Paper 4 Question 2
Language does directly shape our thoughts. Different countries and cultures speak English uniquely. This adds to the ‘melting pot’ of the English language. The background of each form of the English language is what forms our thoughts and how we think. We are all born into different cultures, and we live with different people and social groups surrounding us. This is exactly what shapes our language and thoughts.
When referring to our ‘sense of self’, we are not born with it. It includes a set of values and behaviors which we display throughout our lives. It is in our early childhood development when we begin to discover our sense of self. The Stanford researcher Lera Boroditsky mentions the importance of “space, time (and) gender”. These are just a few of the key features that are found in discovering our ‘sense of self’. Swiss Psychologist Jean Piaget conducted his research on childhood development. His research remains significant because it highlighted the concept of self in children and their use of language.
As Boroditsky brought up the key feature of ‘gender’, it is important to note that gender plays a vital role in the English language. It can be seen that there is a stereotypical conversational contrast between how a male and female hold conversation. Deborah Tannen produced the genderlect theory. This theory states that men’s conversation tends to be about the giving and receiving of information in cultures, as they wish to begin to act independently. Their conversation also tends to be more assertive. Whereas Tannen found that women’s conversation focused more on building and reinforcing cooperative relationships. Their conversation tended to use more polite forms. This all shows that the stereotypes within gender could easily contribute to our thoughts that further connect to our language.
The magazine continues to state the importance of “understanding patterns in metaphors in language”. This point directly correlates with the cognitive theory of inativism. This theory states that there is something special about the human brain which enables it to master the complexities of language. In this case it would be the ‘patterns in metaphors’. This theory was produced long ago, as it was traditionally one of Plato’s philosophies. He believed that ideas were in the mind at birth and given by a supreme being. With Plato’s involvement this gives the theory a historical background.
Moreover, the online magazine reflects on the “fundamental differences in cultures”. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf developed the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis supported the idea of language shaping the ways in which a person forms a view in the world. One of the major ideas that the magazine best correlates with is linguistic reflectionism. This is the idea that the language which is used only reflects the thoughts of its speakers. This means that language influences people’s views of their world but does not determine it. This hypothesis furthers the magazine's idea that “intent matters.” The intent of the speaker is reflected in their language.
Another major theory used within the online magazine is Universalism. Early on universalism suggested that language was a reflection of human thoughts and that all languages are similar with shared patterns and concepts. Rix Pinxten has developed this idea more recently stating that the beliefs come from the idea that all humans share the same cognitive processes which are reflected in every language. This is reflected by Boroditsky when she states “every time you use a verb in English, you are conveying information about a time”. This shows that the pattern of verbiage is used similarly by many humans. All languages have nouns and verbs that have vowels and consonants.
To conclude, language can shape the way we think. In some cases language itself is shaped by what we are born into. This can include our culture and gender. In other ways our environment and social groups can shape our language. With all of this, it shapes the way we think.
Hi Taylor!
ReplyDeleteAO1: You had a clear understanding of the text as you made sure to provide evidence in every point. However, in the future it would be more beneficial to add a sentence or two in your introductory paragraph and by saying who wrote the excerpt and what their view or opinion is of which they are writing. When you said, “This is exactly what shapes our language and thoughts.” You are not providing either your side nor the excerpts which is something you have to state. However you do start with this sentence, “Language does directly shape our thoughts.” Which is good, but not in the sense of where you got that from.
AO2: Your content all together is relevant as you added The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the Theory of Universalism. You also included, “research on childhood development” This was very good in the sense. Everything that you stated provided textual evidence and an explained elaboration into what the point you were making and how each theory tied into the text. Within my mistakes, I saw none. Everything that you said made sense and was relevant to answering the question. However, as you explained the theory's relation to the text like, “The intent of the speaker is reflected in their language.” This shows that you are introducing the opposite side of the excerpt being introduced.
AO3: The understanding of linguistic issues, concepts , methods and approaches represented in the text was detailed as you provided some theories like, “The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the Theory of Universalism” and an explanation of what they mean like, “This theory states that men’s conversation tends to be about the giving and receiving of information in cultures, as they wish to begin to act independently.” Then you used evidence,and you further explained in your own words why they tie it together.
Overall your blog was good! 15/25!
AO1: 6/10 marks. You had a clear understanding of the text and you had clear reference to specific points. You had lots of quotes and examples for your points.
ReplyDeleteAO2: 4/5 marks. You had effective expression with a few errors that did not impede communication. All content is relevant, you never go off topic. All your ideas are developed clearly.
AO4: 6/10 marks. You had a clear understanding of linguistic issues and methods. For example, “Rix Pinxten has developed this idea more recently” and “Deborah Tannen produced the Genderlect theory.” You showed that you knew what these theories meant by linking them to the text and explaining how it connects to thoughts. You made clear reference to these linguistic methods by giving examples from the text.
Tay Tay!
ReplyDeleteUnder the AO1 rubric, it is clear that you demonstrated a detailed understanding of the text in terms of meaning, context, and audience. This can be seen as you discussed the relevance that theories have to support the claim that is made in your response. Additionally, you showed an effective reference to specific points throughout your response. For this part of the rubric, I would award you 7 marks.
Under the AO2 rubric, I can see that you had an effective expression, with a few minor errors that did not impede communication. These minor errors include punctuation mistakes, but do not affect the overall response. Similarly, you evaluated relevant content with ideas that were developed in an effective manner. As previously mentioned, your references to different theories in relation to the prompt showed your knowledge. I would award you 4 marks.
Under the AO4 rubric, I would say that you had a clear understanding of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches that were represented in the text. You discussed several theories, but most of the time it lacked further elaboration. You got those theories and their basic fundamentals in, but if it had some further elaboration to tie it back to the purpose, it would have shown an effective understanding. However, you showed a clear reference to a wider study of linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches. This clear reference can be seen as you make multiple references to multiple theories throughout your response. I would award you 6 marks.
Total: 17/25
Hi Taylor
ReplyDeleteAO1- 5 marks. You did very well and quote specifically from the text in order to support each of your points. You also make insightful comments, I like how you focus on the word “gender” and how it plays a vital role in English.
AO2- 4 marks. All of your content is relevant and developed in an effective matter. Every piece of evidence you used tied differently to your points. My only advice is to shorten your paragraphs into short small separate ideas so it can be easier for your reader to follow along.
AO4- 10 marks. You had a detailed understanding of the linguistic issues, concepts, methods, and approaches you mention multiple theories such as “Universalism” “theory of inativism” and “genderlect theory.” As well as who created them “Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.” You tie in multiple theories and approaches to support your points within each paragraph.