For this week's blog, you will compose the introduction to your paper. As Hacker says, a good length for an introduction is between 50 and 150 words. Write an introduction and integrate your thesis into it.
This introduction needs to do several things. It needs to grab your reader's attention. You should establish the topic and show that you know something about the topic -- that is, you need to evince your academic credibility. Also, be sure that your writing leads up to your thesis statement(s) effectively.
This is a short assignment, but I expect you to work hard to polish this into a strong and interesting introduction! Finally, as this is a formal paper, make sure your writing is clear and conforms to Standard English grammar.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Is language learned or biological?
Sam Redden
Is language learned or biological?
Thesis:
Considering the fact that children are taught their native language by being around and communicating with other natives; language is taught. However, because children easily pick up their language without extensive teachings, the desire to communicate is biological.
Quote 1: Harvey A. Daniels “Nine Ideas about Language” pg 19
“Children learn their native language swiftly, efficiently, and largely without instruction.”
This quote will be used to argue that when children learn language, there is more to it than merely being taught. They are not given lessons on grammar at age two, but they somehow still pick it up. This quote will help persuade readers that there is a role of biology in the development of a child’s native tongue.
Quote 2: Pinker “An instinct to acquire an art” pg 4
“We think that children pick up their mother tongue by imitating their mothers, but when a child says Don’t giggle me! or We holded the baby rabbits, it cannot be an act of imitation.”
I understand that most readers will need more persuasion to believe language is also biological than to believe it is learned by people around us. This quote will cause my readers to think about their arguments and consider my thesis more deeply.
Quote 3: Dalrymple “The Gift of Language” pg 4
“my mother, a native German-speaker, arrived in England aged 18 and learned to speak standard English without a trace of a German accent (which linguists say is a rare accomplishment) and without ever making a grammatical mistake. She didn’t imitate her parents, perhaps, but she imitated someone.”
This quote will be used to argue other point of my thesis. When learning a language, one typically repeats what they hear other speakers saying. I refuse, however, to write a paper about the hat Dalrymple has for Pinker. Dalrymple’s point will not necessarily used to contradict Pinker, but to aid in the construction of my paper.
Is language learned or biological?
Thesis:
Considering the fact that children are taught their native language by being around and communicating with other natives; language is taught. However, because children easily pick up their language without extensive teachings, the desire to communicate is biological.
Quote 1: Harvey A. Daniels “Nine Ideas about Language” pg 19
“Children learn their native language swiftly, efficiently, and largely without instruction.”
This quote will be used to argue that when children learn language, there is more to it than merely being taught. They are not given lessons on grammar at age two, but they somehow still pick it up. This quote will help persuade readers that there is a role of biology in the development of a child’s native tongue.
Quote 2: Pinker “An instinct to acquire an art” pg 4
“We think that children pick up their mother tongue by imitating their mothers, but when a child says Don’t giggle me! or We holded the baby rabbits, it cannot be an act of imitation.”
I understand that most readers will need more persuasion to believe language is also biological than to believe it is learned by people around us. This quote will cause my readers to think about their arguments and consider my thesis more deeply.
Quote 3: Dalrymple “The Gift of Language” pg 4
“my mother, a native German-speaker, arrived in England aged 18 and learned to speak standard English without a trace of a German accent (which linguists say is a rare accomplishment) and without ever making a grammatical mistake. She didn’t imitate her parents, perhaps, but she imitated someone.”
This quote will be used to argue other point of my thesis. When learning a language, one typically repeats what they hear other speakers saying. I refuse, however, to write a paper about the hat Dalrymple has for Pinker. Dalrymple’s point will not necessarily used to contradict Pinker, but to aid in the construction of my paper.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Language: have it or gain it?
Leila Shearon
9.25.09
Thesis
The development of language in a human child is not strictly the work of neither nature nor nurture; it is a combination of both.
Quotes
“For you and I belong to a species with remarkable ability…”
>>I decided to use this quote to state that the communication is more complex and advanced than that of animals. Since it is more complex it requires nurture for it to grow to its full potential. (Pinker page 1)
Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of biological makeup of our brains. (Pinker page 18)
“Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in a child spontaneously without conscious effort or formal instruction”(Pinker page 3)
>>I will use these quote to state the side that Pinker takes. His opinion is only half of what I believe is truth.
“I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely that language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple page 4)
>>I will use this quote to state that culture and surrounding also has a part in the development of language in a child.
9.25.09
Thesis
The development of language in a human child is not strictly the work of neither nature nor nurture; it is a combination of both.
Quotes
“For you and I belong to a species with remarkable ability…”
>>I decided to use this quote to state that the communication is more complex and advanced than that of animals. Since it is more complex it requires nurture for it to grow to its full potential. (Pinker page 1)
Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of biological makeup of our brains. (Pinker page 18)
“Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in a child spontaneously without conscious effort or formal instruction”(Pinker page 3)
>>I will use these quote to state the side that Pinker takes. His opinion is only half of what I believe is truth.
“I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely that language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple page 4)
>>I will use this quote to state that culture and surrounding also has a part in the development of language in a child.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Language Authority in the United States
Jackie Hand
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
Quote 2: “I’ll never forget, all the mothers were crying.”
I chose this quote because it shows the pain that these poor people had to go through. They were forced to send their children to these schools, and it is just so sad. It must have been terrible as a mother to watch your children be sent away where you KNEW that they were going to be abused.
Quote 3: "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
Why should you want to ridicule someone for their heritage? That goes against everything that this country stands for. People came here to not be judged or punished for what they believe or how they speak, and without that we would not be what we are today. So why are we punishing the people who were here first?
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
Language Authority In the United States
Thesis statement: It is apparent that English is the language spoken by most people in this country. Yet, it has yet to be made into our “official” language. So, how is it, since we are indecisive ourselves, that we feel the right to force others to learn English? We, together as a country, need to make a decision on what to do about this situation. If it is necessary for others to learn English, then why not just make it our official language?
Quote 1: “Kill the Indian…save the man”
I chose this quote because it is the most ludicrous statement that I have ever heard. If we are really the “land of the free” then how can we say this about the very people who were here first? I think I’m going to use this quote as a basis for most of my paper because this is the very thing that I want to argue against.
Thesis statement: It is apparent that English is the language spoken by most people in this country. Yet, it has yet to be made into our “official” language. So, how is it, since we are indecisive ourselves, that we feel the right to force others to learn English? We, together as a country, need to make a decision on what to do about this situation. If it is necessary for others to learn English, then why not just make it our official language?
Quote 1: “Kill the Indian…save the man”
I chose this quote because it is the most ludicrous statement that I have ever heard. If we are really the “land of the free” then how can we say this about the very people who were here first? I think I’m going to use this quote as a basis for most of my paper because this is the very thing that I want to argue against.
Quote 2: “I’ll never forget, all the mothers were crying.”
I chose this quote because it shows the pain that these poor people had to go through. They were forced to send their children to these schools, and it is just so sad. It must have been terrible as a mother to watch your children be sent away where you KNEW that they were going to be abused.
Quote 3: "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
Why should you want to ridicule someone for their heritage? That goes against everything that this country stands for. People came here to not be judged or punished for what they believe or how they speak, and without that we would not be what we are today. So why are we punishing the people who were here first?
Animals Are Capable of Communication Too!
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 5
Thesis Statement- Many people don’t think that animals are capable of communicating with the human race. Animals can indeed communicate with humans through various methods other than speech. The inability to speak does not stop many animals from communicating with humans; especially if they are taught to communicate using sign language or some other method of communication.
Quote 1: “Yet we know that creatures are capable of communicating, certainly with other members of their own species. Is it possible that a creature could learn to communicate with humans using language?”(The Study of Language, George Yule)
This quote will essentially be used to introduce the topic and to make the reader think to himself, “can animals really communicate with humans? I wonder.”
Quote 2: “Riders can say Woah to horses and they stop"(The Study of Language, George Yule)
This quote shows that animals can understand human speech. It shows the possibility that humans can understand some form of language that an animal would be capable of using.
Quote 3: “Some of the forms appear to have been inventions by Washoe, as in her novel sign for bib and in the combination water bird, which would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for productivity.”
This quote proves that animals, chimpanzees in this instance, are capable of communicating with humans and developing their own form words that they have not been taught.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 5
Thesis Statement- Many people don’t think that animals are capable of communicating with the human race. Animals can indeed communicate with humans through various methods other than speech. The inability to speak does not stop many animals from communicating with humans; especially if they are taught to communicate using sign language or some other method of communication.
Quote 1: “Yet we know that creatures are capable of communicating, certainly with other members of their own species. Is it possible that a creature could learn to communicate with humans using language?”(The Study of Language, George Yule)
This quote will essentially be used to introduce the topic and to make the reader think to himself, “can animals really communicate with humans? I wonder.”
Quote 2: “Riders can say Woah to horses and they stop"(The Study of Language, George Yule)
This quote shows that animals can understand human speech. It shows the possibility that humans can understand some form of language that an animal would be capable of using.
Quote 3: “Some of the forms appear to have been inventions by Washoe, as in her novel sign for bib and in the combination water bird, which would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for productivity.”
This quote proves that animals, chimpanzees in this instance, are capable of communicating with humans and developing their own form words that they have not been taught.
How do we learn language? Is language biological, cultural, or a combination of both?
Carmen Solis
Engl 1107
Thesis:
Pinker and Dalrymple explain thoroughly in their writing how language is developed in a human-being. Pinker states that language is something that comes naturally; while, Dalrymple explains that the cultural environment that one lives in has a great influence on the language. As a matter of fact, language's development is a combination of biological and one's surrounding.
Quotes:
“Indeed, you can posses all these advantages and still not be a competent language user, if you lack just the right genes or just the right bits of brain” (Chatterboxes, pg 54 by Pinker)
I will use this quote to state what Pinker thinks of how language is developed. This quote shows that Pinker takes the side that language comes from biological meaning. This quote has facts and it will give me a chance to combine with one of Dalrymple’s quote explaining how the cultural and biological are linked together to form and develop language.
“Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex…..process information or behave intelligently” (An instinct to acquire an Art, pg 18 by Pinker)
This quote gives an insight into why Pinker thinks language comes naturally. This quote explains exactly what he thinks. It would help the readers to understand his strong point of view. I will paraphrase and supply examples of his point-of-view. I will explain this quote more extensively and provide more information of why he thinks that way.
“It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children…it is a sociological truism that a children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents” (The Gift of Language, pg 4 by Theodore)
I will use this quote to explain what Theodore thinks about language. He is saying that if a child is around Chinese speaking parents, of course, he is going to learn Chinese because that is the language he is hearing. Basically, the environment that a child is surrounded by and the language that he/she is hearing will cause some effect on her language.
Engl 1107
Thesis:
Pinker and Dalrymple explain thoroughly in their writing how language is developed in a human-being. Pinker states that language is something that comes naturally; while, Dalrymple explains that the cultural environment that one lives in has a great influence on the language. As a matter of fact, language's development is a combination of biological and one's surrounding.
Quotes:
“Indeed, you can posses all these advantages and still not be a competent language user, if you lack just the right genes or just the right bits of brain” (Chatterboxes, pg 54 by Pinker)
I will use this quote to state what Pinker thinks of how language is developed. This quote shows that Pinker takes the side that language comes from biological meaning. This quote has facts and it will give me a chance to combine with one of Dalrymple’s quote explaining how the cultural and biological are linked together to form and develop language.
“Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex…..process information or behave intelligently” (An instinct to acquire an Art, pg 18 by Pinker)
This quote gives an insight into why Pinker thinks language comes naturally. This quote explains exactly what he thinks. It would help the readers to understand his strong point of view. I will paraphrase and supply examples of his point-of-view. I will explain this quote more extensively and provide more information of why he thinks that way.
“It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children…it is a sociological truism that a children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents” (The Gift of Language, pg 4 by Theodore)
I will use this quote to explain what Theodore thinks about language. He is saying that if a child is around Chinese speaking parents, of course, he is going to learn Chinese because that is the language he is hearing. Basically, the environment that a child is surrounded by and the language that he/she is hearing will cause some effect on her language.
Learning Language: Biological or Cultural
Mary Elizabeth Lowe
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
Thesis Statement:
While a number of individuals believe undoubtedly that language is purely biological or learned, a more logical conclusion is in the blending of both inheritance and learning of language. A biological neural program in each human beings head is an innate essential for future language; however, it is equally vital to hear the voices of language in order to fully communicate and reach one’s linguistic potential.
Quotes:
“Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in a child spontaneously without conscious effort or formal instruction”
(Pinker, 3)
This quote will provide credibility due to the fact he is a well educated and published writer. This statement will be used to argue that language is an innate ability in all people. One does not necessarily need a formal education to communicate, but it is obviously quite helpful.
“It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents ( or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration , but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones”. (Dalrymple, 3)
This remark about Chinese speaking children having Chinese parents provides a great amount of evidence that language is learned rather than solely biological. I was raised by English speaking parents and I speak English. If language was purely biological as some people think, why did I not learn Chinese instead of English?
Noam Chomsky basic argument is that there exists an innate language acquisition device, a neural program that prepares them to learn language (Kandel 638). http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
This quote provides scientific evidence that in the brain there is the capacity to learn language. It is not so much that we are born speaking, but when we hear others speaking, the “neural program” in our minds enables us to pick up, repeat, and form unique sentences. Thus, a combination of biological and learned aspects are at work.
"No child would ever talk unless he were taught; and no child could be taught unless he already possessed, by inheritance, a particular series of nervous arrangements ready for training"(Marshall, 41). http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
This is an expert opinion that states a child must be ready in his mind, with the needed “nervous arrangements” in order to further that already possessed skill of language through further instruction and teaching. Both steps are needed in language, inheritance and teaching.
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
Thesis Statement:
While a number of individuals believe undoubtedly that language is purely biological or learned, a more logical conclusion is in the blending of both inheritance and learning of language. A biological neural program in each human beings head is an innate essential for future language; however, it is equally vital to hear the voices of language in order to fully communicate and reach one’s linguistic potential.
Quotes:
“Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in a child spontaneously without conscious effort or formal instruction”
(Pinker, 3)
This quote will provide credibility due to the fact he is a well educated and published writer. This statement will be used to argue that language is an innate ability in all people. One does not necessarily need a formal education to communicate, but it is obviously quite helpful.
“It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents ( or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration , but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones”. (Dalrymple, 3)
This remark about Chinese speaking children having Chinese parents provides a great amount of evidence that language is learned rather than solely biological. I was raised by English speaking parents and I speak English. If language was purely biological as some people think, why did I not learn Chinese instead of English?
Noam Chomsky basic argument is that there exists an innate language acquisition device, a neural program that prepares them to learn language (Kandel 638). http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
This quote provides scientific evidence that in the brain there is the capacity to learn language. It is not so much that we are born speaking, but when we hear others speaking, the “neural program” in our minds enables us to pick up, repeat, and form unique sentences. Thus, a combination of biological and learned aspects are at work.
"No child would ever talk unless he were taught; and no child could be taught unless he already possessed, by inheritance, a particular series of nervous arrangements ready for training"(Marshall, 41). http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
This is an expert opinion that states a child must be ready in his mind, with the needed “nervous arrangements” in order to further that already possessed skill of language through further instruction and teaching. Both steps are needed in language, inheritance and teaching.
American Language Authority
Jonathan Dishon
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 25, 2009
The United States has no official language to date. It also has no authority to consult when new words are formed. So as a citizen I believe that a national language should be developed, but at the same time we should not get rid of the diversity of languages we already have in existence in the United States. So a language authority in the United States that could establish a standard, but not obliterate the other languages, would greatly benefit the country.
Quote 1: “Every country struggles with the issue of “good language”- what constitutes the standard by which people can model their speech and writing, and judge that of others. Some countries have established official bodies, such as an academy or government agency, to provide guidance through pronouncements and publications.” (“Language Authority in America: In Grammar and Webster We Trust” by Russell Tabbert)
I will use this quote to back-up my decision to have a language authority established. The language authorities of other countries do not get rid of languages, but only set the standard of their own. They also establish pronunciations for words that are new so that they can incorporate them into their language.
Quote 2: “In the United States we have not followed this route, but have instead evolved something of a free-market academy. It operates through two highly competitive segments of the publishing industry. One of them produces monolingual dictionaries, many of which have Webster in their titles. The other publishes numerous books, articles, and columns dealing with the points of usage, that is, the sorts of things that many people refer to with the term grammar.” (“Language Authority in America: In Grammar and Webster We Trust” by Russell Tabbert)
This quote will allow me to show that the United States is already on the way to establishing an authority over language. While it is in the very early stages, it is a good start to becoming an academy or agency that could regulate the language.
Quote 3: “Today English is governed by a loose network of “language authorities,” whom linguist Steven Pinker calls “language mavens”: English teachers, editors, journalists, columnists on language, authors/editors of dictionaries, grammar and usage books, and style guides.”("Language and Authority" by Curzan)
This is another quote that shows how the United States is trying to establish an authority over its language. This shows the type of people who would most likely be considered to be assigned to the academy or agency that would govern the language of the United States.
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 25, 2009
The United States has no official language to date. It also has no authority to consult when new words are formed. So as a citizen I believe that a national language should be developed, but at the same time we should not get rid of the diversity of languages we already have in existence in the United States. So a language authority in the United States that could establish a standard, but not obliterate the other languages, would greatly benefit the country.
Quote 1: “Every country struggles with the issue of “good language”- what constitutes the standard by which people can model their speech and writing, and judge that of others. Some countries have established official bodies, such as an academy or government agency, to provide guidance through pronouncements and publications.” (“Language Authority in America: In Grammar and Webster We Trust” by Russell Tabbert)
I will use this quote to back-up my decision to have a language authority established. The language authorities of other countries do not get rid of languages, but only set the standard of their own. They also establish pronunciations for words that are new so that they can incorporate them into their language.
Quote 2: “In the United States we have not followed this route, but have instead evolved something of a free-market academy. It operates through two highly competitive segments of the publishing industry. One of them produces monolingual dictionaries, many of which have Webster in their titles. The other publishes numerous books, articles, and columns dealing with the points of usage, that is, the sorts of things that many people refer to with the term grammar.” (“Language Authority in America: In Grammar and Webster We Trust” by Russell Tabbert)
This quote will allow me to show that the United States is already on the way to establishing an authority over language. While it is in the very early stages, it is a good start to becoming an academy or agency that could regulate the language.
Quote 3: “Today English is governed by a loose network of “language authorities,” whom linguist Steven Pinker calls “language mavens”: English teachers, editors, journalists, columnists on language, authors/editors of dictionaries, grammar and usage books, and style guides.”("Language and Authority" by Curzan)
This is another quote that shows how the United States is trying to establish an authority over its language. This shows the type of people who would most likely be considered to be assigned to the academy or agency that would govern the language of the United States.
Learning Language: Biological or Cultural?
Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
25 September 2009
Thesis Statement: Throughout time linguist have studied how language has evolved. Although there have been many observations theory suggests that language is learned through biological and cultural experiences.
Quote 1:
"Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently."(Pinker, 18)
In this quote Pinker is stating that language is not learned through culture but is a biological makeup in our brain. I will use this as evidence of some credibility and as a counterarguement.
Quote 2:
"It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking childern, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that childern tend to speak not merely that language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple, 4)
As Dalrymple implies in this quote, childern learn to speak their language through their parents. I will use this as evidence and credibility that childern have to start learning some where, and they mostly around their parents at such a young age.
Quote 3:
"Childern learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends, and others as sources and examples- and by using other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language." (Daniels, 19)
This quote is be used to sum up my arguement that language is learned through both biological and cultural experiences. As stated in the quote above we learn from our parents, which is considered biological. Then on the other hand, we learn from friends and other sources around us which would make up for the cultural experienes devoted to our language.
Ms. Hughes
25 September 2009
Thesis Statement: Throughout time linguist have studied how language has evolved. Although there have been many observations theory suggests that language is learned through biological and cultural experiences.
Quote 1:
"Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently."(Pinker, 18)
In this quote Pinker is stating that language is not learned through culture but is a biological makeup in our brain. I will use this as evidence of some credibility and as a counterarguement.
Quote 2:
"It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking childern, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that childern tend to speak not merely that language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple, 4)
As Dalrymple implies in this quote, childern learn to speak their language through their parents. I will use this as evidence and credibility that childern have to start learning some where, and they mostly around their parents at such a young age.
Quote 3:
"Childern learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends, and others as sources and examples- and by using other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language." (Daniels, 19)
This quote is be used to sum up my arguement that language is learned through both biological and cultural experiences. As stated in the quote above we learn from our parents, which is considered biological. Then on the other hand, we learn from friends and other sources around us which would make up for the cultural experienes devoted to our language.
The Recipe for Learning Language
Bekah Medford
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
The Recipe for Learning Language
Thesis statement: Looking into the recipe of learning language one will find two types of ingredients: biological and cultural. Many people believe that learning language is strictly biological, while others believe language is learned culturally. In reality, the biological and cultural elements are blended together to create a unique, personal, learned language.
Quote 1: “Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more several abilities to process information or behave intelligently… I prefer the term ‘instinct’.” (From “An Instinct to Acquire Art,” by Pinker)
I choose this quote because it is an example of how many people believe language is biological. Language is descriped fully biological in this quote. One main reason I choose this quote was the conclusion. Pinker calls language “instinct.” I agree that language is part instinct.
Quote 2: “Children tend to speak not mearly the language but ther dialect of their parents.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
Though not as long as my first quote I pulled out this quote because I think it brings up a great point. This is an example of children getting part of language culturally. A child cannot be born is a certain dilact just because they are born in a certain place. They are trained by listening to people talk in their surrounding environment. Learning languae culturally is describe in this quote.
Quote 3: “ Its factous to expect most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
This quote is showing the contrasting opinon to quote 1. I thought it would be a good idea to bring this quote in to convey that diversity. I think this quote makes a lot of since. It has another comprehensible point on why language is somewhat culturally learned. A child with a higher education from a different cultural may be trained better than a child with no education. This will lead the first child to be more effiecent in talking with his language or using his language.
English 1101
Hughes
2/25/2009
The Recipe for Learning Language
Thesis statement: Looking into the recipe of learning language one will find two types of ingredients: biological and cultural. Many people believe that learning language is strictly biological, while others believe language is learned culturally. In reality, the biological and cultural elements are blended together to create a unique, personal, learned language.
Quote 1: “Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more several abilities to process information or behave intelligently… I prefer the term ‘instinct’.” (From “An Instinct to Acquire Art,” by Pinker)
I choose this quote because it is an example of how many people believe language is biological. Language is descriped fully biological in this quote. One main reason I choose this quote was the conclusion. Pinker calls language “instinct.” I agree that language is part instinct.
Quote 2: “Children tend to speak not mearly the language but ther dialect of their parents.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
Though not as long as my first quote I pulled out this quote because I think it brings up a great point. This is an example of children getting part of language culturally. A child cannot be born is a certain dilact just because they are born in a certain place. They are trained by listening to people talk in their surrounding environment. Learning languae culturally is describe in this quote.
Quote 3: “ Its factous to expect most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.” (From “The Gift of Language” by Theodore Dalryme.)
This quote is showing the contrasting opinon to quote 1. I thought it would be a good idea to bring this quote in to convey that diversity. I think this quote makes a lot of since. It has another comprehensible point on why language is somewhat culturally learned. A child with a higher education from a different cultural may be trained better than a child with no education. This will lead the first child to be more effiecent in talking with his language or using his language.
Linguistic Origins: Culture vs Nature (?)
Thesis:
The debate over linguistic origin has been ongoing throughout the era. Dr. Pinker and Mr. Dalrymple have both made compelling arguments for biology and culture respectively. In spite of this, my verdict stands: human linguistic development originates from a fine blend of biological and cultural influences. No matter how well Pinker and Dalrymple’s arguments are, they do not stand strong enough to justify that language originates from just nature or culture alone.
Quotes:
1. Dr. Pinker talks about the rules of language being somewhat hardwired into children, and how if they are brought up in a language that does not have those grammatical rules, they will create them. Honestly, I cannot fine his exact quote right now, but I will….
I will be using this quote as evidence, credibility, and a counterexample.
2. “It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents.”
I’ll be using this quote as well for evidence, credibility, and counterexample
3. “But everyone ought to have the opportunity to transcend the limitations of his linguistic environment, if it is a restricted one—which means that he ought to meet a few schoolmarms in his childhood. Everyone, save the handicapped, learns to run without being taught; but no child runs 100 yards in nine seconds, or even 15 seconds, without training. It is fatuous to expect that the most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.”
Again, used for credibility, evidence, and counterexample
Further thoughts:
The quotes in general I plan to use to “describe” the views of natural and cultural linguistic origin, so that I may take ideas from each and show how they can cooperate.
I feel that once I have established a fairly strong background of Pinker, Dalrymple, and their views, I can then show how their ideas in fact can sync quite nicely, into a very thoughtful theory of language.
The debate over linguistic origin has been ongoing throughout the era. Dr. Pinker and Mr. Dalrymple have both made compelling arguments for biology and culture respectively. In spite of this, my verdict stands: human linguistic development originates from a fine blend of biological and cultural influences. No matter how well Pinker and Dalrymple’s arguments are, they do not stand strong enough to justify that language originates from just nature or culture alone.
Quotes:
1. Dr. Pinker talks about the rules of language being somewhat hardwired into children, and how if they are brought up in a language that does not have those grammatical rules, they will create them. Honestly, I cannot fine his exact quote right now, but I will….
I will be using this quote as evidence, credibility, and a counterexample.
2. “It is utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking ones. I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents.”
I’ll be using this quote as well for evidence, credibility, and counterexample
3. “But everyone ought to have the opportunity to transcend the limitations of his linguistic environment, if it is a restricted one—which means that he ought to meet a few schoolmarms in his childhood. Everyone, save the handicapped, learns to run without being taught; but no child runs 100 yards in nine seconds, or even 15 seconds, without training. It is fatuous to expect that the most complex of human faculties, language, requires no special training to develop it to its highest possible power.”
Again, used for credibility, evidence, and counterexample
Further thoughts:
The quotes in general I plan to use to “describe” the views of natural and cultural linguistic origin, so that I may take ideas from each and show how they can cooperate.
I feel that once I have established a fairly strong background of Pinker, Dalrymple, and their views, I can then show how their ideas in fact can sync quite nicely, into a very thoughtful theory of language.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Defining human and Animal Communication
THESIS:
Humans have domesticated a good number of animals over their span of history, among these are pets. As humans with emotions, we tend to get so attached to that fluffy dog or cat that we start to give them human characteristics that only belong to us. We are all guilty of this, including myself. We want that animal to be a part of our family so much that we begin to mistake simple animal behavior for something way beyond. Animals cannot communicate with human beings; they can only do sophisticated tricks for things like food and comfort. They do not understand what the words of our language are, but they can do certain things when they hear the placement of our sounds, tones, gestures, and even facial expressions. Animals are just adapting to where they can survive and be comfortable.
Quotes:
“The Standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a particular sound-stimulus or ‘noise’, but does not actually ‘understand’ what the words in the noise mean.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
I plan to use this quote to explain to my audience that animals merely respond to a noise that they have been trained to. For example: A human trains its dog that “come” means to go to the position of its master with means of food and comfort. The animal sees this as a good thing, as it helps it survive, and will follow the noise that it is trained to. The dog does not understand the meaning of come, but it knows it will be rewarded so it obeys.
“ As in may critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees are cleaver creatures who learn to produce a certain type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are essentially performing sophisticated ‘tricks’.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
This quote is perfect for me to begin my rant about how the animals that are able to sign or use symbols are merely just doing what the dog, in my latter example, is doing. The only difference is that the chimpanzee has found a more clever way to accomplish what the dog is trying to do.
“Therefore, in a number of cases, vocal interactions in animals do conform to the basic
requirements of turn-taking organization, both in its general context-free aspects
and in contextual flexibility.” (From “Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication” by Oller, D. Kimbrough. Griebel, Ulrike.)
I am using this quote to argue with it of course….animals only show turn based organization because that’s how everything flows. All causes have an effect, and to be honest humans are more of a disordered turn system. We talk to each other all the time while the other is talking, so this theory that humans and animals share a turn based system of communication is wrong.
Humans have domesticated a good number of animals over their span of history, among these are pets. As humans with emotions, we tend to get so attached to that fluffy dog or cat that we start to give them human characteristics that only belong to us. We are all guilty of this, including myself. We want that animal to be a part of our family so much that we begin to mistake simple animal behavior for something way beyond. Animals cannot communicate with human beings; they can only do sophisticated tricks for things like food and comfort. They do not understand what the words of our language are, but they can do certain things when they hear the placement of our sounds, tones, gestures, and even facial expressions. Animals are just adapting to where they can survive and be comfortable.
Quotes:
“The Standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a particular sound-stimulus or ‘noise’, but does not actually ‘understand’ what the words in the noise mean.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
I plan to use this quote to explain to my audience that animals merely respond to a noise that they have been trained to. For example: A human trains its dog that “come” means to go to the position of its master with means of food and comfort. The animal sees this as a good thing, as it helps it survive, and will follow the noise that it is trained to. The dog does not understand the meaning of come, but it knows it will be rewarded so it obeys.
“ As in may critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees are cleaver creatures who learn to produce a certain type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are essentially performing sophisticated ‘tricks’.” (From “The Study of Language” by George Yule)
This quote is perfect for me to begin my rant about how the animals that are able to sign or use symbols are merely just doing what the dog, in my latter example, is doing. The only difference is that the chimpanzee has found a more clever way to accomplish what the dog is trying to do.
“Therefore, in a number of cases, vocal interactions in animals do conform to the basic
requirements of turn-taking organization, both in its general context-free aspects
and in contextual flexibility.” (From “Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication” by Oller, D. Kimbrough. Griebel, Ulrike.)
I am using this quote to argue with it of course….animals only show turn based organization because that’s how everything flows. All causes have an effect, and to be honest humans are more of a disordered turn system. We talk to each other all the time while the other is talking, so this theory that humans and animals share a turn based system of communication is wrong.
Learning Language: Biological, Cultural, or Both?
Tyler Gunnin
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/25/09
Thesis Statement- As we develop and mature as humans into the full perspective of the world and the languages it has to offer, the genes given to us from our parents that give us the knowledge of language, is also supported through the outside surroundings giving us our education of speaking through both biological and cultural methods.
Quote 1
Children will learn their native language adequately whatever anyone does, and the attempt to teach them language is fraught with psychological perils... But happily, since every child is a linguistic genius, there is no need to do any such thing. Every child will have the linguistic equipment he needs, merely by virtue of growing older. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan to use this in my essay to show that he is describing that we learn language as we grow older in a biological and cultural sense. He notes children learn adequately whatever anyone does, and by the virtue of growing older. The fact that he states this shows that I can have a counterargument and credibility.
Quote 2
If so, why choose language of all the gifts that they gave him? Presumably, he means that they gave him the opportunity to learn standard English, even if they did not speak it themselves. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay by showing that this quote states that our parents give us the opportunity to not only learn english, but it also says that even if they did not speak the language that is being learned, the culture affects our knowledge of language. This also gives a nice counterargument to the matter at hand.
Quote 3
Over and over again, Pinker stresses that children do not learn language by imitation; rather, they learn it because they are biologically predestined to do so. “Let us do away,” he writes, with what one imagines to be a rhetorical sweep of his hand, “with the folklore that parents teach their children language.” It comes as rather a surprise, then, to read the book’s dedication: “For Harry and Roslyn Pinker, who gave me language.” -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay as another counterargument and for establishing credibility. Pinker states that we are predestined to learn language. Although he says this in his writing, he dedicates his book to his parents who gave him language. By doing this, it shows that Pinker is in agreement that although we may be influenced by the culture around us, we are also given the genes to learn and speak language by our parents.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/25/09
Thesis Statement- As we develop and mature as humans into the full perspective of the world and the languages it has to offer, the genes given to us from our parents that give us the knowledge of language, is also supported through the outside surroundings giving us our education of speaking through both biological and cultural methods.
Quote 1
Children will learn their native language adequately whatever anyone does, and the attempt to teach them language is fraught with psychological perils... But happily, since every child is a linguistic genius, there is no need to do any such thing. Every child will have the linguistic equipment he needs, merely by virtue of growing older. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan to use this in my essay to show that he is describing that we learn language as we grow older in a biological and cultural sense. He notes children learn adequately whatever anyone does, and by the virtue of growing older. The fact that he states this shows that I can have a counterargument and credibility.
Quote 2
If so, why choose language of all the gifts that they gave him? Presumably, he means that they gave him the opportunity to learn standard English, even if they did not speak it themselves. -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay by showing that this quote states that our parents give us the opportunity to not only learn english, but it also says that even if they did not speak the language that is being learned, the culture affects our knowledge of language. This also gives a nice counterargument to the matter at hand.
Quote 3
Over and over again, Pinker stresses that children do not learn language by imitation; rather, they learn it because they are biologically predestined to do so. “Let us do away,” he writes, with what one imagines to be a rhetorical sweep of his hand, “with the folklore that parents teach their children language.” It comes as rather a surprise, then, to read the book’s dedication: “For Harry and Roslyn Pinker, who gave me language.” -Theodore Dalrymple "The Gift of Language"
I plan on using this in my essay as another counterargument and for establishing credibility. Pinker states that we are predestined to learn language. Although he says this in his writing, he dedicates his book to his parents who gave him language. By doing this, it shows that Pinker is in agreement that although we may be influenced by the culture around us, we are also given the genes to learn and speak language by our parents.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Blog Prompt for Friday, Sept. 25
Dear All,
This week for your blog you will be preparing to write your first formal paper. Here is what you need to do.
The title of your blog should be your topic. That is, in the "Title" block should be something like: "Learning Langauge: Biological or Cultural?," "Defining Animal and Human Communication," or "Language Authority in the United States."
Write your thesis statement/s. Remember that it should be CLEAR, PRECISE, and DEBATABLE. As discussed, sometimes, a thesis "statement" can be more than one sentence.
Record and cite (author, page number!) three quotes from the reading that you think you could use as material to establish credibility, as evidence for your argument, or as a counterargument that you will address.
After each quote, explain in a few sentences what the quote means and how you plan on using it in the essay (credibility, evidence, counterargument).
I will not be checking the length of your blog, but this is not an invitation to slack off. Your explanations of the quotes will take some effort! I will be grading you on how well you followed directions, and how well you pulled the material together as the basis of your paper. Your writing should be in formal Standard English -- I will mark down for poor or sloppy grammar.
We will be going over these blogs in class on Friday!
This week for your blog you will be preparing to write your first formal paper. Here is what you need to do.
The title of your blog should be your topic. That is, in the "Title" block should be something like: "Learning Langauge: Biological or Cultural?," "Defining Animal and Human Communication," or "Language Authority in the United States."
Write your thesis statement/s. Remember that it should be CLEAR, PRECISE, and DEBATABLE. As discussed, sometimes, a thesis "statement" can be more than one sentence.
Record and cite (author, page number!) three quotes from the reading that you think you could use as material to establish credibility, as evidence for your argument, or as a counterargument that you will address.
After each quote, explain in a few sentences what the quote means and how you plan on using it in the essay (credibility, evidence, counterargument).
I will not be checking the length of your blog, but this is not an invitation to slack off. Your explanations of the quotes will take some effort! I will be grading you on how well you followed directions, and how well you pulled the material together as the basis of your paper. Your writing should be in formal Standard English -- I will mark down for poor or sloppy grammar.
We will be going over these blogs in class on Friday!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A reliable dictionary???
Sam Redden
September 19, 2009
“Word of the Day”
The English language is a forever growing language. Words are added to our vocabulary everyday; most of these words being slang, of course. I was unaware that there was an online dictionary that held all of the modern day slang. The Urban Dictionary is polar opposites of the Oxford English Dictionary printed in 1989. This dictionary has all the term that you would see in a standard research paper. Both of these dictionaries have a “word of the day” posted on their website. By just looking at these two words and analyzing the differences of the meanings, I had a clear interpretation of the two dictionaries.
My interpretation of The Urban Dictionary is that it has the credibility of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where people can write their own takes on words and events. This dictionary is written by whoever feels like writing a word that day. Dictionaries are typically more trusted when they are written by lexicographers that devote their life to produce definitions that society agrees with. The only time I would use this dictionary is if someone called me a foul name that I did not recognize. For example, the “word of the day” for this dictionary is “pirate bath” which is “The process of washing just the arm pit area and the private area with a wash cloth or handful of water.”
In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more trusted dictionary. It is not vulgar, and I would feel completely comfortable buying it for my grandmother as a Christmas gift. It is impossible to go online and edit the definitions. The word of the day for this dictionary is “festivity” which is “Festive quality, condition, or nature; fitness for occasions of rejoicing; mirthfulness, cheerful urbanity; also (of writing, etc.), agreeable elegance.” This definition is descriptive because it assumes that the reader already knows the meaning of “festive.”
If I had to choose between the dictionaries, I would choose the Oxford English Dictionary because the Urban Dictionary just strikes me as a joke. I admit to using some of the words and phrases that make up the Urban Dictionary, however I would not use it in formal writing.
September 19, 2009
“Word of the Day”
The English language is a forever growing language. Words are added to our vocabulary everyday; most of these words being slang, of course. I was unaware that there was an online dictionary that held all of the modern day slang. The Urban Dictionary is polar opposites of the Oxford English Dictionary printed in 1989. This dictionary has all the term that you would see in a standard research paper. Both of these dictionaries have a “word of the day” posted on their website. By just looking at these two words and analyzing the differences of the meanings, I had a clear interpretation of the two dictionaries.
My interpretation of The Urban Dictionary is that it has the credibility of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where people can write their own takes on words and events. This dictionary is written by whoever feels like writing a word that day. Dictionaries are typically more trusted when they are written by lexicographers that devote their life to produce definitions that society agrees with. The only time I would use this dictionary is if someone called me a foul name that I did not recognize. For example, the “word of the day” for this dictionary is “pirate bath” which is “The process of washing just the arm pit area and the private area with a wash cloth or handful of water.”
In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more trusted dictionary. It is not vulgar, and I would feel completely comfortable buying it for my grandmother as a Christmas gift. It is impossible to go online and edit the definitions. The word of the day for this dictionary is “festivity” which is “Festive quality, condition, or nature; fitness for occasions of rejoicing; mirthfulness, cheerful urbanity; also (of writing, etc.), agreeable elegance.” This definition is descriptive because it assumes that the reader already knows the meaning of “festive.”
If I had to choose between the dictionaries, I would choose the Oxford English Dictionary because the Urban Dictionary just strikes me as a joke. I admit to using some of the words and phrases that make up the Urban Dictionary, however I would not use it in formal writing.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Trippin'
Tyler Gunnin
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Superior definition?
Mary Lowe
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
Measurement of someone's heart!!!
Carmen Solis
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
"Nifty" is a nifty word. My Favorite word.
Leila Shearon
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Snatch
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
Words, Words, Words
Bekah Medford
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
You Want to Get Blazed
It is very peculiar and almost funny how in the English language we have so many different meanings for words. The one I chose to look up is “blazed.” According to Urban Dictionary, it is to be really high from smoking marijuana. However, with Oxford English Dictionary, it means to burst into flames. It is crazy to think about how many meanings some of our words actually have. But who is right and who is wrong? Urban dictionary is available to the public to post their own definitions, where as Oxford English Dictionary is from an actual “source.” But now that I think about it, which can you believe or trust? On Urban, everyone seems to agree on the fact that blazed is to smoke weed, and if people today are referring to the word as that, then is that not right? But, on OED, it never once mentioned anything about drugs.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
Can We Create The Ultimate Dictionary?
Tyler Benson
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What Did You Call Me?!?
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Comparing Authorities: OED vs. UD
Dear All,
For your blog this week, you will compare the authoritative practices of two online dictionaries: the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/) and Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). You will probably have to access the OED from a campus computer.
First, you will need to pick a word. The choice is yours. I recommend you look for a word that is either very new (blog, Google, the verb "to friend") or a word that has interesting differences in meaning when it is used formally or as slang (drug terms like: "chronic," "ice," "snow," "juice"; or slang with a sexual charge like: "dime," "box," "cougar"). Be warned that many definitions that you find on Urban Dictionary contain obscenity and offensive material. If you are uncomfortable analyzing this sort of material, try to choose a word that is not particularly "charged" in our society.
Look up that word in both the OED and Urban Dictionary. Analyze the difference between how the two dictionaries function based upon the entries that you read. While looking up the definitions, consider these questions: How do each of these dictionaries derive their authority? Is it PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE? Who are the authorities? How are the definitions composed? Do you think the definitions from one are "better" or more accurate than the other? Why?
Your blog should be between 300-600 words, and it should be written in formal Standard English. Your authority is Hacker!
Good luck, and have fun!
For your blog this week, you will compare the authoritative practices of two online dictionaries: the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/) and Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). You will probably have to access the OED from a campus computer.
First, you will need to pick a word. The choice is yours. I recommend you look for a word that is either very new (blog, Google, the verb "to friend") or a word that has interesting differences in meaning when it is used formally or as slang (drug terms like: "chronic," "ice," "snow," "juice"; or slang with a sexual charge like: "dime," "box," "cougar"). Be warned that many definitions that you find on Urban Dictionary contain obscenity and offensive material. If you are uncomfortable analyzing this sort of material, try to choose a word that is not particularly "charged" in our society.
Look up that word in both the OED and Urban Dictionary. Analyze the difference between how the two dictionaries function based upon the entries that you read. While looking up the definitions, consider these questions: How do each of these dictionaries derive their authority? Is it PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE? Who are the authorities? How are the definitions composed? Do you think the definitions from one are "better" or more accurate than the other? Why?
Your blog should be between 300-600 words, and it should be written in formal Standard English. Your authority is Hacker!
Good luck, and have fun!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Blog 3
Mary Elizabeth Lowe
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
04 September 2009
Language is a vital part of our existence which serves as a tool of communication not only between humans but animals as well. While animals might not be able to verbally speak to us, I know that certain requests are made and offered. Dogs for example prove this fact on a daily basis. When a dog is hungry he or she sits and stares at the food bowl. When play is desired, jumping and yelping emanates from the animal. This intentional body language is a part of communication but I believe animals have the potential for far greater bounds in language if certain characteristics and training were present.
Within Yule’s research about animal communication there were several astounding instances of this such as Washoe, the signing chimpanzee, and Sara, the symbol speaking chimpanzee. These are phenomenal examples of animals being able to communicate with humans, even if it be on a toddler’s level. One definite advantage chimpanzees have though, is the physical attributes which are very similar to a human’s hands and arms. It quickly becomes apparent that in order to communicate in American Sign Language, these physical similarities are quite necessary. This fact persuades me to think that only monkey varieties of animals would be able to communicate on a human level of sign language simply due to the observation of physical attributes. Even if dogs or cats were brilliant and great thoughts were considered in their minds, they would have no way of expressing those discoveries and emotions except through futile barking. This is very similar to the plight of the vocabulary limited person. Even if an individual contemplates earth shattering thoughts, they do not have the necessary tools to communicate them to the world.
Moving forward on the purposed belief that animals contain thoughts, those reflections would only be able to be exposed to humans if a new system of communication was used or invented. Instead of sign language Morse code or paining could be a means of communicating to people. However, since I do not think this is a plausible future reality, I would have to say domestic animals have virtually reached their limit concerning intentional communication with humans. This chapter enlightened me to a world of language powers, but I do not think animals have a patient enough disposition or the needed physical or mental qualities to continue any further down the road of communication. While potential is a goal upon the horizon, does anyone ever truly reach this ambition? I believe only time will tell in both the animal and the human world.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
04 September 2009
Language is a vital part of our existence which serves as a tool of communication not only between humans but animals as well. While animals might not be able to verbally speak to us, I know that certain requests are made and offered. Dogs for example prove this fact on a daily basis. When a dog is hungry he or she sits and stares at the food bowl. When play is desired, jumping and yelping emanates from the animal. This intentional body language is a part of communication but I believe animals have the potential for far greater bounds in language if certain characteristics and training were present.
Within Yule’s research about animal communication there were several astounding instances of this such as Washoe, the signing chimpanzee, and Sara, the symbol speaking chimpanzee. These are phenomenal examples of animals being able to communicate with humans, even if it be on a toddler’s level. One definite advantage chimpanzees have though, is the physical attributes which are very similar to a human’s hands and arms. It quickly becomes apparent that in order to communicate in American Sign Language, these physical similarities are quite necessary. This fact persuades me to think that only monkey varieties of animals would be able to communicate on a human level of sign language simply due to the observation of physical attributes. Even if dogs or cats were brilliant and great thoughts were considered in their minds, they would have no way of expressing those discoveries and emotions except through futile barking. This is very similar to the plight of the vocabulary limited person. Even if an individual contemplates earth shattering thoughts, they do not have the necessary tools to communicate them to the world.
Moving forward on the purposed belief that animals contain thoughts, those reflections would only be able to be exposed to humans if a new system of communication was used or invented. Instead of sign language Morse code or paining could be a means of communicating to people. However, since I do not think this is a plausible future reality, I would have to say domestic animals have virtually reached their limit concerning intentional communication with humans. This chapter enlightened me to a world of language powers, but I do not think animals have a patient enough disposition or the needed physical or mental qualities to continue any further down the road of communication. While potential is a goal upon the horizon, does anyone ever truly reach this ambition? I believe only time will tell in both the animal and the human world.
Who needs the dog whisperer?
Leila Shearon
Blog 3
9.4.09
Many people see language as a means of strictly communication between humans. I must say that these people disregard the complexity of language. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of language is “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community”. Many people look past the rest of the definition, “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings”. Humans are not the only beings that are able to make sounds and gesture. It is a fairly agreed statement that animals are able to communicate within their species. Is it possible that, to an extent, animals can communicate with humans? When your dog barks aggressively at the door it usually means someone is at the door and he feels threatened. Also, when a dog whines and scampers away with his tail between his legs it means he is frightened. Is this not communication? Is this not language? People may agree that animals can present some types of messages to us. But, can they understand us. When your mom your best friend is angry with you does the tone of their voice changes? I believe that animals may not completely understand the sentence that was spoken but, the tone of voice. Tone of voice is made up of the pitch and volume. The way the words are delivered and the manner are speaking also make up the tone. If one speaks in a loud, angry tone and say the word, "Good dog." One would see a dog cower although, you are actually complimenting him. If you would reverse is and call the dog insulting names in a soothing voice he will wag his tail with happiness. Tone and gestures are a huge aspect of language. It assists not only humans but also animals in communicating easier.
Blog 3
9.4.09
Many people see language as a means of strictly communication between humans. I must say that these people disregard the complexity of language. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of language is “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community”. Many people look past the rest of the definition, “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings”. Humans are not the only beings that are able to make sounds and gesture. It is a fairly agreed statement that animals are able to communicate within their species. Is it possible that, to an extent, animals can communicate with humans? When your dog barks aggressively at the door it usually means someone is at the door and he feels threatened. Also, when a dog whines and scampers away with his tail between his legs it means he is frightened. Is this not communication? Is this not language? People may agree that animals can present some types of messages to us. But, can they understand us. When your mom your best friend is angry with you does the tone of their voice changes? I believe that animals may not completely understand the sentence that was spoken but, the tone of voice. Tone of voice is made up of the pitch and volume. The way the words are delivered and the manner are speaking also make up the tone. If one speaks in a loud, angry tone and say the word, "Good dog." One would see a dog cower although, you are actually complimenting him. If you would reverse is and call the dog insulting names in a soothing voice he will wag his tail with happiness. Tone and gestures are a huge aspect of language. It assists not only humans but also animals in communicating easier.
Communication With Animals Is No Longer Just For Dr. Doolittle
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 4, 2009
As everyone knows humans are the smartest animals on the planet, but that does not mean that other animals cannot communicate with us. They may not be able to speak our language but they find other ways to get our attention and let us know what they want. There are many ways that they can do this. For example dogs bark loudly and run to the door if they want to go outside or they will cower and whimper if they are scared. They also will jump all over you and go crazy when they see after a long time. Dogs are the prime example of how animals of what many would call lower intelligence can communicate with humans, but they are not the only ones. Another example is Koko the gorilla. Koko is able to communicate with her trainer through sign language. Koko has been brought up with sign language for in her whole life pretty much, and is now able to communicate on about the level of a toddler. This feat alone is incredible, but what is even more amazing is her ability to communicate emotions. She was given a kitten that would keep her company, and she acted very differently around the cat. She was more energetic and just seemed happier. This greatly resembles what humans do when they are either with their friends or family. She would play with the kitten all the time and developed a great affection for her new friend. So when she found out that her new friend was hit by a car and killed she was devastated. Koko was able to show her sadness by signing “bad”, “sad”, and other depressing words to her trainer. Now every animal is not able to communicate to humans through sign language, but they do have ways of doing so. Whether they change the tone of their sound, the gesture or posture of their bodies, or their attitude, they show humans what they would like to do or how they are feeling.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 4, 2009
As everyone knows humans are the smartest animals on the planet, but that does not mean that other animals cannot communicate with us. They may not be able to speak our language but they find other ways to get our attention and let us know what they want. There are many ways that they can do this. For example dogs bark loudly and run to the door if they want to go outside or they will cower and whimper if they are scared. They also will jump all over you and go crazy when they see after a long time. Dogs are the prime example of how animals of what many would call lower intelligence can communicate with humans, but they are not the only ones. Another example is Koko the gorilla. Koko is able to communicate with her trainer through sign language. Koko has been brought up with sign language for in her whole life pretty much, and is now able to communicate on about the level of a toddler. This feat alone is incredible, but what is even more amazing is her ability to communicate emotions. She was given a kitten that would keep her company, and she acted very differently around the cat. She was more energetic and just seemed happier. This greatly resembles what humans do when they are either with their friends or family. She would play with the kitten all the time and developed a great affection for her new friend. So when she found out that her new friend was hit by a car and killed she was devastated. Koko was able to show her sadness by signing “bad”, “sad”, and other depressing words to her trainer. Now every animal is not able to communicate to humans through sign language, but they do have ways of doing so. Whether they change the tone of their sound, the gesture or posture of their bodies, or their attitude, they show humans what they would like to do or how they are feeling.
Blog Three
Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
4 September 2009
When most us think of what language our first thought is all the different dialects people have. We fail to think of gestures or behaviors until we are made to think deeper on the subject. Language is universal whether we speak the same dialects or not, or just all together can not talk and have to use sign language. Most of the time when we can not understand a person we begin to make hand gestures in hope that the person we are talking to can try to understand us. This is where most people pretty much stop the thought of communication and just completely disregard the communication they have with their pets. I believe domesticated animals are more than capable to communicate. Whereas they do not speak to us in our language they communicate to us through their gestures. In the wild animals associate with sounds such as birds tweet; cats meow and hiss; dogs bark, growl, and wine; cows moo; and this could go on forever, but that is how they speak to each other in their own language. Then when we bring them into our homes and domesticate them, we make a connection with them.
Scientist begin to question animals communication levels at this point. Scientist say that when individuals teach their dog commands that because of the tone in our voice they will learn to respond the way we want them to every time, but not because they understand us. I agree with this part way. I know when my dog, Chip, does something wrong and I get a stern voice or I yell that he knows he is in trouble. However, there are times when Chip does something wrong and I will just tell him he is bad without changing my tone and he will still put his head down and look up at me with his puppy dog eyes in the sense that he is saying I am sorry. Angel, my other dog does the same thing. Now this is not the case with all the other pets in the world but there are similarities in all of them. Most people feed their dogs or cats at the same time of the day everyday. It is easy for any specie to get into a schedule so its understandable when people talk about their pets letting them know that it is time to be fed. After these two points I start to disagree with scientist who believe in mimicry. I believe that when you have pets you have a bond and relationship with him/her. For example, if I have a bad day or something wrong happens and I get upset to the point that I am crying I usually go to my room so nobody else knows. Just when I think I am going get away with no one knowing I hear Chip, my dog, at my door wining to come in. Usually when he sits with me he rolls over so I can scratch his belly or something to that affect, but when I am upset he will come in and just sit there or lay next to me, like he wants me to know he is there. This shows a sympathetic gesture on his part.
Tone is used between animals when they talk to each other but it can also be used to get humans attention too. For example, Chip doesn't just bark at somebody who comes to the door or when he sees another dog. If he can see out the window of my front door, and the wind blows the trees, he barks. He barks at just about anything that makes a noise that he's not use to or anything he sees outside. However, instead of thinking someone is at the door I can tell the difference in his tones in his barks. When the wind blows the trees he barks two to three times but it is more of a low muffled bark. Then if something is outside or someone is at the door, he barks really loud and it is more drawn out.
In these few examples I have only stated what I have observed on my own. There are cases like KoKo's that have been recorded by scientist for scientific research to prove that she could speak sign language after being taught and she had feelings because of her cat all ball who died. Now whether or not you believe the scientific research is your own opinion, but take into consideration the relationship you have with your pet or other people have with their pets.
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
4 September 2009
When most us think of what language our first thought is all the different dialects people have. We fail to think of gestures or behaviors until we are made to think deeper on the subject. Language is universal whether we speak the same dialects or not, or just all together can not talk and have to use sign language. Most of the time when we can not understand a person we begin to make hand gestures in hope that the person we are talking to can try to understand us. This is where most people pretty much stop the thought of communication and just completely disregard the communication they have with their pets. I believe domesticated animals are more than capable to communicate. Whereas they do not speak to us in our language they communicate to us through their gestures. In the wild animals associate with sounds such as birds tweet; cats meow and hiss; dogs bark, growl, and wine; cows moo; and this could go on forever, but that is how they speak to each other in their own language. Then when we bring them into our homes and domesticate them, we make a connection with them.
Scientist begin to question animals communication levels at this point. Scientist say that when individuals teach their dog commands that because of the tone in our voice they will learn to respond the way we want them to every time, but not because they understand us. I agree with this part way. I know when my dog, Chip, does something wrong and I get a stern voice or I yell that he knows he is in trouble. However, there are times when Chip does something wrong and I will just tell him he is bad without changing my tone and he will still put his head down and look up at me with his puppy dog eyes in the sense that he is saying I am sorry. Angel, my other dog does the same thing. Now this is not the case with all the other pets in the world but there are similarities in all of them. Most people feed their dogs or cats at the same time of the day everyday. It is easy for any specie to get into a schedule so its understandable when people talk about their pets letting them know that it is time to be fed. After these two points I start to disagree with scientist who believe in mimicry. I believe that when you have pets you have a bond and relationship with him/her. For example, if I have a bad day or something wrong happens and I get upset to the point that I am crying I usually go to my room so nobody else knows. Just when I think I am going get away with no one knowing I hear Chip, my dog, at my door wining to come in. Usually when he sits with me he rolls over so I can scratch his belly or something to that affect, but when I am upset he will come in and just sit there or lay next to me, like he wants me to know he is there. This shows a sympathetic gesture on his part.
Tone is used between animals when they talk to each other but it can also be used to get humans attention too. For example, Chip doesn't just bark at somebody who comes to the door or when he sees another dog. If he can see out the window of my front door, and the wind blows the trees, he barks. He barks at just about anything that makes a noise that he's not use to or anything he sees outside. However, instead of thinking someone is at the door I can tell the difference in his tones in his barks. When the wind blows the trees he barks two to three times but it is more of a low muffled bark. Then if something is outside or someone is at the door, he barks really loud and it is more drawn out.
In these few examples I have only stated what I have observed on my own. There are cases like KoKo's that have been recorded by scientist for scientific research to prove that she could speak sign language after being taught and she had feelings because of her cat all ball who died. Now whether or not you believe the scientific research is your own opinion, but take into consideration the relationship you have with your pet or other people have with their pets.
Blog 3: No, Mr. Benson, it's not just mimicry.
Jon Cuccia
English 1101
Dr. Jennifer A. Hughes
04 September 2009
When I hear the word “mimicry” or “imitation” in regards to language, I think of arbitrary reproduction, without thought and “devoid of even the barest rudiments of language.” Although by no means on the same linguistic level as humans, I believe that in the few attempts to bestow language upon primates, they have shown an understanding that I would classify as beyond “the barest rudiments of language.”
Through Gua, researchers learned that primates do not poses a vocal tract sophisticated enough to reproduce human words, thus sign language was explored with remarkable results. The chimpanzee Washoe learned more than 100 words and could use them in sentence fragments, displaying similar cognitive ability to a toddler. This included holding simple question and answer conversation as well as understanding signs she never produced. The gorilla Koko showed similar progress, as demonstrated during the short clip showing her requesting her red sweater over the new yellow one.
Of course, the controversy lies within mimicry and imitation, which some have claimed is all the primates were doing. Herbert Terrace described the behavior as a conditioned response to cues provided by humans, often unintentional. He concluded that their linguistic displays were no more than mere “sophisticated tricks.” In response, the Gardners who raised Washoe showed that she could produce correct signs to identify pictures without the presence of any human, and even that a few chimpanzees used sign language amongst themselves with Washoe while no humans were present. Furthermore, a young bonobo named Kanzi grew up accustomed to sign language, and was able to not only sign over 250 words, but even understood spoken English on a basic level equal to that of a three year old child.
To me, the evidence is undeniable. While humans clearly still dominate linguistically, it is unfair to say that animals posses no linguistic capabilities. The primates have shown the ability, though rudimentary, to comprehend the basics human language. While not being worthy of comparison to any human above the age of diapers, these primates provide a level of language far above other animals. Therefore, it would be wrongful to shrug them as off as mere imitators, as though they posses no thought.
English 1101
Dr. Jennifer A. Hughes
04 September 2009
When I hear the word “mimicry” or “imitation” in regards to language, I think of arbitrary reproduction, without thought and “devoid of even the barest rudiments of language.” Although by no means on the same linguistic level as humans, I believe that in the few attempts to bestow language upon primates, they have shown an understanding that I would classify as beyond “the barest rudiments of language.”
Through Gua, researchers learned that primates do not poses a vocal tract sophisticated enough to reproduce human words, thus sign language was explored with remarkable results. The chimpanzee Washoe learned more than 100 words and could use them in sentence fragments, displaying similar cognitive ability to a toddler. This included holding simple question and answer conversation as well as understanding signs she never produced. The gorilla Koko showed similar progress, as demonstrated during the short clip showing her requesting her red sweater over the new yellow one.
Of course, the controversy lies within mimicry and imitation, which some have claimed is all the primates were doing. Herbert Terrace described the behavior as a conditioned response to cues provided by humans, often unintentional. He concluded that their linguistic displays were no more than mere “sophisticated tricks.” In response, the Gardners who raised Washoe showed that she could produce correct signs to identify pictures without the presence of any human, and even that a few chimpanzees used sign language amongst themselves with Washoe while no humans were present. Furthermore, a young bonobo named Kanzi grew up accustomed to sign language, and was able to not only sign over 250 words, but even understood spoken English on a basic level equal to that of a three year old child.
To me, the evidence is undeniable. While humans clearly still dominate linguistically, it is unfair to say that animals posses no linguistic capabilities. The primates have shown the ability, though rudimentary, to comprehend the basics human language. While not being worthy of comparison to any human above the age of diapers, these primates provide a level of language far above other animals. Therefore, it would be wrongful to shrug them as off as mere imitators, as though they posses no thought.
"If I Could Talk to the Animals, Learn Their Languages"
Bekah Medford
Hughes
If I Could Talk to the Animals, Learn Their Languages
In the 1967 musical “Dr.Doolittle”, the talented doctor learns to speak to animals by talking with his pat parrot. He converses with many animals: pigs, dogs, ducks, monkeys, and owls. His special understanding of their language allows him to listen and clearly understand their nature. A controversy arises on the topic about humans speaking to animals, like Doolittle, and whether or not a pet is able to communicate with a human. Many people believe they can speak to their own pets and their pets understand them. In contrast, there are just as many people who believe the opposite, that animals cannot communicate and what people believe to be communicating is actually just mimicry. I disagree with the latter of the two. Animals can understand what we are saying and do often try and communicate back.
Now Dr.Doolittle may not be the best example considering he is a fictional character but there are many people with pets that agree animals do communicate. Animals not only try and communicate with humans but also with other animals. A dog lets another dog know that he is on his territory by growling at him… in human terms “back off buster!” Many people come up with the idea that animals cannot communicate because they themselves do not understand the animal language. No one does…even Dr.Doolittle. Does not understanding someone make their language less than another? How can we judge animals on their language when many times people cannot understand a language foreign to their country or even a have trouble understanding dialects?
Many people believe that the only communication an animal can do is just mimicry. I do believe that some of what animals do is mimicry but I believe many animals do communicate in something more. Every time I come home my dog, Jibby, runs and jumps up on me. I know he is telling me “Hello Bekah! Oh I missed you so much!” How can we say this hello is any different from a wave signifying “hello” by a neighbor walking by?
Animals can communicate and understand. Though their understanding maybe not be as strong as our, or as self aware, we cannot judge their language. No one has the right to judge a language they do not understand, or any language by that matter.
Hughes
If I Could Talk to the Animals, Learn Their Languages
In the 1967 musical “Dr.Doolittle”, the talented doctor learns to speak to animals by talking with his pat parrot. He converses with many animals: pigs, dogs, ducks, monkeys, and owls. His special understanding of their language allows him to listen and clearly understand their nature. A controversy arises on the topic about humans speaking to animals, like Doolittle, and whether or not a pet is able to communicate with a human. Many people believe they can speak to their own pets and their pets understand them. In contrast, there are just as many people who believe the opposite, that animals cannot communicate and what people believe to be communicating is actually just mimicry. I disagree with the latter of the two. Animals can understand what we are saying and do often try and communicate back.
Now Dr.Doolittle may not be the best example considering he is a fictional character but there are many people with pets that agree animals do communicate. Animals not only try and communicate with humans but also with other animals. A dog lets another dog know that he is on his territory by growling at him… in human terms “back off buster!” Many people come up with the idea that animals cannot communicate because they themselves do not understand the animal language. No one does…even Dr.Doolittle. Does not understanding someone make their language less than another? How can we judge animals on their language when many times people cannot understand a language foreign to their country or even a have trouble understanding dialects?
Many people believe that the only communication an animal can do is just mimicry. I do believe that some of what animals do is mimicry but I believe many animals do communicate in something more. Every time I come home my dog, Jibby, runs and jumps up on me. I know he is telling me “Hello Bekah! Oh I missed you so much!” How can we say this hello is any different from a wave signifying “hello” by a neighbor walking by?
Animals can communicate and understand. Though their understanding maybe not be as strong as our, or as self aware, we cannot judge their language. No one has the right to judge a language they do not understand, or any language by that matter.
Communication of the Animal Kingdom
Sam Redden
September 4, 2009
Dr.Hughes
Communication of the Animal Kingdom
Pets recognize routines; they pick up really well on events that occur repeatedly. When you get home from a long day at work, you can always look forward to your dog running toward you at the sound of the opening door. That dog has learned that every day at five thirty, you walk through that door. A similar situation is when dinner time rolls around for your dog. He or she knows that it is his or her time to be fed because of repetition.
Frequently, my grandparents forget that it is the time for their dog to be fed. They don’t worry about it too much because they know their pet will let them know. She will gently claw on their legs or go get her food bowl to indicate to them that her empty bowl needs food in it. All of these are ways for her to tell her owners she needs food, to communicate her desire to them. However, this communication is learned communication. She has watched them feed her twice a day for two years and has learned that if she gets their attention by touching them or showing her empty bowl to them, she will get her food. By standing in front of my grandmother with her food dish in her mouth she is signifying “food!” she is not saying, “hello, I noticed that it is approaching eight o’clock and my food bowl remains empty; I would greatly appreciate it if you would pour some food into it.”
Just like my grandparents’ dog, animals communicate through gestures they have learned over time. Some animals have learned through mimicry to communicate through their sounds. A family friend has a cat that serves as her only child. When she sees him and says “hello” he returns a “me-ow” to her, when she says shortly “hey” he replies just the same with “mow.” I do not believe that he knows the different between the two words or even the meanings. He just knows they are directed towards him and he mimics the amount of vowel sounds.
I agree that the animals I have mentioned do understand that they are communicating to their owners what they want or in the cat’s case, just acknowledging my friend. I do not believe that they have a sophisticated language they use to communicate with us or that their gestures or “me-ows” are even a language at all. They have different tones and pitches to their voices; however it doesn’t signify any type of vocabulary.
September 4, 2009
Dr.Hughes
Communication of the Animal Kingdom
Pets recognize routines; they pick up really well on events that occur repeatedly. When you get home from a long day at work, you can always look forward to your dog running toward you at the sound of the opening door. That dog has learned that every day at five thirty, you walk through that door. A similar situation is when dinner time rolls around for your dog. He or she knows that it is his or her time to be fed because of repetition.
Frequently, my grandparents forget that it is the time for their dog to be fed. They don’t worry about it too much because they know their pet will let them know. She will gently claw on their legs or go get her food bowl to indicate to them that her empty bowl needs food in it. All of these are ways for her to tell her owners she needs food, to communicate her desire to them. However, this communication is learned communication. She has watched them feed her twice a day for two years and has learned that if she gets their attention by touching them or showing her empty bowl to them, she will get her food. By standing in front of my grandmother with her food dish in her mouth she is signifying “food!” she is not saying, “hello, I noticed that it is approaching eight o’clock and my food bowl remains empty; I would greatly appreciate it if you would pour some food into it.”
Just like my grandparents’ dog, animals communicate through gestures they have learned over time. Some animals have learned through mimicry to communicate through their sounds. A family friend has a cat that serves as her only child. When she sees him and says “hello” he returns a “me-ow” to her, when she says shortly “hey” he replies just the same with “mow.” I do not believe that he knows the different between the two words or even the meanings. He just knows they are directed towards him and he mimics the amount of vowel sounds.
I agree that the animals I have mentioned do understand that they are communicating to their owners what they want or in the cat’s case, just acknowledging my friend. I do not believe that they have a sophisticated language they use to communicate with us or that their gestures or “me-ows” are even a language at all. They have different tones and pitches to their voices; however it doesn’t signify any type of vocabulary.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Koko Said What?
All animals have a unique way of communicating with each other in their species. They have to know this to survive, to breed, and to go about life. Humans also possess their own language to make it through everyday situations making life that much easier. This presents a question that is necessary to answer: can animals communicate language to the human race? The answers to this thought-provoking question are evident through examples such as Koko the gorilla and house pets such as dogs.
Koko presented various examples showing evidence that animals can communicate language. The fact that Koko knew the colors of the tomatoes, cucumbers, and sweaters is phenomenal. She did not mimic her keeper in any way. When she was given the new, less favored, yellow sweater, Koko used her hand motions making the statement to obtain her red sweater. First off, Koko knowing that it was a yellow sweater shows that she has knowledge of colors taught to her. The color scale may have been a memory game placed in Koko's brain through training, but as she presented the signing to receive her red sweater, shows this was not mere mimicry. Koko wanted the red sweater and was not going to let up, showing those signs until she got her way. Also, the emotion that Koko was able to produce through signing, showing she was highly upset when All Ball the kitten died, produces more evidence showing that animals have the capability to communicate language to humans. It is not mimicry when a gorilla can state their emotions through hand signs to the human race.
House pets are present in many families. They are usually raised by that family and communicate language in the way they learn through training. Dogs are an incredible example of this. Through experience with my own dog, I can see that animals have a way of communicating language with people. If my dog is hungry, he will run over to the bowl and pick it up with his mouth. He then proceeds to bring the bowl over to me wherever I may be at the moment. If he wants to use the bathroom, he will go to the backdoor and scratch at it until I let him outside. If he wants what is on my plate, he will place his paw on my leg, as if to shake my hand, because that is what he learned to do. The list of what my dog communicates to me can go on for awhile. The various ways a pet goes about communicating with humans easily give more evidence that animals can very well converse in their own way.
Animals are very capable of communicating with humans. Koko presented examples showing emotion and letting her keeper know what vegetables and sweater she wanted. Pets such as dogs let their owner know when the are hungry, when they need to use the bathroom, or when they want scraps off the plate. Although many people may try to argue animals are not capable of conversing with the human race, there is just too much evidence that goes against the arguments of the naive.
The Language of the Century
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 3
When most people think of language, they think that it is something that only humans are capable of. They don’t realize that domestic animals, or any animal for that matter, are also capable of language. Although most animals do not have the ability to speak, they can use other methods to communicate. We as humans may not be able to understand other animals’ languages, but animals do understand their own languages. Animals also use body language and other signals that are simpler for humans to pick up on.
Domestic animals are also more likely than wild animals to communicate efficiently with humans. Animals that are constantly around humans will constantly attempt to communicate with them, or develop new ways to communicate with them. A dog, for instance, will make certain noises or movements to signal to its owner whether it wants to go out, is hungry, thirsty, wants to play, or whatever else it would want or need. Its owner understands what it wants and satisfies the dog’s needs. If other animals were not able to communicate with humans, then how would the dog’s owner understand what it wanted? The owner would have to guess, and would probably guess wrong. Your dog wouldn’t like it if he wanted something to eat and you took him outside to use the bathroom, would he? There must be some kind of inter-species language if humans and dogs are able to understand each other. Training a dog also shows evidence of this inter-species language. Once you teach a dog a new trick, it understands what you want it to do. Some people would argue that the dog only does these tricks to get some kind of reward. This is not always the case. Most trainers actually don’t believe in giving their dogs rewards for performing certain tricks in order to prevent a “dependency” on the rewards.
Animals also communicate to each other using their own form of language that humans are incapable of comprehending. One might say that in this instance, dogs would be superior to humans. This idea is comparable to a person who speaks English, but does not speak Spanish. Dogs have their own language that humans just don’t understand. If animals did not have their own language, then how would they perform instinctual animal actions such as mating or other activities?
Animal language is so complicated that humans will probably never be able to comprehend it.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 3
When most people think of language, they think that it is something that only humans are capable of. They don’t realize that domestic animals, or any animal for that matter, are also capable of language. Although most animals do not have the ability to speak, they can use other methods to communicate. We as humans may not be able to understand other animals’ languages, but animals do understand their own languages. Animals also use body language and other signals that are simpler for humans to pick up on.
Domestic animals are also more likely than wild animals to communicate efficiently with humans. Animals that are constantly around humans will constantly attempt to communicate with them, or develop new ways to communicate with them. A dog, for instance, will make certain noises or movements to signal to its owner whether it wants to go out, is hungry, thirsty, wants to play, or whatever else it would want or need. Its owner understands what it wants and satisfies the dog’s needs. If other animals were not able to communicate with humans, then how would the dog’s owner understand what it wanted? The owner would have to guess, and would probably guess wrong. Your dog wouldn’t like it if he wanted something to eat and you took him outside to use the bathroom, would he? There must be some kind of inter-species language if humans and dogs are able to understand each other. Training a dog also shows evidence of this inter-species language. Once you teach a dog a new trick, it understands what you want it to do. Some people would argue that the dog only does these tricks to get some kind of reward. This is not always the case. Most trainers actually don’t believe in giving their dogs rewards for performing certain tricks in order to prevent a “dependency” on the rewards.
Animals also communicate to each other using their own form of language that humans are incapable of comprehending. One might say that in this instance, dogs would be superior to humans. This idea is comparable to a person who speaks English, but does not speak Spanish. Dogs have their own language that humans just don’t understand. If animals did not have their own language, then how would they perform instinctual animal actions such as mating or other activities?
Animal language is so complicated that humans will probably never be able to comprehend it.
The Jungle
Carmen Solis
09-03-09
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Have you ever wonder, what animals think of us, the human-beings? Well some of the scientists think that animals do not have the capability to understand or create complex ideas as the human beings do. They say that the only things that the animals, let’s called them our “pets,” want are food and shelter and that no matter what we do, they cannot communicate with us. Could this be true? From my point of view, I strongly disagree that animals cannot understand our language or communicate with us. We have seen in our environment every kind of species there exists. It varies from chimpanzees to our domestic pets; and believe it or not, they can understand us and show what they are thinking and feeling.
Some people believe that animals are irrational, meaning that they cannot think nor communicate, because those people have always thought that language is a communication between the humans beings that consists of words and signals. I can say that our pets understand our complex ideas and movements, but the only thing that it is different from the rest of us is that they cannot speak or pronounce any of our words. This is because our pets do not have the same vocal vowel structure as we do, that is why some of them would meow, bark, or grunt. We cannot judge them because we do not even know our own language and the capacity to understand.
We are not imagining when our pets understand what we are saying like “come here kitty” or “no, do not do that.” I know that they understand it for the way we say it like in high pitch o low pitch, but they know what a no and a yes is. I have four kittens and that is why I say that I know that they can understand us and feel what we are feeling. They have feelings and emotions like other humans. My kitties cannot speak but I know that they listen and understand me. Let me put an example, when I moved here to Young Harris College, one of my kittens got depressed. How do I know that? Well, for one of the reasons was that she would not play with the other kittens nor eat. She would lie down on the floor all day long. My kittens had not seen me for two weeks, and when I went home and called their name, they came running and started purring. They knew who I was and what I was saying. I told them to go inside and they did it. I did not rise or lower my tone when I said that, they just knew what I was saying. I know that they were happy because they were meowing a lot and at loud. Some of their meowing was very loud and some was very soft. I think they were communicating with me and, for a fact, I think I know what they were saying.
My kittens were not trained to do certain commands and, afterwards, give them a treats. We just spoke to them and it seems that they really understood what we were saying. When we said, without pointing, “go outside” they actually went. It is really amazing how they understood everything we say, we did not give them a treat or yell, they just did what we said. I know that many people think that humans are the only ones who can think and communicate with other people but we have never given a chance to see with patience if the living organisms that surround us have a brain and can actually understand us. We only believe what it seems logical.
Today, my roommate and I were talking about animals and if they have a language. We both agree that they could understand us and that they would talk to us in the only language that they know. She, also, mentioned something that grabbed my attention which was that animals do know when we love them or not. They have feelings and emotions as other humans have. We might not recognize at first sight, but they can get happy or depressed. My roommate’s grandmother did not like her cat and one day, the cat brought a snake onto her porch. I know it sounds not realistic but cats can be really hateful if you do not love them.
Therefore, animals can communicate and understand what we are saying. We might not understand their language because we do not speak “animal language.” Theoretically, it has not been proven that animals understand us but we can see that happening with our own pets. With every pet’s movement, they are pointing out that they can fully take our words and convert them into action. I only have one question to those people who believe that animals are irrational: If we have evolved over time in the way of thinking; then, why would not the animals have evolved too?
09-03-09
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Have you ever wonder, what animals think of us, the human-beings? Well some of the scientists think that animals do not have the capability to understand or create complex ideas as the human beings do. They say that the only things that the animals, let’s called them our “pets,” want are food and shelter and that no matter what we do, they cannot communicate with us. Could this be true? From my point of view, I strongly disagree that animals cannot understand our language or communicate with us. We have seen in our environment every kind of species there exists. It varies from chimpanzees to our domestic pets; and believe it or not, they can understand us and show what they are thinking and feeling.
Some people believe that animals are irrational, meaning that they cannot think nor communicate, because those people have always thought that language is a communication between the humans beings that consists of words and signals. I can say that our pets understand our complex ideas and movements, but the only thing that it is different from the rest of us is that they cannot speak or pronounce any of our words. This is because our pets do not have the same vocal vowel structure as we do, that is why some of them would meow, bark, or grunt. We cannot judge them because we do not even know our own language and the capacity to understand.
We are not imagining when our pets understand what we are saying like “come here kitty” or “no, do not do that.” I know that they understand it for the way we say it like in high pitch o low pitch, but they know what a no and a yes is. I have four kittens and that is why I say that I know that they can understand us and feel what we are feeling. They have feelings and emotions like other humans. My kitties cannot speak but I know that they listen and understand me. Let me put an example, when I moved here to Young Harris College, one of my kittens got depressed. How do I know that? Well, for one of the reasons was that she would not play with the other kittens nor eat. She would lie down on the floor all day long. My kittens had not seen me for two weeks, and when I went home and called their name, they came running and started purring. They knew who I was and what I was saying. I told them to go inside and they did it. I did not rise or lower my tone when I said that, they just knew what I was saying. I know that they were happy because they were meowing a lot and at loud. Some of their meowing was very loud and some was very soft. I think they were communicating with me and, for a fact, I think I know what they were saying.
My kittens were not trained to do certain commands and, afterwards, give them a treats. We just spoke to them and it seems that they really understood what we were saying. When we said, without pointing, “go outside” they actually went. It is really amazing how they understood everything we say, we did not give them a treat or yell, they just did what we said. I know that many people think that humans are the only ones who can think and communicate with other people but we have never given a chance to see with patience if the living organisms that surround us have a brain and can actually understand us. We only believe what it seems logical.
Today, my roommate and I were talking about animals and if they have a language. We both agree that they could understand us and that they would talk to us in the only language that they know. She, also, mentioned something that grabbed my attention which was that animals do know when we love them or not. They have feelings and emotions as other humans have. We might not recognize at first sight, but they can get happy or depressed. My roommate’s grandmother did not like her cat and one day, the cat brought a snake onto her porch. I know it sounds not realistic but cats can be really hateful if you do not love them.
Therefore, animals can communicate and understand what we are saying. We might not understand their language because we do not speak “animal language.” Theoretically, it has not been proven that animals understand us but we can see that happening with our own pets. With every pet’s movement, they are pointing out that they can fully take our words and convert them into action. I only have one question to those people who believe that animals are irrational: If we have evolved over time in the way of thinking; then, why would not the animals have evolved too?
Pets and Humans-The Bridge is Tone and Posture
Tyler Benson
Ms. Hughes
English 1101
September 3, 2009
As humans we tend to warp things with our imagination and minds in hopes of finding something, or creating in this sense, that we want to happen. We have a propensity to get so attached to things that we start to dream and imagine that it is able to communicate with us and let us know what it is truly thinking. Sadly, I am guilty of this as well, hoping that my pet would be able to actually tell me what it is thinking and what it understands. Our imaginations get the best of us and we start to trick ourselves into a false state of mind, ultimately causing real answers to warp into some sort of fantasy. Our pets are not able to understand what we are saying. The only thing that they can truly understand is the way their language is spoken, or barked in this case.
Dogs communicate to one another through growls, whines, barks, and moans. All of these are at different pitches and have many different tones and body postures to give off the message to anything that is near them. When a dog whines, we as humans say that the dog is in some sort of discomfort. We cannot understand that whine, all we can do is comprehend that the dog is upset by its body posture and tone of the whine. It’s the same way for them; they understand that we are in a certain mood because of the way our voices are produced and the way we are standing or moving. That’s why when you get a puppy it has no idea what is wrong and right until it sees you get made and produce a tone and give it some kind of disciplinary action. It will eventually comprehend that certain tones mean certain things, just as it would with other dogs. The question is still asking if a dog can truly understand what we are saying. A dog cannot understand the language of human beings; it can only read the tones and pitches of our voice and watch posture. It is doing the exact same thing as if we were just another dog.
I have actually done a little experiment with my own pet and was rather surprised by the results that he gave to me. Every time I take him outside to do his business I give off a certain tone and clap my hands for him to follow me. He abides by this and heads straight for the door to get an opportunity to excrete his wastes and get a treat. He doesn’t understand a word I say, all he knows is when that pitch is brought out its time to use the restroom and get a treat for it. Today, however, I changed my tone and instead of clapping my hands I snapped my fingers. I said exactly the same thing as I usually did only my voice was a little less audible and I snapped my fingers motioning for the door. He just sat there and looked at me; he had no idea what in the world I was trying to get across because he had never had that certain tone and gesture brought together. Arguments against this may be along the lines of, “Well he is not as smart as other dogs” or “It was just a onetime deal.” I did this over and over again, and he never once went to the door.
Communication between domesticated dogs and humans is limited to mimicry through tones and the way that species is postured. For example, if a dog is mad it will growl and probably lower into a pouncing position and show its teeth. As humans, we have no earthly idea what the dog is upset about unless you actually did something right then and there, all we know is that it is angry due to tone and body position. I’m not saying that we cannot comprehend things like dogs, I am just pointing out the fact that you can never fully understand thoughts of other species. As my first paragraph states; we tend to just imagine that we can understand them because we have grown attached to them, as they are pets.
Ms. Hughes
English 1101
September 3, 2009
As humans we tend to warp things with our imagination and minds in hopes of finding something, or creating in this sense, that we want to happen. We have a propensity to get so attached to things that we start to dream and imagine that it is able to communicate with us and let us know what it is truly thinking. Sadly, I am guilty of this as well, hoping that my pet would be able to actually tell me what it is thinking and what it understands. Our imaginations get the best of us and we start to trick ourselves into a false state of mind, ultimately causing real answers to warp into some sort of fantasy. Our pets are not able to understand what we are saying. The only thing that they can truly understand is the way their language is spoken, or barked in this case.
Dogs communicate to one another through growls, whines, barks, and moans. All of these are at different pitches and have many different tones and body postures to give off the message to anything that is near them. When a dog whines, we as humans say that the dog is in some sort of discomfort. We cannot understand that whine, all we can do is comprehend that the dog is upset by its body posture and tone of the whine. It’s the same way for them; they understand that we are in a certain mood because of the way our voices are produced and the way we are standing or moving. That’s why when you get a puppy it has no idea what is wrong and right until it sees you get made and produce a tone and give it some kind of disciplinary action. It will eventually comprehend that certain tones mean certain things, just as it would with other dogs. The question is still asking if a dog can truly understand what we are saying. A dog cannot understand the language of human beings; it can only read the tones and pitches of our voice and watch posture. It is doing the exact same thing as if we were just another dog.
I have actually done a little experiment with my own pet and was rather surprised by the results that he gave to me. Every time I take him outside to do his business I give off a certain tone and clap my hands for him to follow me. He abides by this and heads straight for the door to get an opportunity to excrete his wastes and get a treat. He doesn’t understand a word I say, all he knows is when that pitch is brought out its time to use the restroom and get a treat for it. Today, however, I changed my tone and instead of clapping my hands I snapped my fingers. I said exactly the same thing as I usually did only my voice was a little less audible and I snapped my fingers motioning for the door. He just sat there and looked at me; he had no idea what in the world I was trying to get across because he had never had that certain tone and gesture brought together. Arguments against this may be along the lines of, “Well he is not as smart as other dogs” or “It was just a onetime deal.” I did this over and over again, and he never once went to the door.
Communication between domesticated dogs and humans is limited to mimicry through tones and the way that species is postured. For example, if a dog is mad it will growl and probably lower into a pouncing position and show its teeth. As humans, we have no earthly idea what the dog is upset about unless you actually did something right then and there, all we know is that it is angry due to tone and body position. I’m not saying that we cannot comprehend things like dogs, I am just pointing out the fact that you can never fully understand thoughts of other species. As my first paragraph states; we tend to just imagine that we can understand them because we have grown attached to them, as they are pets.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Blog Prompt 3: Human and Animal Communication
Blog Prompt 3
Due Sept. 4, 2009
Write between 300-600 words in formal standard English on one of the following subjects. Feel free to cite the texts, or the clips that we watched, as you make your points.
1. Which of the five properties of language described in Yule do you believe to be the most important in differentiating between human and animal communication?
2. Many people believe the animals that we live with -- our pets -- understand us and communicate with us. Do you believe that a domestic animal is capable of more or less communicative power than what is described in this chapter? You might consider issues of tone, gesture, or behavior -- Yule does not give much attention to these aspects of communication.
Due Sept. 4, 2009
Write between 300-600 words in formal standard English on one of the following subjects. Feel free to cite the texts, or the clips that we watched, as you make your points.
1. Which of the five properties of language described in Yule do you believe to be the most important in differentiating between human and animal communication?
2. Many people believe the animals that we live with -- our pets -- understand us and communicate with us. Do you believe that a domestic animal is capable of more or less communicative power than what is described in this chapter? You might consider issues of tone, gesture, or behavior -- Yule does not give much attention to these aspects of communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)