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.
Friday, September 18, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)