned enough of language to know how to categorize everything in their respective buckets. In general, we often we miss the most beautiful things in life due to our divisive and categorical ways of thinking. In conclusion, I believe a balance among language use is required. We should take language into consideration when presented it, however we should only hold the words we are given semi-loosely, semi-tightly. We need to still allow for our minds to breathe, and not allow our cognition to be completely trapped or shackled to the confines of categories and concepts that are often implicitly carried by language, in order to ensure we are functioning flexibly but not too seriously, and not as literal words or sentences or books, but as true human beings who are empowered every day by the meaning of language.
The average Nobel Prize-winning physicist is 55, but 65 in literature (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/laureates_ages/all_ages.html). When our backs are creaky and our short-term memories tenuous, our language skills seem as strong as ever.
ReplyDeleteIs language just a lazy excuse for thought? When insight has long left us, do we think in sentences rather than concepts? Certainly, lazy categorical errors, e.g. those in the domains you mention (race, status, and stereotype), seem to be more common in the old. Either way, language seems to both represent thought and drive it.