That is a common claim. I kind of doubt it. English is one of the languages that uses the definite article, which makes it more specific than those that do not. Mandarin Chinese, for example, is rather ambiguous, relying on context to make things clear. Speakers of languages that do not use the definite article have a very hard time grasping this concept.
However, there are many other languages that DO use the definite article (like all the Romance languages). Italian, for one, uses the definite article along with the possessive pronoun. So while in English we say "the sister" or "my sister," an Italian might say "la mia sorella" ("the my sister"). Does this make Italian more specific than English?
Okay, 1: Thank you for commenting on this! Every time I visit my page I look mounfully at the "0 comments" sign on this.
2: regarding italian being more specific than english: Absolutely not, as English is the most specific language. We've been over this.
While I find it difficult to agree that the amount of words to specify context is what he could possibly have been referring to, the lack of definite articles in certain languages were something I considered would have given him that impression. I can see how one would feel that a language where "I" is inferred is less specific, but the context one picks up because of the language youre using is still part of the language. It is also arguably not, but as you mentioned only a few languages lack glaring differences like that.
I wonder if part of it had to do with grammar differences? Again, the only reason I can figure someone would feel one language to be "most specific" (by the way, he also posited the fact that it is most specific also made english the BEST language, and why would anyone want or need to learn another one) being the one they were born into would be because their context for language, and the needs that language fulfills, is based on THAT language, as I alluded to in my post. Of course someone would think that the most specific and fulfilling language is the one they were born into and find most easy to wield!
I wish he'd been more willing/capable of communicating the subject more, I really didnt get further in the conversation than his assertion that he was qualified to make that judgement. I am personally very interested in the way cultures develop through linguistic syntax, and it seems far fetched to me to claim that languages used in countries that are just as advanced as we in plenty of fields that require an effective and communicable language to develop and share, such as most fields of arts and sciences, are less specific.
I truly regret that I dont know more of his argument. All I can do is postulate on why one would feel other languages are less sufficient. It cant possibly just be the lack of definite articles in a few.
2) Another claim about the English language is that it has more words than any other language. This claim cannot really be supported.
3) Do cultures develop through linguistic syntax or does linguistic syntax develop through culture? Or is there more of a dialectical relationship? One thing I know from experience is that thinking in different languages changes the *way* I think. Some subjects also come easier to mind in different languages, based on experiential association. I think that sloppy use of language is tied to sloppy thinking in general, though which comes first I don't know. One thing that really strikes me is how poorly our public figures (newscasters, politicians) speak these days. They can barely form sentences, and forget about eloquence. Watching the documentary footage from Johnny Cash's performance in Folsom Prison, the inmates shown there speak a much richer English than we find on CNN, for example. The question is, why?
"One thing I know from experience is that thinking in different languages changes the *way* I think."
This is what I mean, exactly. Religions develop spiritual/existential affinities...by that i mean the spiritual concepts that really catch on...seem to reflect the linguistic syntax. People relate to subtle things that language portrays. I would like to learn more, as I feel that at least in the US this fact is taken advantage of in the media such as ads, news, campaigns, etc. The way people speak affects the way people think, period, and that's all language. BTW I just read your post beyond that quote I cited and realized you mused on similar things. I think a lot of it is intentional, in order to encourage a certain type of associative thinking in viewers. For easier and more efficient support in a campaign, for more viewers, for more buyers. But in the long run, as I mentioned, it changes the way people think. I'm not sure anyone involved feels particularly bad about that.
I think that the way language develops and evolves is a reflection of culture, but that isnt to say that the cultural shifts cant be affected by language either. I dont think it has to be either one or the other...like nature vs nurture, I think it's a false dichotomy.
2#$%@#$5. I wrote out a rather lengthy reply and it was eaten by the submission form.
The gist of it was, one, that I am suspicious of the idea that grammar significantly impacts the ability to hold or expound a concept; culture seems to me to do far, far more.
Two, that while prisoners can use a rich and fluid set of shared concepts and connotations to communicate with one another, CNN et al wish to communicate with a very diverse set of speakers. So they target the lowest common denominator. This is a consequence of increasing sensitivity to diversity. If all they cared about were college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites, they could again use the much richer language of vaguely solipsistic imperialism.
And three, that you need to post more, Eris, and I only didn't comment on this post initially because I am as you know mono-lingual and thus completely unqualified. But I can tell you an awful lot about English, if that's what we're on now.
"...while prisoners can use a rich and fluid set of shared concepts and connotations to communicate with one another, CNN et al wish to communicate with a very diverse set of speakers."
The prisoners interviewed were not using any form of slang, but good, standard American English of the kind that was once the norm in our broadcast media.
"So they target the lowest common denominator."
Very true. Though I think that that denominator has decreased in net value over the years.
"This is a consequence of increasing sensitivity to diversity. If all they cared about were college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites, they could again use the much richer language of vaguely solipsistic imperialism."
Oh what utter bullshit! It has nothing to do with "sensitivity to diversity." It has to do with making a buck, as you said earlier - lowest common denominator and all that. I used the prisoner example 1) because it struck me forcibly, and 2) because these people were precisely *not* "college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites."
There is nothing imperialistic in having full command of the linguistic potential in your language. Gramsci (definitely concerned with hegemony in all forms, not merely "imperialistic") even writes of the importance learning to communicate in a national language in order to break out of hegemony.
Few practices are more hegemonic in effect than the incubation of a dumbed-down mass of uncritical consumers of information and products.
"I am suspicious of the idea that grammar significantly impacts the ability to hold or expound a concept"
One hint that it does very well at doing exactly that is Samuel Delany's studies of what makes a good written story vs a good spoken story. He discovered that the types of grammar used by the most engaging storytellers of both arts was completely different, and that if one tried to apply storybook grammar to a spoken story, the audience lost interest immediately. His idea was that it is because people take in information differently when they read thing than they do when they hear them, so the descriptors have to come first aurally, whereas the subjects have to come first in sentences visually (that is an incredibly incomplete and bare bones summary. It's more of a single example out of many that he discovered. I'd suggest finding it on the internet). The way you talk affects the way people hear you, what they pick up as most important, what their minds absorb because it is caught as a priority and what they forget about even unintentionally.
When we talk about politicians barely being able to put a sentence together, this is what theyre doing, as you said, to "appeal to the lowest common denomenator". Sarah Palin often made sentences and points that made absolutely no sense as sentences, but that had a series of hot button words put into sentences that were, technically, grammatically recognizable and easily reacted to.
Culture and language, as my point has been, are inseparable. Again, I never said that language propels a brain's development further, I was saying they are symbiotic.
I, for example, think that if lower classes learned to speak eloquently, they would think differently. People who can use an elaborate and shared language properly will find there are more people to who they can relate, which generally broadens a persons sense of place, worth, mindfulness, etc. That might be a psychological point rather than linguistic, but it still has to do with language's place in the human mind. It's the way we communicate, and so shares a direct link to our psychological makeup.
I feel bad for saying that I never said that language propels a brains development further, because I totally think it does.
I just dont think it's the only thing that develops brains. It's the hands with which our minds are able to reach out and explore other people and the world. If you have poor language, you have half developed flipper hands. And then it's hard to hold your beer. Not that someone with that kind of shortcoming cant learn to do all the things that they need to do day to day, but they'll never play the piano.
I'm in love with that metaphor, and yes i intentionally derailed it.
That is a common claim. I kind of doubt it. English is one of the languages that uses the definite article, which makes it more specific than those that do not. Mandarin Chinese, for example, is rather ambiguous, relying on context to make things clear. Speakers of languages that do not use the definite article have a very hard time grasping this concept.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are many other languages that DO use the definite article (like all the Romance languages). Italian, for one, uses the definite article along with the possessive pronoun. So while in English we say "the sister" or "my sister," an Italian might say "la mia sorella" ("the my sister"). Does this make Italian more specific than English?
Okay, 1: Thank you for commenting on this! Every time I visit my page I look mounfully at the "0 comments" sign on this.
ReplyDelete2: regarding italian being more specific than english: Absolutely not, as English is the most specific language. We've been over this.
While I find it difficult to agree that the amount of words to specify context is what he could possibly have been referring to, the lack of definite articles in certain languages were something I considered would have given him that impression. I can see how one would feel that a language where "I" is inferred is less specific, but the context one picks up because of the language youre using is still part of the language. It is also arguably not, but as you mentioned only a few languages lack glaring differences like that.
I wonder if part of it had to do with grammar differences? Again, the only reason I can figure someone would feel one language to be "most specific" (by the way, he also posited the fact that it is most specific also made english the BEST language, and why would anyone want or need to learn another one) being the one they were born into would be because their context for language, and the needs that language fulfills, is based on THAT language, as I alluded to in my post. Of course someone would think that the most specific and fulfilling language is the one they were born into and find most easy to wield!
I wish he'd been more willing/capable of communicating the subject more, I really didnt get further in the conversation than his assertion that he was qualified to make that judgement. I am personally very interested in the way cultures develop through linguistic syntax, and it seems far fetched to me to claim that languages used in countries that are just as advanced as we in plenty of fields that require an effective and communicable language to develop and share, such as most fields of arts and sciences, are less specific.
I truly regret that I dont know more of his argument. All I can do is postulate on why one would feel other languages are less sufficient. It cant possibly just be the lack of definite articles in a few.
ReplyDelete1) You're quite welcome!
ReplyDelete2) Another claim about the English language is that it has more words than any other language. This claim cannot really be supported.
3) Do cultures develop through linguistic syntax or does linguistic syntax develop through culture? Or is there more of a dialectical relationship? One thing I know from experience is that thinking in different languages changes the *way* I think. Some subjects also come easier to mind in different languages, based on experiential association. I think that sloppy use of language is tied to sloppy thinking in general, though which comes first I don't know. One thing that really strikes me is how poorly our public figures (newscasters, politicians) speak these days. They can barely form sentences, and forget about eloquence. Watching the documentary footage from Johnny Cash's performance in Folsom Prison, the inmates shown there speak a much richer English than we find on CNN, for example. The question is, why?
"One thing I know from experience is that thinking in different languages changes the *way* I think."
ReplyDeleteThis is what I mean, exactly. Religions develop spiritual/existential affinities...by that i mean the spiritual concepts that really catch on...seem to reflect the linguistic syntax. People relate to subtle things that language portrays. I would like to learn more, as I feel that at least in the US this fact is taken advantage of in the media such as ads, news, campaigns, etc. The way people speak affects the way people think, period, and that's all language. BTW I just read your post beyond that quote I cited and realized you mused on similar things. I think a lot of it is intentional, in order to encourage a certain type of associative thinking in viewers. For easier and more efficient support in a campaign, for more viewers, for more buyers. But in the long run, as I mentioned, it changes the way people think. I'm not sure anyone involved feels particularly bad about that.
I think that the way language develops and evolves is a reflection of culture, but that isnt to say that the cultural shifts cant be affected by language either. I dont think it has to be either one or the other...like nature vs nurture, I think it's a false dichotomy.
2#$%@#$5. I wrote out a rather lengthy reply and it was eaten by the submission form.
ReplyDeleteThe gist of it was, one, that I am suspicious of the idea that grammar significantly impacts the ability to hold or expound a concept; culture seems to me to do far, far more.
Two, that while prisoners can use a rich and fluid set of shared concepts and connotations to communicate with one another, CNN et al wish to communicate with a very diverse set of speakers. So they target the lowest common denominator. This is a consequence of increasing sensitivity to diversity. If all they cared about were college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites, they could again use the much richer language of vaguely solipsistic imperialism.
And three, that you need to post more, Eris, and I only didn't comment on this post initially because I am as you know mono-lingual and thus completely unqualified. But I can tell you an awful lot about English, if that's what we're on now.
"...while prisoners can use a rich and fluid set of shared concepts and connotations to communicate with one another, CNN et al wish to communicate with a very diverse set of speakers."
ReplyDeleteThe prisoners interviewed were not using any form of slang, but good, standard American English of the kind that was once the norm in our broadcast media.
"So they target the lowest common denominator."
Very true. Though I think that that denominator has decreased in net value over the years.
"This is a consequence of increasing sensitivity to diversity. If all they cared about were college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites, they could again use the much richer language of vaguely solipsistic imperialism."
Oh what utter bullshit! It has nothing to do with "sensitivity to diversity." It has to do with making a buck, as you said earlier - lowest common denominator and all that. I used the prisoner example 1) because it struck me forcibly, and 2) because these people were precisely *not* "college-educated middle and upper class loosely conservative and well-invested suburban whites."
There is nothing imperialistic in having full command of the linguistic potential in your language. Gramsci (definitely concerned with hegemony in all forms, not merely "imperialistic") even writes of the importance learning to communicate in a national language in order to break out of hegemony.
Few practices are more hegemonic in effect than the incubation of a dumbed-down mass of uncritical consumers of information and products.
"I am suspicious of the idea that grammar significantly impacts the ability to hold or expound a concept"
ReplyDeleteOne hint that it does very well at doing exactly that is Samuel Delany's studies of what makes a good written story vs a good spoken story. He discovered that the types of grammar used by the most engaging storytellers of both arts was completely different, and that if one tried to apply storybook grammar to a spoken story, the audience lost interest immediately. His idea was that it is because people take in information differently when they read thing than they do when they hear them, so the descriptors have to come first aurally, whereas the subjects have to come first in sentences visually (that is an incredibly incomplete and bare bones summary. It's more of a single example out of many that he discovered. I'd suggest finding it on the internet). The way you talk affects the way people hear you, what they pick up as most important, what their minds absorb because it is caught as a priority and what they forget about even unintentionally.
When we talk about politicians barely being able to put a sentence together, this is what theyre doing, as you said, to "appeal to the lowest common denomenator". Sarah Palin often made sentences and points that made absolutely no sense as sentences, but that had a series of hot button words put into sentences that were, technically, grammatically recognizable and easily reacted to.
Culture and language, as my point has been, are inseparable. Again, I never said that language propels a brain's development further, I was saying they are symbiotic.
I, for example, think that if lower classes learned to speak eloquently, they would think differently. People who can use an elaborate and shared language properly will find there are more people to who they can relate, which generally broadens a persons sense of place, worth, mindfulness, etc. That might be a psychological point rather than linguistic, but it still has to do with language's place in the human mind. It's the way we communicate, and so shares a direct link to our psychological makeup.
I feel bad for saying that I never said that language propels a brains development further, because I totally think it does.
ReplyDeleteI just dont think it's the only thing that develops brains. It's the hands with which our minds are able to reach out and explore other people and the world. If you have poor language, you have half developed flipper hands. And then it's hard to hold your beer. Not that someone with that kind of shortcoming cant learn to do all the things that they need to do day to day, but they'll never play the piano.
I'm in love with that metaphor, and yes i intentionally derailed it.
This struck me as relevant and hilarious. http://www.fakeposters.com/posters/advertising/
ReplyDeleteAlright...
ReplyDeleteThis might sound really creepy, maybe even kind of "out there"....
BUT what if you could just click "Play" to LISTEN to a short, "musical tone"...
And INSTANTLY attract MORE MONEY into your LIFE?
What I'm talking about is hundreds... even thousands of dollars!
Do you think it's too EASY? Think it's IMPOSSIBLE?!?
Well, I'll be the one to tell you the news..
Many times the most magical blessings life has to offer are also the EASIEST!
In fact, I will provide you with PROOF by letting you listen to a real-life "miracle wealth building tone" I've synthesized...
And do it FREE (no strings attached).
You just click "Play" and you will start having more money come into your life... starting pretty much right away...
GO here now to play this marvelous "Miracle Wealth Building Tone" - it's my gift to you!