One idea that Daniels discussed that was new to me was his final thought on how we as people arrive at determining the value of different languages. It had never occurred to me – although it certainly makes sense now after considering it – that my value (or even a collective’s, such as a nation’s, value) of a person’s or a race’s language or dialect is somewhat dependent on the history between myself (or the collective) and the other person or race.
I recently learned that if you google the word “literally”, one of the definitions says: “Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true”. As upsetting as this was to me, Daniels makes a point that language change is normal. “Literally” can be used as the epitome of hyperbole without any broad consequences.
I strongly agreed with the idea that all languages are "logical" and "structured" in their own way by the people who use them. No language can be superior to another, because they have all taken their own unique path to get where they are now.
Not only is it language that gives a person a means of communication, but it also gives them experiences as well. Experience to me is always the best teacher of a language. Due to our unique personal experiences, we can get more layered information within that language.
I had always known that language change was a thing, I had just never realized how much had already changed and how things were currently changing. Daniels point about how being taught to use older literary rules can hinder the natural process was really interesting.
Daniels comment, "Many linguists believe that when each of us learned these countless rules, as very young children, we accomplished the most complex cognitive task of our lives," has opened my mind to the vast and endless potential of the human intelligence when we do not allow or realize the boundaries that confine our understanding.
One thing I found fascinating in this reading selection is the observation that the languages people use are intimately tied to their surroundings and the people in their communities and regions. In this way, all languages are “perfect” because they meet the needs of the people who have to speak it. This is a resonating claim because in many instances people cite words that we simply do not have the equivalent of in English. For example, the Filipino’s have a word, Gigil, that means ‘the urge to pinch or squeeze something due it’s cuteness.
I thought it was very interesting how everyone has a dialect, and how obtaining that dialect comes about. I was aware different regions, although speaking the same language, sound different but I never gave much thought as to why. It was interesting to learn not only geographical differences, as one would originally assume, that can cause dialect differences but also educational, political, occupational, and economical differences, as well.
One idea that Daniels discussed that was new to me was his final thought on how we as people arrive at determining the value of different languages. It had never occurred to me – although it certainly makes sense now after considering it – that my value (or even a collective’s, such as a nation’s, value) of a person’s or a race’s language or dialect is somewhat dependent on the history between myself (or the collective) and the other person or race.
ReplyDeleteI recently learned that if you google the word “literally”, one of the definitions says: “Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true”. As upsetting as this was to me, Daniels makes a point that language change is normal. “Literally” can be used as the epitome of hyperbole without any broad consequences.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agreed with the idea that all languages are "logical" and "structured" in their own way by the people who use them. No language can be superior to another, because they have all taken their own unique path to get where they are now.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it language that gives a person a means of communication, but it also gives them experiences as well. Experience to me is always the best teacher of a language. Due to our unique personal experiences, we can get more layered information within that language.
ReplyDelete(Andrew Lobaugh)
I had always known that language change was a thing, I had just never realized how much had already changed and how things were currently changing. Daniels point about how being taught to use older literary rules can hinder the natural process was really interesting.
ReplyDelete(Emily Callan)
Daniels comment, "Many linguists believe that when each of us learned these countless rules, as very young children, we accomplished the most complex cognitive task of our lives," has opened my mind to the vast and endless potential of the human intelligence when we do not allow or realize the boundaries that confine our understanding.
ReplyDelete(Cody Baggerly)
One thing I found fascinating in this reading selection is the observation that the languages people use are intimately tied to their surroundings and the people in their communities and regions. In this way, all languages are “perfect” because they meet the needs of the people who have to speak it. This is a resonating claim because in many instances people cite words that we simply do not have the equivalent of in English. For example, the Filipino’s have a word, Gigil, that means ‘the urge to pinch or squeeze something due it’s cuteness.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting how everyone has a dialect, and how obtaining that dialect comes about. I was aware different regions, although speaking the same language, sound different but I never gave much thought as to why. It was interesting to learn not only geographical differences, as one would originally assume, that can cause dialect differences but also educational, political, occupational, and economical differences, as well.
ReplyDelete