The text is taken from a Stanford University magazine and discusses the effects language has on thinking. The founder of this study had traveled around the world to test out how individuals who use different languages think and how it affects their reactions and overall thought process. An important part of this study found that in languages such as Japanese they tend to not put the blame on the individual if it were an accident while in English we put the blame onto the individual directly. For example in English we would say “She broke the cup” while in these other languages one would say “the cup broke itself.”
This study has also researched the different meanings for words that people who speak different languages may have. Boroditsky states “‘What I’m really interested in are the ingredients of meaning. I don’t believe we can explain how we construct meaning without understanding patterns in metaphor and language.” This quote shows the developed meaning of the study. The meaning of these major things has caused the study to have a reason as in different languages the meaning of different prospects can slightly change.
The aspect of time has drastic differences on how one may think. In English every time a verb is used it states a different point in time. For example, ‘I made that,’ ‘i will make that,’ and ‘i am making that.’ This however is very different in certain languages, for example in Indonesian the verbs never change to express the time and stay the same. For example they would just say ‘i make that.’ They have sometimes added additional words to address the time such as ‘already’ or ‘soon’ but it is not very common and not needed to make a grammatically correct sentence. This could definitely change the thought process that Indonesians use and could make it very different from an English speaker.
This also ties into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This theory supports the view that the words and grammar of a language directly shape the thoughts of its speakers. Another example based on the different uses of tenses is between the English language and the languages of Native Americans. Whorf compared these two languages as he believed that the Indians don’t think through their use of tenses. He did not understand and realize that they did have a concept of time. This shows the relationship between language and thought as the Indians do have a concept of time.
AO1: 3/10 marks
ReplyDeleteYou only have a little more than 400 words which show you don't have clear or detailed knowledge of the context being provided. However, you do show limited reference to a wider knowledge of the context by briefly stating a specific example. Your examples are pulled straight from the text with little no know broadened explanation to them. This doesn’t show that you understand what you are talking about.
AO2: ⅖ marks
Your response is clear and can be understood however there are a few grammatical errors such as commas. This does not impede communication though. Your content is relevant to the topic of the relation between language and thought but again it is brief. To make the ideas developed explain more about what is being said in the examples except just saying the examples and that is it. This would also help you meet your word count.
AO4: 2/10 marks
You show a basic understanding of the linguistic topics as you use them in examples. However, you don’t state a lot of specific theories or buzzwords to strengthen your writing. Again you should be more in-depth when explaining this way you can show a basic or clear understanding of the context being provided.
Overall 7/25 marks
Hi.
ReplyDeleteAO1: 2 marks
Because of the few references to particular topics utilized in your blog, I believe you had a basic knowledge of the material. You failed to contribute your own ideas, which was ineffective. You also supplied a quick overview of the tax, which fell short of the product's expectations. The assignment expected you to discuss the key points in the text rather than describe what the work was about, which is exactly what you did. The podcast requested you to talk about key themes and then provide background information and expertise that the listener might grasp. You ignored the contacts, audience, and significance of the content, focusing only on a few key parts. “This study has also researched the different meanings for words that people who speak different languages may have.” This is an example of what your sentences and what your information looks like throughout your blog. I believe that you could've done much better.
AO2: 1 mark
Although you have a fundamental phrase and few typos, the material was irrelevant in the. Your poor grade was also due to the lack of elaboration of your ideas. I feel you got it because you were bouncing about and didn't give a damn about explaining and helping your reader grasp what was going on with the content. Because your study was quick and did not provide a word count, I had a lot of information. “For example in English we would say “She broke the cup” while in these other languages one would say “the cup broke itself.” This is an example from your blog, and you tried to use quotes, but it didn't work out since you had the opportunity to expound at the conclusion of that paragraph, and you opted not to do so. You tried to provide information at first, but all you did was offer a summary of the book and then three quotes.
AO4: 2 marks
Because you didn't go into any depth about the language choices, concepts, techniques, or approaches that we use for expression throughout the text, I assume you had a fundamental comprehension of them. You'll only be a quick over you over the text describing them to me. Minimal allusions to a broader range of language concepts, methodologies, or approaches are that actually you. By discussing your broad variety of studies, you did not take an approach that was appropriate in any way. That's why you didn't get a good grade, as you only employed one hypothesis throughout your whole analysis for all of your themes. “This also ties into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This theory supports the view that the words and grammar of a language directly shape the thoughts of its speakers.” This is an example from your blog and the theory that you tried to elaborate on but didn't go so well.
AO1:Hey Colb, this blog was decent. You had a limited understanding of the text. Your introduction may need some rewording because it does not flow well along with being very choppy. You had clear references to specific points.
ReplyDeleteAO2:Your expression was clear, with numerous errors which do not impeded communication. You smell bad and your content stays relevant throughout. I like how you kept your quotes shorter to make the paper more precise
AO4:You had a clear understanding of the linguistic issues, concepts, methods, and approaches represented in the text. You also had clear references to wider study of linguistic issues, concepts, methods, and approaches Overall!!!! You!!!!!Did!!!!Amazing!!!!!7/25