Paper 4 Section B
There are many different languages across the globe that are presented differently than the others. Their usage of language can be different tense, grammatically, and the way things are thought. The way language is spoken and understood is through the relationship between language and thought.
Lera Boroditsky is a Standford researcher who described the relationship between thought and language with just the use of a teacup. Boroditsky would knock the cup off her table and in English, we would say, “She broke the cup.” However, in other languages, Japanese or Spanish, she explains that they would say, “The cup broke itself.” This is said if the cup broke on accident but, if it was done on purpose there’s a verb form to use. With this research, it can be shown that different languages have a variety of ways things are formatted differently based on actions and thoughts.
The researcher, Lera Boroditsky, focused on the fundamental differences between cultures taking their relationship to space, time, or gender. This is essentially the relationship between language and self-identity. Self-identity is an individual's awareness of their unique characteristics concerning the social groups around them. Our self-identity is influenced by others and situations over time. Our thoughts and experiences change the way someone will speak a certain language. As in different cultures, everyone experiences different situations and different behaviors as to how we present our language. For instance, when learning a new language your thoughts based on new identities and relationships form new speech patterns. In New Zealand, their minority language, Māori, is threatened this is when group identity is important and people adapt based on this new situation and thoughts being processed along the way.
In my introduction, I mentioned how language is used in different tenses. What I mean by this is how the language is present due to time. For instance, in Peru, the language, Yagua, has five distinct grammatical forms of past tense. These are, a few hours prior; the day before; roughly one week to a month ago; roughly two months to two years ago; and the distant or legendary past.’ The English language isn’t as complex. The example given in the article is that we change the word ‘make’ to ‘made’ or ‘making’ depending on the time the speaker wants to portray. Another more complex language is Indonesian. Based on the article provide Indonesian verbs ‘never change to express time.’ In English, the language changes the form but in Indonesian, the word ‘make’ remains the same. To them it doesn’t feel grammatically incorrect as they add words, such as ‘soon’, to the statement, ‘I make dinner’. If someone who spoke Indonesian said this to someone who spoke English the person speaking English would be confused as they don’t say that statement in that form. The thought process of saying tenses in a particular form is different in a variety of languages.
These examples also tie into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which supports the view that the words and grammar of a language directly shape the thoughts of its speakers. As explained before the English language wouldn’t understand the grammatical style of the Indonesian language. Another example based on the different uses of tenses is between the English language and the languages of American Indians. Whorf compared these two languages as he believed that the Hopi Indians don’t think through their use of tenses. His reasoning for this was flawed as they did have a concept of time. Even though his reasoning was flawed this shows the relationship between language and thought as the Hopi Indians do think and use their thoughts with their usage of tenses.
The differences between languages and the thought process behind them are the important issues raised in the relationship between language and thought. As the examples provided show how a variety of languages are different based on their usage of grammar and tenses. People convey their language through their thoughts and self-identity.
AO1: 5 marks
ReplyDeleteIn this area, I believe you demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the material by citing references that corresponded to certain points in the text, as well as highlighting crucial facts and specifics from the text, such as instances, which you subsequently elaborated on. You did a good job of describing the context and audience of the message. “The example given in the article is that we change the word ‘make’ to ‘made’ or ‘making’ depending on the time the speaker wants to portray.” This is from your blog, where you used an example from the text, explained it, and did your hardest to understand what was going on in the text. One of the reasons I didn't award you a level 4 is that I believe you could have gone into greater detail than you did. b since you offered a summary of all the things you discussed and tried to clarify them, but it wasn't detailed.
AO2: 2 marks
the expression that you gave throughout your blog I believe that I didn't flow easily and it was a little choppy in my Perspective . You didn't have many errors in your blog; you simply added a few words that weren't necessary, which might be because you were attempting to make word count and required them. “For instance, when learning a new language your thoughts based on new identities and relationships form new speech patterns. In New Zealand, their minority language, Māori, is threatened this is when group identity is important and people adapt based on this new situation and thoughts being processed along the way.” I feel you could have done it better by adding a few commas or periods in places in your receipt example from your blog where you had a little bit of a run on phrase in between these two sentences. This is not a location where you can freely flow. The text is largely relevant, with minimal or clear development of concepts.
AO4: 2 marks
You possessed a fundamental comprehension of the text's language issues, concepts, techniques, and approaches. The reason I'm giving you a poor grade is that in every issue you discussed, you just utilized a basic comprehension of the topic from what was supplied in the text, and you didn't expand your knowledge on any of the topics. You just utilized one idea to explain all of your points. There is just a passing allusion to broader linguistics concerns, concepts, methods, and approaches. “These examples also tie into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which supports the view that the words and grammar of a language directly shape the thoughts of its speakers.” this is the one method that you used for all topics and on the other hand you didn't used hardly any buzzwords.
AO1:Hey Virginia, your blog is pretty good. You had a clear understanding of the text and also had clear references.
ReplyDeleteAO2:You had an effective expression, with a few minor errors which do not impeded communication. You content also stays relevant throughout and I liked your examples in the text.
AO4:Clear understanding of linguistic issues, concepts, methods, and approaches. You also had a clear reference to a wider study and had a good understanding of them. Great Job!! (13/25)
Hello Virginia,
ReplyDeleteThis blog is pretty good. I had really liked all of the different points you had made and even took inspiration from these. I really liked the Sapir Whorf hypothesis point you had made and how you had brought up your outside knowledge to tie it into the rest of the text. You had also followed the prompt perfectly and had done a very good job. For AO1 i think that you had shown a very clear understanding of the text and the language that was discussed so i would give you 7 marks. I also think that for AO2 you had shown a clear expression so i would give you 4 marks. For AO4 i also think that you had shown a clear understanding of the linguistic concepts that were discussed in the text so i would give you 5 marks. Overall that's 16 marks. Great Job!