Blog P4Q2
‘Language and thought’ is a key fundamental part of how we, humans use every single day, day to day lifestyle to the way we speak and understand the lexis words people are saying. It is truly a linguistic reflectionism, where language reflects on the thoughts and ideas of a culture, which is the opposite of linguistic determinism.
Both language and thought are similarly the same, such as they both make us speak and understand, as I said previously. However, some theorists believe that language and thought are two separate entities, as the thought comes first, then the language second, which would make sense because you think before you speak.
As the text provides that in the English language that ‘English is not that precise’, such as telling a specific time. In Peru, the Yangua language has five different grammatical form of the past tense. This can bring in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which it states that some languages have one particular word for one item or thing, rather than other languages may have different meanings for a specific word. An example of this would be in the English language there is one specific word that refers to the lexis ‘snow’, while in the Arctic there are three different lexis words the same thing that they would be referring to.
Lera Boroditsky includes in the passage that there are different styles of how a specific verb is addressed in different languages. During her study, she stated that in English you say ‘“She broke the cup’”, while in Spanish or Japanese there would be a different type of verb by saying ‘“the cup broke it self’”. This type of study that Boroditsky did, it shows how language can truly be challenging. An example would be that if you were on Google or on a translator, different forms of sentences and lexis would be shifted around, even though they mean the same thing, it could be hard to understand (thought) as a beginner.
The study of Lera Boroditsky’s study can easily be argued with the theory of Universalism, where the theory states that all languages share a similar pattern and concept. Due to Japanese/Spanish and the English languages having different shifts of lexis and speaking it, it could mean that it can be harder to understand from another person who most likely is new to the language or some type of a different form of it.
Lera Boroditysky also includes in her research that ‘Indonesian verbs never change to express time’ and how that ‘Indonesian speakers can add words’. Here in this sentence is implies that language and thought and still be argued by people. An example would be if people use are in an airport and are looking for something to drink in English you may say ‘Where can I get a drink?’, while Indonesian speakers may say something different, but again, still meaning the same thing like ‘Drink where can I?’ which can still mean the same thing, but still confuse each person who is asking each other.
Overall, the language and thought per se have there own similarities and differences on how people approach it. It all differs to different linguistics, theories or even hypothesis’ that can trigger a question that ‘Does language and thought have one side?’. It totally depends on the type of the person and obviously, the different types of language(s) the person may be speaking in a contract.
First off, you were slightly below word count with 573 words. Next time, make sure to reach word count!
ReplyDeleteAO1: When you discussed the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you did not correctly define it and relied on the example to show what it means.. I would suggest defining it and using the example as support. I would point out that Boroditsky’s study disproves the universalism theory rather than being used to “argue with.” Score: 6
AO2: Your writing was a bit wordy. For example, you said, “Both language and thought are similarly the same.” Try to avoid adding words that aren’t necessary since they tend to make your writing sound circular and repetitive. Also, do not use I unless you are using a personal experience. Score: 3
AO4: You have a clear understanding of linguistic features, but you mostly rely on examples from the extract given. I feel you could have expanded and developed your ideas more by linking, defining, and supporting your points. Score: 6
Total: 15/25
Hey Shahz,
ReplyDeleteAO1: For this section I would give you 7 marks. I think it was clear that you understood the text and had a clear analysis of it. You quoted the text and Lera Boroditsky multiple times throughout your writing and you talked a lot about Lera Boroditsky’s studies. You also spoke on Universalism which was a good reference to your wider study of language.
AO2: For this section I would give you 3 marks. Some of your sentences were worded in a way that lessened the flow of your writing, such as “it all differs to different linguistics” and “both language and thought are similarly the same.” Sentences like these made you writing more difficult for the reader to follow along and it lessened your score as far as the level of accuracy would go.
AO4: For this section I would give you 6 points. You spoke on multiple linguistic features such as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and Universalism and how they related to the text. You explained how these theories were involved in the text and you used examples from the text and your wider study of language to support this.
AO1:
ReplyDelete6/10. I feel like you did a great job at explaining all of the concepts raised in the text and were able to quote the text multiple times throughout your writing. Although, your inability to reach the word count and lack of elaboration brings down the points earned here.
AO2:
3/5. Some sentences are slightly repetitive and unrelative, but I feel that your point is still clear and get the points across.
AO4:
6/10. You introduced concepts like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and elaborated on them effectively. Although I feel like some areas again could be expanded upon.