After your class has written the in-class essay, please read Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Genie. I apologize for the disturbing content, but the material is essential for our future discussion of Language. Once you have read these chapters, please answer the following questions and post them to your blog. The answers are due March 4.
1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
Psamtik's experiment was to take 2 babies from their mothers at birth and place them in the isolation of a hut of a shepherd who would raise them without speaking to them, and then see what language the babies naturally began to speak, the "language of the world". This way Psamtik hoped to learn what the original language of the world was, but he didn't find out because the experiment didn't really work; the babies only said "bekos" which means bread in Phrygian, but all the other scientists since then brought out the problems with this experiment and its results, so clearly Psamtik did not truely find what he was looking for.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
In his chapter and about naming, reference, and meaning, Abel talks about the need for science and metaphysics to make linguistic meaning... But I'm not sure what the connection is or if this is the right one :( I don't really get this question...
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Rymer explains that "they are both often constrained to be more observational than experimental-astronomy because its subjects are too distant to be experimented on, linguistics because its subjects are too human." (5-6) In other words, the sciences are similar in that it is hard to experiment and thus test theories on their subjects.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
The worker was concerned because the girl looked in terrible health; she had a "halting gait" and was "unnaturally stooped, hands help up as though resting on an invisible rail." Genie's malnutrition was also showing as she was very skinny and pale, etc., not anything like a normal healthy child. At first the social worker thought Genie had autism, but with more investigation their concerns for the child deepened.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
Language started out as being supposed to come from God like everything else, then after Descartes proposed the independence of the soul from the body and the mind from the brain, there was a way for science to get in there and explore linguistics without heresy, and then Epicurus felt that language was something of nature, so then biologists started researching the brain and its language... The questions then formed by linguists concerning the relationship of language to man turned into psychology.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Through Deaf Eyes & Abel In Class Essay
Using the PBS documentary "Through Deaf Eyes" and chapters 7 and 19 of Abel's book Man Is the Measure, specifically Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, sense, and reference, I will discuss the extent to which the use of Oralism and Sign Language impact the deaf view of reality. One could ask if there is such a thing as reality - since everyone seems to have a different paradigm of the world and a different perspective/opinion of what happens, how do we know which one is correct, which one is the "reality"? One could also ask how I, a hearing person, could attempt to account for how deaf people view reality, but based on what we saw in the film and my general knowledge of deaf people and sign language, I shall attempt to answer this question.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that how we use language affects our perception of the world applies to deaf culture because some people argue that people who only know how to use sign language or who can't hear can't do as much and can't live normal lives, but the deaf people featured in "Through Deaf Eyes" say that they have perfectly functioning and normal lives and can do pretty much as much as a hearing person. One man in the video says that hearing and speaking are not the keys to the universe or to success, the key is knowledge, and reading in order to soak up all that knowledge. He could have this perspective because of his using sign language; because he does not hear and speak but can read and communicate using hand signs, he is of the opinion that hearing and speaking is not what matters, it is simply knowledge, which he obviously feels he can attain through reading and signing only. Another part of Deaf Culture is the will to communicate despite obstacles, and the independence they seem to feel they have from not relying on sounds, which hearing people do not have from their use of hearing and oralism; communication we tend to take for granted, and we rely on sounds much more than we realize. Also, because in sign language one talks with their hands, displaying visual signs to communicate with another viewer, perhaps deaf people using sign language see things more visually and focus on recreating images in life to communicate with others rather than making sounds to refer to images like hearers do. So in the respect of deaf people perceiving the world and humanity and what it takes to thrive differently than hearers do because of their use of sign language and not hearing and oralism, sign language can apparently change thinking a little, but how does it facilitate, extend, direct, or limit thinking?
Relating back to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how using a certain language changes perspective, oralism and sign language both direct thinking in different ways because oralism trains a person to rely on sounds and repeating taught vocal sounds which are given meaning, whereas, while similar in that not all signs are obviously representative of a larger action or real object and signs have to be taught and given meaning, sign language trains one to use their hands and eyes and visuals, and to read the signs and/or lips of another person. Each "language" in some ways limits speakers to using one medium - either sound or sight and relying on that for communication, although sometimes we accompany speech with hand gestures and read people's faces to sense feeling and expression, etc. Sign language facilitates a more visual train of thoughts and portrayals where many signs are closer to the real idea or action than a sound we make come out of our throat (for example, the word "walk" vs. the hand sign with the fingers 'walking' across the palm). Oralism facilitates, I think, more varied ways of expressing oneself because one can use voice intonation and inflection to convey emotion, and oralism can accompany the other "languages" we normally use with facial expressions and body language, etc. The creation of sign language itself, since speech existed before, was a great extension to thinking because so many people who couldn't hear wouldn't have been able to understand and communicate as well as those who could speak. Another way sign language seems to extend thinking, according to what we saw in the documentary Through Deaf Eyes and what the deaf people in the video said, is that users of this "language" think more optimistically, not of what they and others can't do, but what they can do, all their abilities and strengths. But while these languages can affect ways of thinking for users, their effect on what the deaf people KNOW is not as evident.
The knowledge by practice of deaf people who use signing is different from that of hearers or other users of oralism because they have been practicing or repeating different things (signing vs. speaking) and thus their "know-HOW"s (pieces of personal knowledge) are different, but their "know-THAT"s or impersonal knowledge is not different simply because of their use of either sign language or oralism to communicate. As far as the knowledge that deaf people have being EXPRESSED differently in each "language", I think that is a given; what people know is expressed differently in French than it is in English, and differently in sign language than in speech of any oral language. And while I do not think each language provides a different framework of reality, I do think each provides a different presentation of reality; a deaf user of sign language and a hearing (or deaf) user of oralism both see someone running down the street, and they don't view it as different events happening, they just express the idea of the reality (a person running) in either speech or in hand signs. This is the way languages work, reality is presented/communicated to others in more of one way to another but ultimately the humans usually perceive the same basic reality. I think this also applies when dealing with sense and reference.
Abel explains sense as sort of the real meaning of the word, what it's value or definition is almost, whereas reference is a more specific designation of that meaning, like an example you could point to. The deaf might use signing as a sort of "sense" of what they think is going on, but in order to connect with other users of oralism they would need to use oralism like humans use reference in order to specify; to a an oralist a sign may not mean much, so they have to use a word for the other person to grasp its meaning. Abel's quote on page 68, "Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” shows that deaf users of sign language don't need oral words to understand meaning because meaning is not identical to words, nor is it identical signs, meaning is just communicated through whatever human action holds meaning because it has been ordained so by the speech community, whether that be a sign symbol or a linguistic symbol or any meaningful symbol known between communicators. We hearers use "linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69), but deaf people use sign symbols to organize experience. Essentially these languages are the same (in function and result).
What I have been claiming - that oralism and sign use different approaches to expressing thoughts and may even guide thoughts in a general pattern, but are essentially both languages to communicate the same reality of humans - implies that hearers and other users of oralism who look down on users of sign and vice versa are making a mistake; it is not two different groups of people that, because they communicate using different forms of "speech", view reality totally different. We are all humans developing and using symbols of whatever kind we may to organize the same experience. My claims would also imply that I know about using sign language versus oralism when in fact I do not know a whole lot about it, so a counter-claim might be that people who really use sign language do view reality through "deaf eyes" and because they cannot hear or speak they are missing both a chunk of reality and experiences that are happening all around them (noises), and an aspect of human interaction that is meant to occur (speech). One could use both oralism and sign language and still not know the answer to this question, how our view of reality is affected by our language, because there will always be many other factors impacting our view of reality and clouding our view, and inevitably, we cannot get away from ourselves and how we see things as an individual human.
Through looking at Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and sense and reference, and the views expressed by the deaf people in "Through Deaf Eyes" we see that the use of oralism or sign language can slightly affect a deaf person's view of reality, but it more affects the way they present the reality in communication than what they understand or know. The core of both sign language and oralism is using designated symbols to refer to pieces of reality, and after all, both the signer and the oralist see the same thing with their eyes, which are still the same.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that how we use language affects our perception of the world applies to deaf culture because some people argue that people who only know how to use sign language or who can't hear can't do as much and can't live normal lives, but the deaf people featured in "Through Deaf Eyes" say that they have perfectly functioning and normal lives and can do pretty much as much as a hearing person. One man in the video says that hearing and speaking are not the keys to the universe or to success, the key is knowledge, and reading in order to soak up all that knowledge. He could have this perspective because of his using sign language; because he does not hear and speak but can read and communicate using hand signs, he is of the opinion that hearing and speaking is not what matters, it is simply knowledge, which he obviously feels he can attain through reading and signing only. Another part of Deaf Culture is the will to communicate despite obstacles, and the independence they seem to feel they have from not relying on sounds, which hearing people do not have from their use of hearing and oralism; communication we tend to take for granted, and we rely on sounds much more than we realize. Also, because in sign language one talks with their hands, displaying visual signs to communicate with another viewer, perhaps deaf people using sign language see things more visually and focus on recreating images in life to communicate with others rather than making sounds to refer to images like hearers do. So in the respect of deaf people perceiving the world and humanity and what it takes to thrive differently than hearers do because of their use of sign language and not hearing and oralism, sign language can apparently change thinking a little, but how does it facilitate, extend, direct, or limit thinking?
Relating back to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how using a certain language changes perspective, oralism and sign language both direct thinking in different ways because oralism trains a person to rely on sounds and repeating taught vocal sounds which are given meaning, whereas, while similar in that not all signs are obviously representative of a larger action or real object and signs have to be taught and given meaning, sign language trains one to use their hands and eyes and visuals, and to read the signs and/or lips of another person. Each "language" in some ways limits speakers to using one medium - either sound or sight and relying on that for communication, although sometimes we accompany speech with hand gestures and read people's faces to sense feeling and expression, etc. Sign language facilitates a more visual train of thoughts and portrayals where many signs are closer to the real idea or action than a sound we make come out of our throat (for example, the word "walk" vs. the hand sign with the fingers 'walking' across the palm). Oralism facilitates, I think, more varied ways of expressing oneself because one can use voice intonation and inflection to convey emotion, and oralism can accompany the other "languages" we normally use with facial expressions and body language, etc. The creation of sign language itself, since speech existed before, was a great extension to thinking because so many people who couldn't hear wouldn't have been able to understand and communicate as well as those who could speak. Another way sign language seems to extend thinking, according to what we saw in the documentary Through Deaf Eyes and what the deaf people in the video said, is that users of this "language" think more optimistically, not of what they and others can't do, but what they can do, all their abilities and strengths. But while these languages can affect ways of thinking for users, their effect on what the deaf people KNOW is not as evident.
The knowledge by practice of deaf people who use signing is different from that of hearers or other users of oralism because they have been practicing or repeating different things (signing vs. speaking) and thus their "know-HOW"s (pieces of personal knowledge) are different, but their "know-THAT"s or impersonal knowledge is not different simply because of their use of either sign language or oralism to communicate. As far as the knowledge that deaf people have being EXPRESSED differently in each "language", I think that is a given; what people know is expressed differently in French than it is in English, and differently in sign language than in speech of any oral language. And while I do not think each language provides a different framework of reality, I do think each provides a different presentation of reality; a deaf user of sign language and a hearing (or deaf) user of oralism both see someone running down the street, and they don't view it as different events happening, they just express the idea of the reality (a person running) in either speech or in hand signs. This is the way languages work, reality is presented/communicated to others in more of one way to another but ultimately the humans usually perceive the same basic reality. I think this also applies when dealing with sense and reference.
Abel explains sense as sort of the real meaning of the word, what it's value or definition is almost, whereas reference is a more specific designation of that meaning, like an example you could point to. The deaf might use signing as a sort of "sense" of what they think is going on, but in order to connect with other users of oralism they would need to use oralism like humans use reference in order to specify; to a an oralist a sign may not mean much, so they have to use a word for the other person to grasp its meaning. Abel's quote on page 68, "Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” shows that deaf users of sign language don't need oral words to understand meaning because meaning is not identical to words, nor is it identical signs, meaning is just communicated through whatever human action holds meaning because it has been ordained so by the speech community, whether that be a sign symbol or a linguistic symbol or any meaningful symbol known between communicators. We hearers use "linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69), but deaf people use sign symbols to organize experience. Essentially these languages are the same (in function and result).
What I have been claiming - that oralism and sign use different approaches to expressing thoughts and may even guide thoughts in a general pattern, but are essentially both languages to communicate the same reality of humans - implies that hearers and other users of oralism who look down on users of sign and vice versa are making a mistake; it is not two different groups of people that, because they communicate using different forms of "speech", view reality totally different. We are all humans developing and using symbols of whatever kind we may to organize the same experience. My claims would also imply that I know about using sign language versus oralism when in fact I do not know a whole lot about it, so a counter-claim might be that people who really use sign language do view reality through "deaf eyes" and because they cannot hear or speak they are missing both a chunk of reality and experiences that are happening all around them (noises), and an aspect of human interaction that is meant to occur (speech). One could use both oralism and sign language and still not know the answer to this question, how our view of reality is affected by our language, because there will always be many other factors impacting our view of reality and clouding our view, and inevitably, we cannot get away from ourselves and how we see things as an individual human.
Through looking at Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and sense and reference, and the views expressed by the deaf people in "Through Deaf Eyes" we see that the use of oralism or sign language can slightly affect a deaf person's view of reality, but it more affects the way they present the reality in communication than what they understand or know. The core of both sign language and oralism is using designated symbols to refer to pieces of reality, and after all, both the signer and the oralist see the same thing with their eyes, which are still the same.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Eyak Language
Eyak Language
Please Listen to the NPR stories entitled: Eyak Language & The Sound of Vanishing Languages. How far should we go to preserve a dying language? In your answer, please consider the following questions:
a) What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The benefits of having a single language would be easier communication between businesses/companies, tourists and locals, and leaders and diplomats, which would probably produce more international unity because nations could understand each other better and there would be less of a cultural barrier; at least everyone would have the language in common. A single language would also save time and money not having to hire translators and announce public announcements in several languages, and paper and ink would be saved not having to print labels and instruction manuals in multiple languages. Second Language programs in school would not be necessary, and taxpayers would have less teachers' salaries to pay.
The problems with achieving a single world-wide spoken language would be finding enough teachers, money, and enforcement to teach 6 billion people a language. It would require sooo many English teachers, who could also speak the language of their students (since immersion doesn't really work and some words can only be understood by knowing the connection to the word the learner IS familiar with), and that would cost a lot of money. We would also need some sort of enforcement, since many people would be attached to their languages, would not want to learn ours, and would feel that they were being forced to give up part of their identity as a nation, a people, and as a person. The negative effects of a single language would be less linguistic and intellectual diversity and creativity, and a loss of perspective and information about how different nationalities of humans view the world (through studying different languages and their structures, etc.). Also, translators would be out of a job, and military operations would have less options for coding messages; they couldn't simply use another language that the enemies would have a hard time getting their hands on (but, as someone pointed out in class, nowadays they could just develop their own computer language).
b) How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
While I think saving a dying language is useful for learning more about that culture, I think that it is too much work for too little outcome. It would have good cultural implications if we saved it, because it would be saving a huge part of many cultures and "identities", but is that really necessary? There are obviously not too many people speaking a language if it is dying, so I don't think too many people would be affected or upset if it were allowed to die, and the money and time it would take to record the whole language and put it in taught classes or something to keep it alive just would not be worth it... There are hundreds of languages dying all the time, and trying to keep them all alive would have huge negative financial implications, spending all that money on old languages when it could be used to save dying PEOPLE. So I think we should just have people who are interested in "saving" a dying language do some research and do a basic recording of the language, and if there are any really useful or untranslatable words in their language, we could maybe add them to English and just expand the one world-wide language.
c) After reading: “Every Teacher is a Language Teacher,” what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
Since changing the world to a single-language world is obviously not happening right now, and the kids at this school (and other schools all over the world) still have and speak their own languages, I think it's good that the school does recognize and celebrate that fact. As the article says, knowing 2 languages and cultures helps people compare the 2, make distinctions between the 2, and appreciate each more. I think it's good that these children stay connected with their families and heritages, and that each can share their language with other students so that they can all learn from each other. Mother Language Day celebrates diversity and different perspectives, styles, and cultures, and I think that is important in the IB curriculum, since it is an INTERNATIONAL program, and it tries to promote different perspectives and historiography, etc.
Please Listen to the NPR stories entitled: Eyak Language & The Sound of Vanishing Languages. How far should we go to preserve a dying language? In your answer, please consider the following questions:
a) What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The benefits of having a single language would be easier communication between businesses/companies, tourists and locals, and leaders and diplomats, which would probably produce more international unity because nations could understand each other better and there would be less of a cultural barrier; at least everyone would have the language in common. A single language would also save time and money not having to hire translators and announce public announcements in several languages, and paper and ink would be saved not having to print labels and instruction manuals in multiple languages. Second Language programs in school would not be necessary, and taxpayers would have less teachers' salaries to pay.
The problems with achieving a single world-wide spoken language would be finding enough teachers, money, and enforcement to teach 6 billion people a language. It would require sooo many English teachers, who could also speak the language of their students (since immersion doesn't really work and some words can only be understood by knowing the connection to the word the learner IS familiar with), and that would cost a lot of money. We would also need some sort of enforcement, since many people would be attached to their languages, would not want to learn ours, and would feel that they were being forced to give up part of their identity as a nation, a people, and as a person. The negative effects of a single language would be less linguistic and intellectual diversity and creativity, and a loss of perspective and information about how different nationalities of humans view the world (through studying different languages and their structures, etc.). Also, translators would be out of a job, and military operations would have less options for coding messages; they couldn't simply use another language that the enemies would have a hard time getting their hands on (but, as someone pointed out in class, nowadays they could just develop their own computer language).
b) How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
While I think saving a dying language is useful for learning more about that culture, I think that it is too much work for too little outcome. It would have good cultural implications if we saved it, because it would be saving a huge part of many cultures and "identities", but is that really necessary? There are obviously not too many people speaking a language if it is dying, so I don't think too many people would be affected or upset if it were allowed to die, and the money and time it would take to record the whole language and put it in taught classes or something to keep it alive just would not be worth it... There are hundreds of languages dying all the time, and trying to keep them all alive would have huge negative financial implications, spending all that money on old languages when it could be used to save dying PEOPLE. So I think we should just have people who are interested in "saving" a dying language do some research and do a basic recording of the language, and if there are any really useful or untranslatable words in their language, we could maybe add them to English and just expand the one world-wide language.
c) After reading: “Every Teacher is a Language Teacher,” what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
Since changing the world to a single-language world is obviously not happening right now, and the kids at this school (and other schools all over the world) still have and speak their own languages, I think it's good that the school does recognize and celebrate that fact. As the article says, knowing 2 languages and cultures helps people compare the 2, make distinctions between the 2, and appreciate each more. I think it's good that these children stay connected with their families and heritages, and that each can share their language with other students so that they can all learn from each other. Mother Language Day celebrates diversity and different perspectives, styles, and cultures, and I think that is important in the IB curriculum, since it is an INTERNATIONAL program, and it tries to promote different perspectives and historiography, etc.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Earth vs. Eyeth
Please read Radicalism in Deaf in the Culture under Language Articles on my blog. Then, answer the following questions.
a) What is the primary argument of the students representing Deaf Culture?
The argument of the students representing Deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability but is "an oppressed minority status akin to race, and also as a unique linguistic culture. " They believe that society treats deaf people wrong, like disabled people, when really they have much to offer and should be educated so that they can communicate effectively.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
The Deaf culture students would value a president who spends more time in Eyeth (is more deaf) because that president would better understand Deaf culture since they are forced to use it and become it more than a person who spends more time on Earth and might view the deaf students differently (subconsciously thinking of the students as more disabled, less fortunate, etc.) The students of Deaf culture would probably also feel that a more Eyeth member would be a better symbol for the deaf school, and a show of how deaf people can function just as well as hearing people in positions of power/responsibility.
It is pretty much impossible to represent ALL students or all members of any group, because each individual is different, but I do think that a president should represent the majority of the students (or else most of the school will be unhappy). However, I think just because the president may spend a little more time in Earth than Eyeth (i.e. Fernandes) compared with the students, that does not mean he/she cannot represent them. As long as they still have the same interests and understand what it is like to be deaf and the hardships/abilities one encounters as a deaf person, I think they can represent the students if lines of communication remain open between president and students.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
Spending more time in either world will make the person more able or more equipped to communicate with other people in that world, and maybe not quite as easy to communicate with people in the OTHER world (i.e. a deaf person living in Eyeth will probably be able to communicate with/understand other Eyeth members more easily than with an earth member.) I think it would be better to spend some time in both 'worlds' (if possible) because then you would get both perspectives and experiences and be able to communicate with a larger number of people, rather than if you spend too much time in either 'world'. When time is spent in Eyeth, the other senses can be more developed to make up for hearing (i.e. more acute vision), but time spent in Eyeth can also be more dangerous if you cannot see a car coming up behind you or something.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think they are making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be; if noone can determine any specific problems with Fernandes, and the only real problem is that she is not "deaf enough", I think she should be allowed to take presidency if there is not someone clearly more enabled for the job than her. She is still DEAF and can relate to the students, and she does know sign language, she just also knows how to speak and lipread, which I think would be good for the deaf students because it really is helpful in the real world. To be practical, most hearers do not know sign language, and if the deaf culture/community wanted to be respected and viewed as an equal, non-disabled group, I think they would have more luck if they, or at least their leaders, could effectively communicate with the outside world in more ways than one (sign language can be used too, but speaking and lipreading won't hurt to have in the cart).
a) What is the primary argument of the students representing Deaf Culture?
The argument of the students representing Deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability but is "an oppressed minority status akin to race, and also as a unique linguistic culture. " They believe that society treats deaf people wrong, like disabled people, when really they have much to offer and should be educated so that they can communicate effectively.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
The Deaf culture students would value a president who spends more time in Eyeth (is more deaf) because that president would better understand Deaf culture since they are forced to use it and become it more than a person who spends more time on Earth and might view the deaf students differently (subconsciously thinking of the students as more disabled, less fortunate, etc.) The students of Deaf culture would probably also feel that a more Eyeth member would be a better symbol for the deaf school, and a show of how deaf people can function just as well as hearing people in positions of power/responsibility.
It is pretty much impossible to represent ALL students or all members of any group, because each individual is different, but I do think that a president should represent the majority of the students (or else most of the school will be unhappy). However, I think just because the president may spend a little more time in Earth than Eyeth (i.e. Fernandes) compared with the students, that does not mean he/she cannot represent them. As long as they still have the same interests and understand what it is like to be deaf and the hardships/abilities one encounters as a deaf person, I think they can represent the students if lines of communication remain open between president and students.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
Spending more time in either world will make the person more able or more equipped to communicate with other people in that world, and maybe not quite as easy to communicate with people in the OTHER world (i.e. a deaf person living in Eyeth will probably be able to communicate with/understand other Eyeth members more easily than with an earth member.) I think it would be better to spend some time in both 'worlds' (if possible) because then you would get both perspectives and experiences and be able to communicate with a larger number of people, rather than if you spend too much time in either 'world'. When time is spent in Eyeth, the other senses can be more developed to make up for hearing (i.e. more acute vision), but time spent in Eyeth can also be more dangerous if you cannot see a car coming up behind you or something.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think they are making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be; if noone can determine any specific problems with Fernandes, and the only real problem is that she is not "deaf enough", I think she should be allowed to take presidency if there is not someone clearly more enabled for the job than her. She is still DEAF and can relate to the students, and she does know sign language, she just also knows how to speak and lipread, which I think would be good for the deaf students because it really is helpful in the real world. To be practical, most hearers do not know sign language, and if the deaf culture/community wanted to be respected and viewed as an equal, non-disabled group, I think they would have more luck if they, or at least their leaders, could effectively communicate with the outside world in more ways than one (sign language can be used too, but speaking and lipreading won't hurt to have in the cart).
Monday, January 26, 2009
Linguistic Apartheid (Gaelic in the Irish community)
LAW TO KEEP OUT NON-IRISH SPEAKERS:
-Communication with neighbors
-preservation of language and culture (tradition would be lost?)
-preservation of history (oldest vernacular language in Europe)
"We were here first" (invasion)
"We would lose 'emotion' connected with our language if we lose our language"
-cultural exchanges aren't always positive!
--Implications: historical, cultural, and nationalistic
LET NEW PEOPLE MOVE IN (WHETHER IRISH-SPEAKING OR NOT):
-New people and ideas :)
-boosts economy
-all people should have same rites
-Discrimination
-"EU won't respect us"
-Haven't the Irish been trying to promote Catholic/Irish RITES for decades??
-Preserving culture shouldn't be forced by GOV'T! It's parents' responsibility to teach their kids
-Language does not equal culture ("we can still eat, drink, play, etc 'Irish'")
-Isolated and backward? Would businesses want to move here?
-wouldn't the population be restricted to a certain gene pool that would run out of non-relatives??
--Implications: human rites, economic/financial, genetic
-Communication with neighbors
-preservation of language and culture (tradition would be lost?)
-preservation of history (oldest vernacular language in Europe)
"We were here first" (invasion)
"We would lose 'emotion' connected with our language if we lose our language"
-cultural exchanges aren't always positive!
--Implications: historical, cultural, and nationalistic
LET NEW PEOPLE MOVE IN (WHETHER IRISH-SPEAKING OR NOT):
-New people and ideas :)
-boosts economy
-all people should have same rites
-Discrimination
-"EU won't respect us"
-Haven't the Irish been trying to promote Catholic/Irish RITES for decades??
-Preserving culture shouldn't be forced by GOV'T! It's parents' responsibility to teach their kids
-Language does not equal culture ("we can still eat, drink, play, etc 'Irish'")
-Isolated and backward? Would businesses want to move here?
-wouldn't the population be restricted to a certain gene pool that would run out of non-relatives??
--Implications: human rites, economic/financial, genetic
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Abel ch. 7 questions
Abel: Man is the Measure
Ch. 7: Meaning & Naming
1. How do Mill and Frege disagree with Russell about grammatical sentences and meaning?
Mill and Frege think that "the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of the words that constitute it"(64) whereas Russell thinks that there can be grammatical/"meaningful" sentences without meaning.
2. Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own example for each.
1. Indication: "Your fever means you have the flu."
2. Cause: "What does this bite out of the cake mean?"
3. Effect: "This means no dessert for you!"
4. Intention: "I meant to show you how much I love you."
5. Explanation: "What does the song mean when it says 'I am a walrus'?"
6. Purpose: "She meant to capture his attention when she dropped her pencil."
7. Implication: "If I get a C, that means I can't go the game tomorrow."
8. Significance: "Did her apology even mean anything?"
3. Why does Abel believe that science and metaphysics is involved in the discussion of linguistic meaning?
He says that not only language and logic are needed for decision, but science and metaphysics also because "We can talk meaningfully about the world only if we take into account what the world is like"(65) because certain sentences, even though grammatically correct (noun, verb, object or whatever rules apply) don't make sense or have no real meaning to our brains because they do not correspond with the way the world really is; Abel uses the example of saying that the clam, the flower, or the rock have hopes for a life after death is meaningless to us vs. a Priest having hopes for the afterlife, since that follows the rules of science (humans can think and hope, but not a rock).
4. Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
1. Substance: "My mother is a woman."
2. Quantity: "She is 5'2"."
3. Quality: "She is very kind."
4. Relation: "She is the daughter of Alice."
5. Place: "She is in her room."
6. Action: "She is there at 5:00."
7. Action: "She is typing."
8. Passion: "She is being summoned."
9. Situation or Position: "She is sitting down in the chair."
10. State or Condition: "She is thirsty."
5. How does Abel differentiate between Reference and Naming?
Abel says "Reference is how language bites on to the world" whereas "Naming is the direct application of a word to a thing."(66). Abel says "nothing stands between a thing and its name"(67); naming is the most elementary way in which to refer, and cannot be reduced to, or explained by, a simpler activity. Reference is less specific and is "what the words point to, or designate"(67).
6. On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
Besides the biblical renaming of Abraham and Sarah by God, and the general tendency of humans to leave out a name when trying to make another human/pet, etc. seem cruel or worthless ("the dumb DOG" instead of "stupid Sam"), I can't really think of anymore examples. A more modern example would be when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN", trying to separate himself from her by leaving her nameless.
7. What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to point something out without describing it; Abel says on p. 67: "A name identifies; it is a tag...; it does not describe."
8. What is the difference between sense and reference?
Reference is more of a targeted meaning, "what the words point to or designate"... there has to be something to point to, which is why the description "the heavenly body farthest from the earth", which we do not KNOW, has no known reference but has sense (which always has the same meaning, but not really; i.e. "I, here" which we KNOW what they mean, the "meaning" just varies depending on the speaker...)
9. How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
Abel describes Connotation as what anything would have to be to be that word/thing (i.e. "bachelor"= adult unmarried man) whereas Denotation is "all the actual persons you can so designate" (i.e. Jim down the street). Abel differentiates between Intension and Extension in a similar way; He defines Intension as the definition or "what you have in mind" by the term, whereas the Extension "is all the actual bachelors in the world."(68)
10. What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that even though we usually need to SAY something (at least when talking about language) to get meaning across, and what we say does communicate meaning, what we mean might not be the exact same as what we say (based on the way we say it, the way our sentences are structured, our word choice, etc.) or our words can communicate more/less than what we intended with our words.
11. What is the connection between names and descriptions? Do you agree with Abel that we use ‘linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69)?
Abel says on p. 69: "Naming and describing may overlap when one uses a name as a description... or a description as a name." We can use certain known people's names to describe another person such as "another Stalin" or "another Hitler", and we can sometimes use descriptions as names such as "King of kings" etc.
I do agree with Abel that we use "linguistic symbols to organize experience" because when we experience something in life, we like to be able to organize it in our minds and others' with words, to communicate it with a linguistic symbol which on its own has no real meaning and is just marks on a paper, but when combined with the connotation of the human experience (which could also be seen as meaningless until given a name/'linguistic symbol'), is something meaningful that we and other humans can comprehend.
12. Why is referential opacity a problem? Be sure to mention his specific examples.
Referential Opacity is a problem because even though 2 names/2 descriptions may refer to the same particular thing, there are certain linguistic contexts in which you cannot substitute one for the other, so it gets confusing when you try to use Name (or description) A which means the same thing as Name B but Name A does not make sense here. Abel uses the example of how even though Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain are the same person, you cannot say "Mark Twain adopted the pen name 'Mark Twain' to conceal his identity." Abel also points out that even though "The number of stated in the United States is fifty" and "Fifty is necessarily less than fifty-one", you cannot say "The number of states in the United States is necessarily less than fifty-one."
13. What is the problem of creating a “subsistent entity”? (p. 70)
If you deny the existence of something, then there had to be something to refer to, (how could we think of it if there were not?) so does it exist or not? Does something have to have a denotation in order for it to have a connotation? Luckily, Russel distinguished between descriptive phrases and names and established that descriptive phrases can be without denotations , for example "The golden mountain."
14. How does Russell differentiate between “descriptive phrases and names” (p.70)?
Russel says that descriptive phrases are different than names because they can have no denotation; Abel adds that "You must have direct acquaintance with something in order to pin a name on it"(71).
15. What is the connection between language and Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description?
Both Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description contribute to the formation of language; knowledge by acquaintance leads to naming (i.e. Adam naming all the animals he saw) and knowledge by description leads, obviously, to descriptive phrases with which to describe and communicate objects, occurrences, etc.
16. What is a word? What is an icon? What is an index?
A word is a device by which one thing can signify something else; it is a conventional symbol used for the purpose of reference. An icon refers to something by "looking a little like it", such as a photograph or a road map. "The index is casually connected with what it refers to", such as smoke is an index of fire, and footprints the index of an animal.
17. Why is it important for philosophers to “clarify thought by clarifying language”? Why are Scientists "offenders” (p. 72)?
It is important for philosophers to do that because if they use ambiguous language, noone knows what they are talking about or what they mean by such phrases as "Being and nothing are one and the same".
Abel says scientists are also "offenders" because they use phrases like "absolute space", "racial unconscious", and "the group mind" which "have no clear denotation or extension; no way appears whereby to correlate them unambiguously with what can be observed."(72)
18. What does Abel mean when he says “Just as meanings are not the same things as words, so meanings are not the same things as operations or methods or uses” (p. 73)?
He means that MEANING is hard to be discerned because just like words can have no/different meaning than intended, there is not a sure way to secure something's meaning through describing its uses or how you arrive at it (operations and/or methods). It is similar to the problems of justifying knowledge (authority can be corrupt, memory and senses can fail us, etc.) in that all of them have certain issues in certain cases. And, life defies our phrases; how can you pinpoint certain meaning of words through simply operations or methods or...anything?
Ch. 7: Meaning & Naming
1. How do Mill and Frege disagree with Russell about grammatical sentences and meaning?
Mill and Frege think that "the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of the words that constitute it"(64) whereas Russell thinks that there can be grammatical/"meaningful" sentences without meaning.
2. Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own example for each.
1. Indication: "Your fever means you have the flu."
2. Cause: "What does this bite out of the cake mean?"
3. Effect: "This means no dessert for you!"
4. Intention: "I meant to show you how much I love you."
5. Explanation: "What does the song mean when it says 'I am a walrus'?"
6. Purpose: "She meant to capture his attention when she dropped her pencil."
7. Implication: "If I get a C, that means I can't go the game tomorrow."
8. Significance: "Did her apology even mean anything?"
3. Why does Abel believe that science and metaphysics is involved in the discussion of linguistic meaning?
He says that not only language and logic are needed for decision, but science and metaphysics also because "We can talk meaningfully about the world only if we take into account what the world is like"(65) because certain sentences, even though grammatically correct (noun, verb, object or whatever rules apply) don't make sense or have no real meaning to our brains because they do not correspond with the way the world really is; Abel uses the example of saying that the clam, the flower, or the rock have hopes for a life after death is meaningless to us vs. a Priest having hopes for the afterlife, since that follows the rules of science (humans can think and hope, but not a rock).
4. Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
1. Substance: "My mother is a woman."
2. Quantity: "She is 5'2"."
3. Quality: "She is very kind."
4. Relation: "She is the daughter of Alice."
5. Place: "She is in her room."
6. Action: "She is there at 5:00."
7. Action: "She is typing."
8. Passion: "She is being summoned."
9. Situation or Position: "She is sitting down in the chair."
10. State or Condition: "She is thirsty."
5. How does Abel differentiate between Reference and Naming?
Abel says "Reference is how language bites on to the world" whereas "Naming is the direct application of a word to a thing."(66). Abel says "nothing stands between a thing and its name"(67); naming is the most elementary way in which to refer, and cannot be reduced to, or explained by, a simpler activity. Reference is less specific and is "what the words point to, or designate"(67).
6. On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
Besides the biblical renaming of Abraham and Sarah by God, and the general tendency of humans to leave out a name when trying to make another human/pet, etc. seem cruel or worthless ("the dumb DOG" instead of "stupid Sam"), I can't really think of anymore examples. A more modern example would be when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN", trying to separate himself from her by leaving her nameless.
7. What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to point something out without describing it; Abel says on p. 67: "A name identifies; it is a tag...; it does not describe."
8. What is the difference between sense and reference?
Reference is more of a targeted meaning, "what the words point to or designate"... there has to be something to point to, which is why the description "the heavenly body farthest from the earth", which we do not KNOW, has no known reference but has sense (which always has the same meaning, but not really; i.e. "I, here" which we KNOW what they mean, the "meaning" just varies depending on the speaker...)
9. How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
Abel describes Connotation as what anything would have to be to be that word/thing (i.e. "bachelor"= adult unmarried man) whereas Denotation is "all the actual persons you can so designate" (i.e. Jim down the street). Abel differentiates between Intension and Extension in a similar way; He defines Intension as the definition or "what you have in mind" by the term, whereas the Extension "is all the actual bachelors in the world."(68)
10. What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that even though we usually need to SAY something (at least when talking about language) to get meaning across, and what we say does communicate meaning, what we mean might not be the exact same as what we say (based on the way we say it, the way our sentences are structured, our word choice, etc.) or our words can communicate more/less than what we intended with our words.
11. What is the connection between names and descriptions? Do you agree with Abel that we use ‘linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69)?
Abel says on p. 69: "Naming and describing may overlap when one uses a name as a description... or a description as a name." We can use certain known people's names to describe another person such as "another Stalin" or "another Hitler", and we can sometimes use descriptions as names such as "King of kings" etc.
I do agree with Abel that we use "linguistic symbols to organize experience" because when we experience something in life, we like to be able to organize it in our minds and others' with words, to communicate it with a linguistic symbol which on its own has no real meaning and is just marks on a paper, but when combined with the connotation of the human experience (which could also be seen as meaningless until given a name/'linguistic symbol'), is something meaningful that we and other humans can comprehend.
12. Why is referential opacity a problem? Be sure to mention his specific examples.
Referential Opacity is a problem because even though 2 names/2 descriptions may refer to the same particular thing, there are certain linguistic contexts in which you cannot substitute one for the other, so it gets confusing when you try to use Name (or description) A which means the same thing as Name B but Name A does not make sense here. Abel uses the example of how even though Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain are the same person, you cannot say "Mark Twain adopted the pen name 'Mark Twain' to conceal his identity." Abel also points out that even though "The number of stated in the United States is fifty" and "Fifty is necessarily less than fifty-one", you cannot say "The number of states in the United States is necessarily less than fifty-one."
13. What is the problem of creating a “subsistent entity”? (p. 70)
If you deny the existence of something, then there had to be something to refer to, (how could we think of it if there were not?) so does it exist or not? Does something have to have a denotation in order for it to have a connotation? Luckily, Russel distinguished between descriptive phrases and names and established that descriptive phrases can be without denotations , for example "The golden mountain."
14. How does Russell differentiate between “descriptive phrases and names” (p.70)?
Russel says that descriptive phrases are different than names because they can have no denotation; Abel adds that "You must have direct acquaintance with something in order to pin a name on it"(71).
15. What is the connection between language and Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description?
Both Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description contribute to the formation of language; knowledge by acquaintance leads to naming (i.e. Adam naming all the animals he saw) and knowledge by description leads, obviously, to descriptive phrases with which to describe and communicate objects, occurrences, etc.
16. What is a word? What is an icon? What is an index?
A word is a device by which one thing can signify something else; it is a conventional symbol used for the purpose of reference. An icon refers to something by "looking a little like it", such as a photograph or a road map. "The index is casually connected with what it refers to", such as smoke is an index of fire, and footprints the index of an animal.
17. Why is it important for philosophers to “clarify thought by clarifying language”? Why are Scientists "offenders” (p. 72)?
It is important for philosophers to do that because if they use ambiguous language, noone knows what they are talking about or what they mean by such phrases as "Being and nothing are one and the same".
Abel says scientists are also "offenders" because they use phrases like "absolute space", "racial unconscious", and "the group mind" which "have no clear denotation or extension; no way appears whereby to correlate them unambiguously with what can be observed."(72)
18. What does Abel mean when he says “Just as meanings are not the same things as words, so meanings are not the same things as operations or methods or uses” (p. 73)?
He means that MEANING is hard to be discerned because just like words can have no/different meaning than intended, there is not a sure way to secure something's meaning through describing its uses or how you arrive at it (operations and/or methods). It is similar to the problems of justifying knowledge (authority can be corrupt, memory and senses can fail us, etc.) in that all of them have certain issues in certain cases. And, life defies our phrases; how can you pinpoint certain meaning of words through simply operations or methods or...anything?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Presentation reflection and "Warspeak" article 1-20-09
1. The class did several things well in the presentation of our TOK topics for the midterm. Some of them that I noticed was the general use of time; most of the kids used their whole 10 minutes and did not run TOO much over the time limit. I also did not see/hear a lot of "BSing" or kids just rambling about nothing, for the most part they all focused on their topic and knew what they were saying (that showed some good preparation). There were also a variety or topics picked, and it was interesting to see how so many current issues can be "TOKized".
2. Some things we could have worked on were our skills/timing with the technology provided, immediate relation of the topic to the applying knowledge problems and terms, use of more specific TOK terms (ex: instead of just saying "the language" specify its "emotive meaning"), and a conclusion being made at the end of each presentation with the presenter's view included.
3. Things I think I did well were communicate the importance of my topic and the relative knowledge problems with justifying our "morality" (is abortion ok??), show both my and other opinions on the topic, and mention a few specific TOK terms of Language such as "emotive meaning".
4. Things I could have improved on were the organization of my presentation (I kind of jumped all over the place once I started talking), focused on a more specific aspect of my issue such as a single abortion campaign, included more about our perception and how that affects our views on abortion, and discussed more of the Pro-Choice view.
Warspeak Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7839075.stm
My article from BBC news about the damage done in Gaza and the necessary repairs shows a mix of vague "warspeak" and some real language that to me does not look like it's trying to cover anything up, but perhaps is trying to engage the interest and sympathy of the reader/public. The meanings of the phrases/words "hold fire", "carried out the attack", and "the offensive", are not very clear as used in this article. "Hamas has said it will hold fire" could mean they won't shoot anyone randomly, or if they are attacked they won't shoot anyone, or they just won't bomb any more areas, or...??? "A...group told the Palestinian news agency, Maan, it had carried out the attack" is also kind of vague in specifying what kind of "attack" and how they "carried it out". They probably wouldn't want to be seen as horrible killers, so instead of saying "after carefully (and gleefully) planning it out, we bombed the heck out of that village and killed all those people" they say "we carried out the attack". The phrase "the aftermath of the offensive" does not specify what "the offensive" was, whether it was an unprovoked attack, a bombing, or what. Honestly, I am not sure why they would word it this way, if that was simply the word that came to mind or if they really hoped to cover up some of the terrible tragedy for some purpose. However, in one part of the article they do say "an Israeli man was shot and seriously wounded" which is semi-graphic and showing at least some of the reality of the situation; they don't just refer to the incident as "a civilian casualty" or something like that.
2. Some things we could have worked on were our skills/timing with the technology provided, immediate relation of the topic to the applying knowledge problems and terms, use of more specific TOK terms (ex: instead of just saying "the language" specify its "emotive meaning"), and a conclusion being made at the end of each presentation with the presenter's view included.
3. Things I think I did well were communicate the importance of my topic and the relative knowledge problems with justifying our "morality" (is abortion ok??), show both my and other opinions on the topic, and mention a few specific TOK terms of Language such as "emotive meaning".
4. Things I could have improved on were the organization of my presentation (I kind of jumped all over the place once I started talking), focused on a more specific aspect of my issue such as a single abortion campaign, included more about our perception and how that affects our views on abortion, and discussed more of the Pro-Choice view.
Warspeak Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7839075.stm
My article from BBC news about the damage done in Gaza and the necessary repairs shows a mix of vague "warspeak" and some real language that to me does not look like it's trying to cover anything up, but perhaps is trying to engage the interest and sympathy of the reader/public. The meanings of the phrases/words "hold fire", "carried out the attack", and "the offensive", are not very clear as used in this article. "Hamas has said it will hold fire" could mean they won't shoot anyone randomly, or if they are attacked they won't shoot anyone, or they just won't bomb any more areas, or...??? "A...group told the Palestinian news agency, Maan, it had carried out the attack" is also kind of vague in specifying what kind of "attack" and how they "carried it out". They probably wouldn't want to be seen as horrible killers, so instead of saying "after carefully (and gleefully) planning it out, we bombed the heck out of that village and killed all those people" they say "we carried out the attack". The phrase "the aftermath of the offensive" does not specify what "the offensive" was, whether it was an unprovoked attack, a bombing, or what. Honestly, I am not sure why they would word it this way, if that was simply the word that came to mind or if they really hoped to cover up some of the terrible tragedy for some purpose. However, in one part of the article they do say "an Israeli man was shot and seriously wounded" which is semi-graphic and showing at least some of the reality of the situation; they don't just refer to the incident as "a civilian casualty" or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)