Here are the questions, you know what to do! (for those that forgot, I need to see one post and one reply to a post from everybody, THIS IS REQUIRED)
1. Is one language inevitable? Is one language common to the whole world a defensible project? Why or why not?
2. Can we afford to have all these languages? Why or why not?
3. Does language divide us or bring us together? Why?
4. Do we use language as a barrier (Pagel) or as a door (Ryan) to understanding?
5. Does language promote cooperation or act as a barrier to it?
5. I feel like language promotes cooperation because even if two people can't verbally communicate with each other they can communicate through body language or visual learning. Obviously language barriers can make cooperating more difficult but it doesn't completely thwart it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this to some extent, but with that language barrier, there are certain experiences you could never share with those who do not speak the same language as you. Body language and visuals are limited - you need words to convey deep thought.
DeleteI agree with this because most communication is nonverbal. It is made through facial expressions, gestures and/or actions. These allow for communication to occur throughout the world even if a common language is not shared, although it is more difficult to communicate without a common language it is not impossible.
DeleteI agree with Kristen Patterson. I don't believe you can communicate some sort of mathematical concept with body language. You can't communicate complex ideas through visual representations. For example, someone who speaks and reads only French would not be able to understand what I am typing in this comment. Even if he or she were in my presence, it's not plausible to present this to them with body movements or pictures.
DeleteTo back up Cameron's point, studies have shown that 90% of human communication is nonverbal. This is why something like slapstick comedy can be appreciated by a wide audience because we can all understand the humor in the situation with minimal words. Another important factor in communication is tone- sometimes you can tell what someone who is speaking in a different language is saying just based on their tone- whether they're they're arguing or excited, sad or happy. Furthermore, if language was really such a barrier then we would not depend on it as heavily as we do. (Not to say that a shared language doesn't facilitate communication, but it is not always necessary.
DeleteI understand what Durrell is trying to say, and I agree with him, and I would like to elaborate on his ideas. A complex mathematical concept usually will not be possible to explain through only visual language, but it can be communicated through different languages like French, Spanish and English. This is because mathematics is almost a shared language to an extent. It has the same concepts which are usually communicated in similar ways throughout different languages; there are minor differences like differences in names for numbers (i.e. the French term for 1 is un). Taking these minor differences into account, an English speaker could still communicate certain mathematical ideas to a French speaker. Examples of this are seen throughout our society. For example; DeMoivre, a French mathematician, was able to create a theorem and share it to the world. Proof of us understanding this concept is seen in school, where it is taught to English speaking children who understand it.
DeleteI als o think that language promotes cooperation because there are many things that are communicated using body language. Things like math and science can't really be communicated through body language, but they tend to have their own universal language so we can use them throughout many cultures.
DeleteI agree with this because language forces us to try and work together no matter what the obstacle is, which is why we now have translators and language classes. If language was supposed to be a barrier, there would be no need for the precautions that the world takes in order to make sure that communication is easier between people of different language backgrounds.
DeleteI agree with moises in how when people who speak two different languages try to communicate the language difference can cause barriers but it is the barrier that helps us think of more creative ways to communicate. There are things that common cultures share through facial expression and body language; these things help us overcome barriers and let us move past them.
DeleteAlso in different languages there are different ways of wording things or viewing things and this fresh perspective can be very useful when looking at an issue. When many people of varying languages come together to solve a problem or debate a topic multiple views are brought to the table and they do not serve as barriers but as differing ways to view things
DeleteWe try to use language as a door, which is why we learn other languages to the point of making it a part of global school curricula; but at the same time, as long as so many languages exist, there will never be one common field of understanding.
ReplyDeleteI think there can be a common field of understanding even though it's a barrier through translation. And by teaching language it's only expanding on creating a base for understanding eachother.
DeleteI agree that we use language as a door because rather than restricting ourselves, we translate the languages that allow us to come to a common understanding. I also agree with the idea that specific ideas may be lost in translation making it difficult to come to an exact understanding.
DeleteI disagree with the latter part of the statement, as there is a universal method of communication: body language. There have been studies done suggesting that a majority of human communication occurs through the conduit of body language rather than verbally. Of course, aggressive eye contact may mean different things in different cultures, but there are almost universally understood body language indicators as well. As an extreme example, standing over someone sitting down, in close proximity and looking down at them would be taken as an aggressive posture in most cultures. Also, art and other, related forms can be used to communicate ideas across cultures, without the use of words.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI disagree that language is always used as a door because language barriers can often cause confusion and anxiety. For example, intercultural service providers (in which the service provider and the customer are often of different cultures and speak different languages) often may misunderstand or fail to understand what information international customers may desire due to a language barrier and thus becomes associated with negative market outcomes.
DeleteHaving language brings people together but also separates us. If you think about language as a country than language itself is a country and the different languages spoken are states. Languages create barriers but in the big picture language brings us together more than it separates us. There are common parts to languages that allow people with different languages to communicate more than with no language.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cam because the verbal language barrier force us to find new ways of communication. Yes, it is harder to communicate but it verbal communication isn't necessary in every single situation.
DeleteI agree with Cam because language is important to share ideas and communicate, but it can also divide people, because each "state", as Cam said, has its own identity which can cause separation.
DeleteI support Cam's argument because within language, there can be many dialects with different terms and meanings. But overall, the communication can be done and links all the same ideas abroad.
DeleteCreating a barrier because of language would isolate us from the ideas emerged in other cultures. Therefore, language promotes cooperation because there needs to be a combined effort to get ideas across to one another and come to a common understanding. Although having just one language would be convenient in terms of translation, it could limit certain ideas and concepts that cannot properly be expressed in that language.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nikki because language brings us together within our cultures but when we have to interact with people from other cultures then it forms a barrier.
DeleteI also think that if we only had one language used throughout the world, many important things would be lost. A lot of cultures have things or ideas that are specific to them that no one else knows about or understands. If they had to translate that idea, it would be extremely difficult to find something that would 100% match its original meaning.
DeleteI think that language divides us. English is seen by many as a "universal language" spoken in most countries. Because of this idea, when we meet an individual or group that does not speak English, we assume that they are less intelligent. When my mom first came to America she had to learn English, and since she speaks with an accent, even now people assume that her English is sub-par when in some cases it is better than that of native speakers. By holding the idea that someone who does not speak our language has a lower intelligence than we do, we put up a barrier that hampers communication. Having one language would solve many problems, but I do not think that it should be one chosen simply because a lot of people already know it. This would imply that English is superior to other already existing languages like Chinese or Arabic. As the second speaker noted, many languages contain information that is lost when translated into English, and that loss is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you here Sean, when I hear someone with a foreign accent such as British (lame but still), I think of them as more advanced then myself. Same thing goes with really thick accents that I can barely comprehend what they are trying to say, which makes me think more lowly of them and makes me perceive I am more intelligent then the other person. This second judgement is possibly because of my mind's frustration of the language barrier that makes me think differently of a person, I want to understand them but their accent isn't "the norm" so it makes things difficult to decipher.
DeleteYou make an excellent point and I agree with the stigma English speakers have to those who don't speak English as well as them but I think I have to disagree with your argument that language divides us because in many ways it can bring us together, I know many people who actually regard those who can speak a different language in addition English (even if it's with a thick, foreign accent) in a higher regard to themselves. Different languages also pique the interests of others and cause them to either want to learn that language or find a way to make communication easier between different languages. For example, my mom speaks English and Ora, but a lot of her friends and acquaintances speak Yoruba, she wasn't going to stop talking to them or think herself superior. Instead she learned Yoruba and she is now closer to the Yoruba community in Nigeria and America; the language brought her closer to people instead of breaking them apart.
DeleteI think that language is created to facilitate understanding and communication, but in reality it divides us. In the first place, trying to establish a global language is near impossible, because of the amount of people on Earth itself. We cannot always reach out to everyone, and not everyone cannot reach us. Language cannot carry the same information in someone's first language as in their second language because meaning is lost in translation. Language also creates a barrier, because it rejects the ideas of those who cannot manipulate it to their will, and can end up causing harm. I realized how important the barrier is when I volunteered for Teach 4 India, where I helped teach children in the slums. Because my Hindi is not very good, lots of things I could say in English, could not be translated well, and I could not get all of what I wanted to teach to all of the students because of the language barrier. I think that while language has good intentions, trying to use one language hinders people from becoming multilingual and thus more understanding.
ReplyDelete5. I believe that language promotes cooperation. Even if two people cannot speak they can interact through body language which can be even more effective than using verbal communication in some cases. When we try to speak to someone who speaks a different language, the two have to cooperate to come to a consensus on what their each trying to say. Barriers make it harder but it does not make it impossible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said, but there is a limit on how much you can convey with just body language and nonverbal cues. Language does promote cooperation but it would be difficult to manage anything large-scale like a company or even have a ToK style discussion if you can't communicate clearly. I really like that you brought up that languages are still only barriers, though; and interesting, complex barriers at that.
Delete4. I think that to some extent language divides us but can bring us together. Language is seen as a way to communicate with other people but if we don't speak and understand a common language, then no communication will happen. If we can't verbally understand each other, it causes a barrier. On the other hand, finding a mutual way to communicate in other types of languages can bring us together. For example, body language, which is pretty much common throughout the whole word, such as a smile showing happiness, allows a variety of people to "talk" with one another without actually speaking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the aspect that if we do not have a common language as another person or other people in our culture, then we are not able to communicate with these people. These barriers can make it more difficult to communicate with people but every human has more than one "language" that we can "speak". We are able to talk with people through body language which allows us to communicate easier with people from other countries or cultures. There are a few exceptions to this "common language" that we call body language. If you use your hand in the "OK" sign, it would mean that you are good, fine, or okay. On the other hand, if you use the "OK" sign in Japan, this gesture stands for “money.” In France it means “zero” or “worthless.” Body language can be used for some universal signs, like the smile as you said, but we just need to be careful that some of our customs or body gestures from the US might offend some people.
Delete4. I think we use language as a door to understanding something because language yields to understanding a culture. Such as the context of English words may not carry on to the same context if the word were to be translated into Spanish or Chinese. I relate to this when I am learning spanish, I understand the culture more with almost every word I learn. Example: siesta, which in English means nap but in countries like Chile it refers to the time of about 12-4 where people go home from school or work and eat lunch and take a nap, then they return to work or school from 4-8 (ish). Even if people think language is a barrier, they still learn some of the culture trying to break through that barrier and along the way something is accomplished.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with much of what the Ted talk for one language said as an introduction, before he suggested one language is inevitable. He discussed the inability for other animals to develop "social learning", which to me seems like a fancy way of saying behavioral adaptation. Mammals in particular, are typically raised by a parent or parents, and their offspring learn much of what they will use in their life from their parents. Human's are simply able to undergo behavioral adaptation on a different scale, and much faster. Similarly, the idea of "visual theft" is just a key point of competition, in which all of life takes part in, though not quite at this level.
ReplyDeleteOne language is justifiable, certainly, and will aid in basic, efficient communication between parties that must do so in a timely manner, however each language is developed by its culture and environment which offers insights into the world that one, common language could not retain.
I very much agree with your ideas, but it does not mean we should ignore the benefits briught by a common language. I believe that if the world is able to share a single language, while maintaining the language of their culture, we should be able to prosper in global cooperations.
Delete5. I feel like the question has no correct answer because language both divides and connects. The simple explanation is that language divides those with no common language and it connects those with a common language. This question also ties into the question of whether or not language is used as a door or a barrier. I don't think that we necessarily "use" it as a barrier, it just happens. So, we more commonly use it as a door to connect to people who speak our own language.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no certain answer to this question, while many people learn the same language to communicate and connect with one another throughout cultures, the spread of languages can be low and thing can easily be lost in translation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.I feel like we will never have just one language. It is said that of our 6,000 languages, 3,000 are not being passed onto newer generations. While this is true and our number of languages is changing drastically, I think individual culture will work their bet to keep their own language and heritage alive. I think that English and other major language will only get stronger and more people will learn it, I feel like people will still keep their mother tongues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Though i think even if they did go to one language that they will revert back to there first language
DeleteOne language seems far-fetched with the communicative technology of today, especially with some parts of the world being completely solitude. As a parallel situation, (just an example) the iPhone being such a big commercial product known around the world as a top smartphone, you would think that everybody in the world is aware of it. However, not everyone knows of its existence, as hard as that is to believe. So, with some places being completely outdated compared to the rest of the world, having one language seems to be something that can't happen with the way information travels today. Maybe in a few years, technology will advance to where that is possible, but I don't think one international language can be completely feasible. I believe that through time, there will eventually be a universal language to accompany regional languages. It won't be as developed as English, Spanish, or Chinese, but just how body language is universal. Its similar to how on social media, people from all over the world may use the same text, words, acronyms, or expressions, but it doesn't form concise communitative linguistics. Having many different languages that pertain to regions around the world adds to the cultural diversity that people can identify to. We become more open-minded and helps us realize how minute we are compared to the world. Language divides us as a barrier that can be broken if needed. Us humans, as the creators of language, can make the language barrier become a door to new opportunities. If we want to communicate with someone that speaks another language, you cooperatively work together to comprehend the message. Its always possible, just how it was in the early days of humanity.
ReplyDelete1. This idea of a universal language was actually attempted 1887 by L.L. Zamenhof, and obviously it has not taken root in a significant way. I think that while it may seem like a very practical way to deal with a world that is constantly growing more closely connected through technology, I think that you cannot force people-especially most of the third world, which is not as technologically connected- to abandon a very important piece of their culture in favor of a language that is neutral politically and "transcends nationality".
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is impossible for a universal language to be developed them implemented everywhere in the world. What you said about the third-world countries is very true. They aren't as technologically connected as the first-world countries, and a lot of these small or unstable countries are that way because they are already being hindered by language and culture division among them. When the Europeans colonized Africa they forced groups of people who hated each other to form one united place, but they had nothing in common and couldn't even communicate with each other, not even through body language (which actually is definitely NOT universal, in any aspect). They are now involved in extensive civil wars because they can't communicate civilly and a "universal language" would do nothing to help conflicts that have been in existence for over 100 years.
DeleteI don't think that language is something that is forced upon people. Students in Europe, Asia and Africa are learning English on their own volition because it offers them a connection with the Western world and the economic opportunities that come with it. They do not have to abandon their native language either, many people in the world are bilingual or even multilingual. Already, tons of African countries are taking on the dollar as their national currency because it is much more stable than their own currency, and they are also adopting their colonial language to help unify the many different cultures in the country. The truth of the matter is English is something that people from developing countries want to learn - it offers them new opportunities. Thus the idea of a single, global language is not so far fetched in my opinion.
DeleteI think language, while can be a door into understanding how other people think and perceive the world we live in, it is also a barrier because what could be easily expressed and widely accepted and understood in one culture makes no sense at all in another. In Spanish there are many phrases in English that just have no translation into Spanish and there isn't anything that could mean what is trying to be said. Also, (this is somewhat language related, but oh well) a couple years ago I went to the Wycliffe bible center with my youth group and the guy was telling us that while there are over 7,000 languages less than 500 of them have a bible in that language (I believe it's actually about 150, but I'm not sure). When they send their people out to these countries so they can translate a bible into their language they have to get around the language barriers, they have to basically forget everything they know that's acceptable in America so they understand them. This is a barrier because one simple mistake might get them killed. In one small island near Australia the custom is when you're going to someone's 'hut' you just go right on in, if you knock, like an American would, they think you're a thief and are going to break in (not exactly language, but helps my point), and they'll try and go after you, the 'thief'. It can be a door into what other people think, but over all it hinders the abilities for every culture to be on the same page and have the same 'world view', if you will.
ReplyDeleteCarrie- I agree with your point and I wanted to add that your argument fully supports the influence of cultures on language. The culture is not shaped by the language, but based on customs and traditions, the language is adapted to fit into that society. I feel that we cannot fully understand language unless we consider the culture in which it encompasses. I felt that the videos were a great indication of this. Pagel preached about English becoming a dominant language due to its globalization, yet he was Scottish; he spoke English as his dominant tongue. He was always accustomed to that English-dominant society. Ryan, on the other hand, is a person who was born and raised in an English-dominant society, yet lived for so long at a place that was a crossroad for sooooo many cultures. She had to learn to adapt to the Arabic culture and through this she widened her perspective of the world's languages and their importance.
DeleteQuestion: Does language promote cooperation or act as a barrier to it?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: While my answer might seem very generic, it truly does depend on the situation in which language is used. People who can speak the same language promote cooperation. In my work place and community, I often end up working with Albanians toward a joint goal, mostly due to the fact that because I am easily able to speak the language (and sometimes even better comprehend). Yet, by drifting toward the group of people who speak Albanian, I end up ignoring the others around me who speak other languages, such as English, Spanish, French, Arabic, etc. In another aspect of this question, dialects in a language end up acting as barriers between people of the same nationality or culture. In the Albanian language, there is a dialect difference between the people of the north and those of the south (similar to the North-South divide in the US). Being from the southern part of Albania, I speak a much more laid-back, almost drawl-like version of Albanian. When I have to communicate with people from the northern part, I rarely tend to understand what they are saying and end up smiling and nodding like a fool. Yet no matter how hard I try to "adapt" to their dialect, it is very difficult to comprehend it and I end up ignoring people who speak with that particular dialect. The formation of this divide has severely impacted our nation as our united Albanian culture has seemingly split into 2 different spheres.
4. Language is used as a way to open new doors and communicate with other people. That's why languages are spoken by a multitude of people. Language could be used both ways. It could act as a barrier when one person is speaking to another person in a different language so that the person sitting in front of them doesn't understand what they are talking about. Yet, I think that language is used as a door on a wider scale. Different languages were developed by the difference in culture and religion from place to place. This was out of our control, but we still use it as a door by learning other languages. This helps establish the means of communicating stronger and more complex concepts to others of a different language, which opens up a new door to a possible friendly relationship.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your claim. People speak different languages because different societies came up their own ways to communicate, as a way to open doors. It was not created to stop people from conveying ideas.
Delete1. One universal language would not be beneficial because it would result in the extinction of many cultural ideas that are the result of language. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that we studied in class, our reality is defined by our language and the words that we use to communicate our thoughts and feelings. There are many languages that have words for things that we don't have words for as English speakers, and it can be hard to translate these words. For example, in Spanish there are several words that don't have an English equivalent. When this word is explained in English, it can still be difficult to grasp the concept of what the word actually means, and many times the idea is lost on the English speaker. This means that there are words in other languages that describe certain ideas that we don't think about as English speakers. By losing these languages, we also lose the ideas and concepts that come from that culture. This would result in entire ideas and concepts that are lost once we had a universal language.
ReplyDelete5. I believe that language does act as a barrier to cooperation. Despite all the assertions that nonverbal communication and imagery can make up for different languages, the truth is that even body language and pictures can be interpreted differently among cultures. For example, in Nation by Terry Pratchett, an English girl tries to cooperate with a Polynesian boy by drawing a picture of the boy with an arrow to the ship, showing that he should meet her at the ship. The boy interprets the picture as saying he should throw a spear at the ship, highlighting how different cultures interpret pictures differently. Although language can be used to cooperate, people need to be able to speak the same language, or else it will only be a barrier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you made Evan, but I would also like to argue that language can also serve as a bridge to interact with other people. The lack of communication between the English girl and the Polynesian boy (in Nation) was at first an obstacle, but it forced them to cooperate to understand each other. This relates into the modern world in that we in the USA are taught other languages so that we are able to speak with a person from say, France.
DeleteI disagree with the idea that language inhibits cooperation. In the example you illustrated, it is not language itself, but rather difference in languages that led to miscommunication. Language was created for the ever evolving purpose of communication for cooperation, and as you will see in Nation, it eventually allows the boy and the girl to communicate better with each other when they mix their own languages to come to mutual understanding.
Delete1. The thought that the world will inevitably speak one language is flawed. Trying to make the world think in one certain way is impossible. There are people who are very strict when it comes to preserving their language and even if there are people who may not mind acquiring a universal language they would not just forget their first language. One common language for the wold would be incredibly convenient for political and economic purposes like trade or when leaders from other counties meet each other, but, though languages like English and Chinese have great amounts of speakers, one language for the world would not be a plausible endeavor because not only would there be adherents of a language who would not allow themselves to assimilate but the loss of languages removes the uniqueness of the world.
ReplyDelete5. Language promotes cooperation because it causes people to think of ways to be able to communicate with people of a different language which helps us with interaction with other countries and causes the world to become a little smaller.
1. I do believe that one language around the world is that we are heading towards. A single common language for the world to share communications couldn't fact bring benefit, while maintaining current languages that exist around the world today. This global language can be known by everyone and serve the purpose of communications among countries, industries, and cultures. It is possible to have a single languages globally that can coexist with the languages of many cultures in this world. We should open our arms to the idea of the common language among us. This will give the world something to share and connect with, and could possibly bring us closer as global unit. However it is important that we stay true to our nationalities and cultures by maintaining the use of our own languages in order to maintain A sense of identity on this very vast earth. I agree with both of the ideas brought up in each Ted Talk, and even though they were contradicting, if we can manage to bring two ideas together to create one peaceful system, the entire world can read the benefits and continue to prosper peacefully.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with a global language, is that the entire world has to pick one language to use. By doing this, it makes one language seem superior to the rest, when in reality, they all have value. It doesn't seem right that some people get to keep their native language if it is the one designated as the "global language" while the other minorities are forced to learn new languages.
Delete1. I do not think language will become universal. There are far too many languages, and there will always be people set in their traditional ways.
ReplyDeleteLanguage and culture develop together, and by conforming into one language begins to blur the lines between cultures. Diversity is vital, and for different languages allow for different ways of thinking, which is beneficial. Communication through translation seems viable, because it despite the costs, it preserves the unique cultures humanity has developed, which is invaluable.
I agree with you, languages should be preserved for the sake of individual cultures. But what shall we do to solve the problem of language barriers and understanding one another. Some things may be lost in translation, but not saying something entirely correct, and not understanding each other at all, are two totally different scopes of understanding. I think it's worth the standardization of a universal language to at least serve as a second language to everyone internationally
Delete1. I think that a universal language would be a great idea but I think that it would be a difficult thing to actually accomplish. If one language could be created, then it would cut down on the costs for translators for every time we try to speak with someone who does not speak our language. It would also allow us to communicate ideas easier. Talking about money, the EU wastes an equivalent of over $1 billion US dollars a year on translators that the diplomats have to use to communicate ideas from country to country. Another costly thing would be if the new language was created, then the creators would have to travel around the world and they would have to teach each and every person that new language by translating from their original language to the universal language. The extinction of the other languages would also make the cultures that went along with the languages to die as well. These cultures bring along traditions that other people may not connect with and accept. Another reason why the new language would not work is that human’s critical period to learn a language is from birth to around nine years of age. If a person does not learn a language by the end of that period of time, then the person is unlikely to fully learn the new language.
ReplyDelete2. Although there's a strong argument why the world cannot economically and realistically afford to have so many different languages, the world should make an effort to accommodate language diversity. We can afford to have these languages in the long term because each provides insight that shapes (and is shaped by) individual cultures. More or any effort to preserve languages should be made at least to conserve the knowledge that would otherwise go to waste if a language went extinct.
ReplyDelete5. Does language promote cooperation or act as a barrier to it?
ReplyDeleteLanguage can both promote cooperation and act as a barrier. If two individuals speak the same language, they can easily convey their ideas to each other. However, if they speak different languages, it will be difficult to communicate using verbal speech (they might have to refer to primitive hand gestures or such).
1. Is one language inevitable? Is one language common to the whole world a defensible project? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI think one language is not inevitable because there will always be people that teach their children minority languages rather than English in an attempt to preserve the originality of their culture. For example, Europe has made attempts to protect and sustain the existence of esoteric languages through the institution of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In this way, I think that language is directly tied with the identity of a group of people. Language makes a group unique and defines its values; without maintaining the common language of an individual's heritage, one would find it harder to connect and interact with the world as a whole. The diversity of people corresponds with the thousands of languages, and although a single language may be more practical in the digital age of space-time compression and the Internet, the loss of minority languages would equate the loss of entire ethnic cultures. There will always be people that commit to tradition over practicality or modern innovations.
2. Can we afford to have all these languages? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned by Mark Pagel, the costs to translate the 23 official languages in Europe are about 1 billion dollars a year. However, translation is an imperative method of preserving knowledge and providing a vaster scope for thinking thoughts that can only be understood when in the context of a specific language. We should be able to afford to keep as many languages as we can because language is what structures our experiences in the world and molds our thinking, allowing people to remain open-minded to their language. Different languages often yield a variety of point of views, shaping our perceptions and providing broader options of inquiry to add to the collective knowledge of the world through the uniqueness of thought that stems from having different languages rather than a single, dominant one.
3. Does language divide us or bring us together? Why?
ReplyDeleteLanguage both divides us and brings us together. It contributes to the social learning theory proposed by Mark Pagel, which results in the instant gain of knowledge and skills without having to go through the original time and effort (basically a form of stealing). This social learning theory has resulted in the prospering of the Homo sapiens for thousands of years. Language has brought us together through the sharing of knowledge and the practical applications that come along with it. Language allows us to be more precise with what we wish to express to others (like our desires or problems), which connects others in an interaction of mutual understanding. However, language also divides us in ambiguity, faulty translations, and sarcasm.
1. One universal language is not inevitable. In fact, it is not possible. One language could not fully encompass all ideas, all emotions, and all objects, and still be able to be used. If tone is used to convey a message, certain cultures may have varying tones. All in all, having one language would not be possible, nor would it be viable. Bringing one language to the world is not a defensible project. It is not only futile, but a linguistic step backwards. To translate among current languages would be more precise in conveying a message than one language could, because one language would not allow for the distinction in tone. There are languages that are very wide-spoken, like English. English is not meant to replace all languages, but to find a quick replacement to translating among languages. It is convenient and viable. Taking English a step further, however, would mean a degradation in the power of language.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Swaran. English is convenient because it is so widely used, but to only use it and no other languages to express ideas and emotions would be useless. There are so many ways to express ideas and communicate so why would we even try to take that away?
DeleteI agree with Swaran as well. If we were to adopt one universal language we would loose many meanings expressed through the use of other languages. I think that a classic example would be the word 'know'. During my first year of Spanish class I was taught that in the Spanish language there are two words for the degree in which you know something or someone. If you know someone in the sense that you know about them on a only factual, impersonal level you would use the verb saber. However, If you knew them emotionally and had a personal bond with them you would use the verb conocer . Imagine telling someone that the two words that they once knew as seperate were to be combined. They no longer have the proper words to express themselves the way they were used to. By uniforming language , in this instance, you would be limiting their vocabulary and taking away parts of their culture.
DeleteI don't think one language is inevitable. Throwing away a language is like throwing away a culture and a rich history. Going from thousands of languages to only one would most likely be impossible. Also many ideas and phrases cannot be translated from one language to another without getting distorted or misinterpreted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Kayley. Each language is unique in its culture and has a story associated with it as well as many years of knowledge. By throwing away all of these languages, we would be doing society a disfavor.
Delete2. I think monetarily, having thousands of languages is costly. The EU spends I believe a billion dollars for translators. That being said, all that money fives people jobs and keeps the economy going. So it is worth it. And its also worth.the hassle it might create in business or travel because that allows for learning.
ReplyDelete4.) I believe language serves more as a barrier than as an open door. Languages would have all been standardized if we truly wanted to have universal communication and understanding. For example, the SI or International Scientific Units were standardized for the sole purpose of facilitating communication between scientists world wide. It helps avoid confusion, share data and findings, as well as help to make replication of an experiment easier. It is in this way, have ing an international standard, should we have our languages spoken. We may all have our own systems of language, but to have one standard language that everyone can learn in addition to their own is more effective in sharing knowledge and ideas. But, with languages the way they are now, there is a huge language barrier that prevents us ffrom conveying our ideas clearly with one another. This can be seen being done intentionally by military forces, who code their messages and transmissions to prevent foreign forces from gaining Intel. The same thing happens everyday when people who both know a second language speak in their tongue to prevent others form understanding their conversation. It is in this way that language is a huge barrier to comprehention and understanding.
ReplyDeleteA universal language although may seem a perfect fit from an Utopian point of view, the fact is that it is not practical in our world. For example, the current global issue of ISIS, or ISIL, as well as problems in the Ukraine, causes tensions between the world powers. Former Russian ambassador Mcfaul makes a good point in that Russia deserves to be respected as a growing super power. With people as proud as the Russians, or the Islamic radicals, or even Americans, one language is not possible. The fact that the UN still has not combined all of it's languages but instead spends crazy amounts of money is a testament to our unwillingness to give up what makes us unique. Language is one of the most vital ways of knowing that we have. Losing a language means losing all of the knowledge that the language holds. One could argue that it could just be translated, however, as a French student I can attest to the fact that things often get jumbled up in translation. For all of these reasons I say that one universal language will never happen as long as nations remain sovereign, or as long as people hold on to what makes them unique.
ReplyDeleteI feel like language can divide us because there are so many languages out there and one cannot learn every single language. Because of these language differences many misconceptions arise and ideas get lost in translation. However this gap is slowly filling as we learn new languages and have tools to help us translate thoughts, ideas, and concepts
ReplyDelete1. One language is not inevitable because there is so much diversity between different languages, as well as diversity within languages. Even within one language, such as English, there are variations between words used in different countries or parts of a country, even if the language is considered to be the same overall. One language is not a defensible project because each language has its own unique outlook on life with perspectives varying based on culture and environment. We would never be able to achieve one language because we all see the world in different ways, forcing us to use different words and ways of communication to describe the world that we live in. Even though a singular language would mean that nothing would be lost in translation, it would be incredibly difficult to incorporate all of the perspectives of every single person worldwide and combine it into one language that would be able to be used as an efficient communication device.
ReplyDeleteRagyie- I agree with your argument that one language is not inevitable, and that an effort to make it so is not defensible, because of the unique perspective that each offers, and on the latter I wholeheartedly endorse your view. However, on the subject of the inevitability of one language, your reasoning seems to be incomplete. You say that such an outcome is impossible because we see the world in different ways. However, you lack evidence to support this assertion. Studies by cognitive psychologists indicate that understanding of another's unique linguistic viewpoint is gained when speakers of different languages interact for a prolonged period of time. You also claim that "it would be incredibly difficult to incorporate all of the perspectives of every single person worldwide and combine it into one language that would be able to be used as an efficient communication device." I'm not sure that is what the prompt is asking, which is the question, "Is a single language inevitable?" It does not question if such a language would incorporate the worldview of all speakers.
DeleteAcademic language cannot convey the frustration that I have just felt, after previously typing the following response and having it disappear upon hitting "send". Keep this in mind when considering the limitations of language.
ReplyDeleteOf the many real or perceived paradoxes in the world, the paradox of language is perhaps the most important to human knowledge. The paradox of language is that it serves to both expand and hinder our understanding. Linguistic determinists claim that language shapes our perception of reality, and molds our understanding of the world. In a poignant study supporting this claim, Japanese American women expressed very different attitudes when answering researchers' questions in English and in their native Japanese. While counter-evidence suggests that language is instead at least partially the result of the surrounding environment, linguistic determinists still expose a basic truth: every language offers unique insight and ideas by means of vocabulary and connotation. In this way language expands our collective understanding. Language also serves a hindrance to knowledge, the most obvious reason being that information cannot be communicated between two parties speaking different languages. When said parties use a lingua franca, such as English, much meaning is lost in the process. Even direct translation often fails to communicate ideas. In a humorous example, a Russian translator once supposedly translated the English idiomatic expression, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," as "The vodka is agreeable, but the meat is inferior." Thus, having acknowledged that languages offers unique understanding, but that their very existence hinders communication of ideas, the challenge becomes finding a way to convey the perspective that each language offers to non-speakers.
I believe that these questions neglect the original purpose of language, the original reason it came about. Language evolved out of a necessity for communication in social interactions requiring cooperation. These social interactions ultimately brought us together as a species. Over the millenia, the nature of language has evolved, brought us closer together, increased in utility, and changed to better serve its original purpose of maximizing the efficiency of communication. The language of the present will always be superior to the language of the past. Thus, to consider the current state of language as a barrier would be to compare it to an imaginary, idealized language that has not yet been created. What we have is the best version of language that has ever existed, one that most serves the purpose of bringing us together and aiding cooperation, and so there is no tangible higher form that it would barrier. Language does not divide us, inhibit cooperation, or barrier understanding on the basis that it is more unifying and promotional of cooperation and understanding than it has ever been.
ReplyDeleteTL;DR
The current nature of language is the best we have ever had and will always be increasing in quality, so it’s not really a barrier unless we compare it to an imaginary ideal language, but that’s like saying a 9 foot tall man is short on the basis that you conjured up a 42 foot tall man in your imagination to compare the other dude to.
**I had to paraphrase my original thoughts because for some reason my writing disappeared when I first submitted, and I only thought to copy/paste from a document until I had rewritten everything three times so this is a thrice washed down analysis
2. I do not think that we can afford to have all of the languages that currently inhabits the world. 6,909 distinct languages* were document to have been used throughout the world in 2009. That is not to mention all of the different subgroups of unofficial languages that combine multiple languages together. Wasn't the whole point of language to be able to communicate with people in the first place? There is no one who can fluently speak every language used on earth. How are we supposed to unit together as human beings when the majority of us can't even understand what our counterparts from the other side of the world are saying? Having this many languages will only ruin us in the long run. The number of languages used is receding but not fast enough. Our demise could come from something as little as miscommunication.
ReplyDelete*http://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/how-many-languages-are-there-world
I would have to agree with Patricia Ryan that language does serve as a door. It can be a door to information that is unknown to the Western World. Think about how we got the Old and New Testament. Biblical scholars had to be able to translate Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. How did we get the principle of algebra? Medieval scholars translated the Arabic texts from mathematicians in the Near East into Latin, which was widely used in the Western World. So in this age of mass globalization of western culture, it is important that we do not forget other languages, for they can lead to information that is highly unknown to some.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patricia as well. I think that language provides new opportunities to learn something new and to broaden our knowledge. I also think that having one universal language, while possibly inevitable, would not last very long. As with the story in the bible, we started out with one language, which branched out into different languages. The same thing would happen if we decided to try to amalgamate one language for everyone now. Different cultures believe in different things, so new words would have to be added that would not be universal because other cultures would have no use for it. Eventually the "universal" language would branch off into different dialects until the task was attempted again.
ReplyDeleteI think that one language may be inevitable but once that language is formed many different dialects will occur. Once these come to prominence then they will break off into other "new" languages because not everyone comes from the same culture where all they can use are english words.
ReplyDelete