A word’s
denotation simply means the actual meaning or the dictionary definition of the
word that refers to the actual thing or idea it represents. Therefore, through
the meaning of denotation, we can say that language is more than its
denotation. If we take a look at two examples, one from the article “Does
Language Shape How You Think” and one from the telephone game we played during
class, it is possible to analyze how different languages when translating
brings new and altered meanings and different interpretation to it. An
interesting example used in the article was a situation where two people were
talking. One of them said in English “I spent yesterday evening with a neighbor”,
but the thing is that we don’t know whether the neighbor was a woman or a man
and the only way to know is by asking to the person. However, if this same
sentence was spoken in a different language, for example, in French or German,
because of the way the language is structured in its vocabulary, it would be
possible to know the gender. They would have been obligate to either use
between voisin or voisine, nachbar or nachbarin.
Therefore, we can see that if we translated certain sentences or words, the
meaning of it would have been altered because language is more than denotation.
Another example that can enforce this statement is the telephone game. We tried
to play this game twice during class and I thought that the second time we
played had a more interesting idea about language. When the teacher gave the
word tortoise to be passed by through the use of different languages,
consisting of Portuguese, Spanish, English, French and Mandarin, the word
changed to something similar. There are many languages that do not have a one
word that means tortoise. For example, in Portuguese, there is no word that
differentiates tortoise and turtle; it only has the word tartaruga that can mean tortoise or turtle. From the beginning of
the telephone, the word tortoise became turtle because of the different languages
used to transmit the word. According to our Theory of Knowledge book, language
carries a perspective. This connects to the video we watched last class about
the experiments with the two babies and the tribe. This shows that the language
does affect how you perceive certain things. For example, the Himba tribe had a
different categorization or classification for colors, where a word for them
meant some tones of green and blue, while for English, green means all tones of
greens and blue means all tones of blues. The experiment they made with the
Himba tribe was showing two different images for them. One of the images was a
set of green colors, that for me looked all of the same, and it was asked to
one of the member of the Himba tribe to find the different color from the set.
Without much difficulty, according to his perception and plasticity, he chose
one of the green as being the different colors. However, for me, as a English
speaker, was completely sure that all of the colors were the same. Then they
showed to the same guy a set of green colors but with one as blue. It was obvious
to most of us that the color that was different was the blue one. But the
person from the Himba tribe had a lot of difficulties to determine the
different color. This shows that because of their language, that some colors
are classified with different words due to their unique language; they tend to
perceive things, in this case, the colors in a different way than people that
speak other languages.
I like how you combined not only the exercises we did in class but also things we read in the book.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you explained how language shapes our behaviour and perception of things. I really think it is good that you used the example of the Nimba tribe as it is a very good example for us. They see two completely different colours (for us) as almost the same due to their use of language. I also really like how you used the term plasticity to explain this.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post had a lot of evidence that was all backed up by examples and explanations, each point was first stated and then explained through relatable examples that the whole class can understand through previous experience. This makes the whole post, as a whole, very relatable, believable and reliable as a source of information and input on Leonardo's opinion on language and denotation. Not only examples from the class were used, but also examples that he brought up on his own, ones that can easily be tested. This is a very thorough and well thought out post and shows a great deal of knowledge of the topic being addressed.
ReplyDeleteI think that the wide array of examples used in this blog post, either from personal knowledge or from the TOK class and book, was what was the most effective when trying to convey that language is more than denotation. I really enjoyed the classroom Chinese whisper (or telephone game) was particularly interesting, as I could relate to it since I experienced it in first hand. The way you described the game and the effects it had were extremely accurate and would be comprehensible by people who did not experience it first-hand as I did. Along side this, the articles and different citations to different text, gave the post a strong base for your argument, and with these examples it is hard to oppose the idea you are trying to express. I found this post very interesting and effective. Well done!
ReplyDelete