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.
Friday, September 4, 2009
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.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Immitation is a Must.
Jackie Hand
Blog 2
English 101
In Pinker’s writing, he says that it is okay for people to talk the way that they please, and that grammar may not be that important. I believe that he is in fact contradicting himself. If standard English is really not important, then why would he write in it? This is the universal language that you can connect with everyone on. If Pinker had not written in standard English, would anyone have taken what he said seriously in the first place? Most likely not.
I agree with Dalrymple all the way. Yes, everyone has their own way of speaking and communicating, but when one needs to get their point across to multiple people, it is better to use a universal language so that others can understand. There is a time and place for everything, which means that if you want to be taken seriously you must conform somewhat to the “universal” way of grammar.
Pinker said that the reason a child speaks the way they do is because of biology as opposed to imitation. There is no possible way that this is correct. Children who are not communicated with cannot speak and will have a difficult time learning how. So if it was biological, could they really lose that trait? I don’t believe so. So many things that we do as human beings are caused by imitation. Without imitation, no one would be able to connect each other. There would be no fashion, no dance, no theater, no entertainment, no form of anything. Everyone imitates something or someone at some point in their lives. It is how we as humans can stay in touch with each other.
Blog 2
English 101
In Pinker’s writing, he says that it is okay for people to talk the way that they please, and that grammar may not be that important. I believe that he is in fact contradicting himself. If standard English is really not important, then why would he write in it? This is the universal language that you can connect with everyone on. If Pinker had not written in standard English, would anyone have taken what he said seriously in the first place? Most likely not.
I agree with Dalrymple all the way. Yes, everyone has their own way of speaking and communicating, but when one needs to get their point across to multiple people, it is better to use a universal language so that others can understand. There is a time and place for everything, which means that if you want to be taken seriously you must conform somewhat to the “universal” way of grammar.
Pinker said that the reason a child speaks the way they do is because of biology as opposed to imitation. There is no possible way that this is correct. Children who are not communicated with cannot speak and will have a difficult time learning how. So if it was biological, could they really lose that trait? I don’t believe so. So many things that we do as human beings are caused by imitation. Without imitation, no one would be able to connect each other. There would be no fashion, no dance, no theater, no entertainment, no form of anything. Everyone imitates something or someone at some point in their lives. It is how we as humans can stay in touch with each other.
Blog Two
Tyler Gunnin
8/28/09
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
Everyone is a hypocrite in some way no matter how easy it is to admit it. People go to church, read the Bible, then turn around and do something that goes against God's Word. We go through motions, not only in church, but also with the various people we hang around with, the teachers we present ourselves to, and our parents that gave us this life to begin with. Dalrymple wants to make this point clear in calling Pinker a hypocrite. He states that Pinker writing in Standard English, dedicating the book to his parents whom "gave (him) life", and not believing what he writes makes this hypocritical judgment so clear.
Pinker writes in Standard English, not because he is going anywhere against what he has stated, but because he wants everyone to find this reading fairly simple to follow. Dalrymple questioned how popular the book would have become if Pinker wrote in a New Orleans style. What would be the point of that anyways? What point is Dalrymple trying to make? The style of Standard English was an excellent choice by Dr. Pinker in the fact that the average English speaker will find his reading much easier to consume.
The dedication to his parents is an incredible statement to ponder. What exactly did Pinker mean by saying his parents gave him language, then making the point that he believes language is given by nature? He simply is making the point that without his parents giving birth to him, he would not have even had the chance to pick up language through nature in the first place.
Dalrymple also accuses Pinker of not believing what he writes. There is clearly no doubt that Pinker is not as confrontational on the matter as Dalrymple is. This is just simply the approach he has chosen to take. Writing in this way makes the reader not only take in the message, but also questioning the points throughout. By doing this, the book gives much more meaning to the reader.
Dalrymple may try his best to cut down Pinker’s writing, but the arguments he make can clearly be explained. Pinker writes in Standard English for an easier read. He dedicates the book to his parents, because without them, he would have never had the chance to pick up the biologics of language. He writes in a questionable manner just to draw in the reader more. Pinker does a fantastic job of describing the language we pick up and hear every single day.
8/28/09
Dr. Hughes
English 1101
Everyone is a hypocrite in some way no matter how easy it is to admit it. People go to church, read the Bible, then turn around and do something that goes against God's Word. We go through motions, not only in church, but also with the various people we hang around with, the teachers we present ourselves to, and our parents that gave us this life to begin with. Dalrymple wants to make this point clear in calling Pinker a hypocrite. He states that Pinker writing in Standard English, dedicating the book to his parents whom "gave (him) life", and not believing what he writes makes this hypocritical judgment so clear.
Pinker writes in Standard English, not because he is going anywhere against what he has stated, but because he wants everyone to find this reading fairly simple to follow. Dalrymple questioned how popular the book would have become if Pinker wrote in a New Orleans style. What would be the point of that anyways? What point is Dalrymple trying to make? The style of Standard English was an excellent choice by Dr. Pinker in the fact that the average English speaker will find his reading much easier to consume.
The dedication to his parents is an incredible statement to ponder. What exactly did Pinker mean by saying his parents gave him language, then making the point that he believes language is given by nature? He simply is making the point that without his parents giving birth to him, he would not have even had the chance to pick up language through nature in the first place.
Dalrymple also accuses Pinker of not believing what he writes. There is clearly no doubt that Pinker is not as confrontational on the matter as Dalrymple is. This is just simply the approach he has chosen to take. Writing in this way makes the reader not only take in the message, but also questioning the points throughout. By doing this, the book gives much more meaning to the reader.
Dalrymple may try his best to cut down Pinker’s writing, but the arguments he make can clearly be explained. Pinker writes in Standard English for an easier read. He dedicates the book to his parents, because without them, he would have never had the chance to pick up the biologics of language. He writes in a questionable manner just to draw in the reader more. Pinker does a fantastic job of describing the language we pick up and hear every single day.
What to wear? What to say?
Leila Shearon
Blog 2
Dr. Jennifer Hughes
8.28.2009
One whose private life, opinions, or statements contradict his or her public statements, this is a definition of a hypocrite. Theodore Dalrymple uses this term to describe Steven Pinker. Who is Pinker? Pinker is a professor at Harvard. He is well-known for his revolution…nary theory of how children acquire language and how it changes. He explains the way he sees language. He explains thing like “Language change is normal…Value judgments about different languages and dialects are matters of taste.”Dalrymple tries his best to Pinker is a hypocrite, states that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Is this true?
Language I believe is like ones wardrobe. When one goes to a wedding or a formal party in America a man might wear a tail coat a tie and leather shoes. A woman might wear a dress with beautiful jewlerey. In a different culture a different type of dress may be expected. Also one would not wear a suit and patent leather shoes to a construction site or a Braves baseball game. The attire that is expected and suitable for these locations is more casual. At a construction site a hardhat is needed for ones saftey. At home pajamas is needed or wanted for ones comfort.
What does wardrobe and attire have to do with linguistics? A Suit and tie is the correct attire for a formal occasion. A Jersey is the right attire for a baseball. And, pajamas are the right attire for a comfortable day around the house. Words such as pretentious and juxtaposition can be used to present a speech to adults at a formal awards ceremony, but words such as w’sup and dude is correct language for a high school event such as a party or basketball game.
I think that Pinker understood the importance of language flexibility. There are no absolutes in language. Something maybe correct in one house but a mile down the road a different dialect with different rules jargons is spoken. There is a time and place for different starters and styles of language. When Pinker writing he wrote in a style and dialect that was appropriate and needed at the time.
Blog 2
Dr. Jennifer Hughes
8.28.2009
One whose private life, opinions, or statements contradict his or her public statements, this is a definition of a hypocrite. Theodore Dalrymple uses this term to describe Steven Pinker. Who is Pinker? Pinker is a professor at Harvard. He is well-known for his revolution…nary theory of how children acquire language and how it changes. He explains the way he sees language. He explains thing like “Language change is normal…Value judgments about different languages and dialects are matters of taste.”Dalrymple tries his best to Pinker is a hypocrite, states that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Is this true?
Language I believe is like ones wardrobe. When one goes to a wedding or a formal party in America a man might wear a tail coat a tie and leather shoes. A woman might wear a dress with beautiful jewlerey. In a different culture a different type of dress may be expected. Also one would not wear a suit and patent leather shoes to a construction site or a Braves baseball game. The attire that is expected and suitable for these locations is more casual. At a construction site a hardhat is needed for ones saftey. At home pajamas is needed or wanted for ones comfort.
What does wardrobe and attire have to do with linguistics? A Suit and tie is the correct attire for a formal occasion. A Jersey is the right attire for a baseball. And, pajamas are the right attire for a comfortable day around the house. Words such as pretentious and juxtaposition can be used to present a speech to adults at a formal awards ceremony, but words such as w’sup and dude is correct language for a high school event such as a party or basketball game.
I think that Pinker understood the importance of language flexibility. There are no absolutes in language. Something maybe correct in one house but a mile down the road a different dialect with different rules jargons is spoken. There is a time and place for different starters and styles of language. When Pinker writing he wrote in a style and dialect that was appropriate and needed at the time.
Non-sense
Carmen Solis
08-28-09
Dr. Hughes
Engl 1101
The "respected" linguistic writer, Dr. Steven Pinker, does not know the difference between a Lion and a Kitten. By this, I mean that he does not recognize the distinction between someone who knows a well develop Standard English and someone who creates an invisible language. The ones who create the invisible language lack something extremely important to the development of life which is Education. On one of the passages of his book, Dr. Pinker writes about a “linguist form” that some villages speak or make it in their own way. He is saying that “Pidgins are choppy strings of words borrowed from the language of the colonizers or plantation owners.” And I ask myself and I would like him to answer me this: How can that be a language if those colonizers or farmers did not even know their language? Basically, those people are creating a type of communication so that they can understand each other, but, let’s not forget, it is not language. I called that imagination—it is something that those people created using words that they think is right.
People that live up in the mountains or are isolated from the rest of the world have no chance but to create mixtures of words that sounds like a language, but it is not one. Dr. Pinker calls those interpretation and imagination “pidgin” or “creoles.” Pidgins or creoles exist but those are not language. Those are misinterpretation of sentences. Those people that are up in the hills developed a wrong kind of communication. Those are the influenze of culture because those people goes by and learn the way that everyone else is learning. On the other hand, if you live in a city or somewhere where there is a school, you are going to learn the right way to write and speak. That language is the Standard American English. I know that the only professional language is the Standard English and that one needs education to further one’s path and knowledge.
08-28-09
Dr. Hughes
Engl 1101
The "respected" linguistic writer, Dr. Steven Pinker, does not know the difference between a Lion and a Kitten. By this, I mean that he does not recognize the distinction between someone who knows a well develop Standard English and someone who creates an invisible language. The ones who create the invisible language lack something extremely important to the development of life which is Education. On one of the passages of his book, Dr. Pinker writes about a “linguist form” that some villages speak or make it in their own way. He is saying that “Pidgins are choppy strings of words borrowed from the language of the colonizers or plantation owners.” And I ask myself and I would like him to answer me this: How can that be a language if those colonizers or farmers did not even know their language? Basically, those people are creating a type of communication so that they can understand each other, but, let’s not forget, it is not language. I called that imagination—it is something that those people created using words that they think is right.
People that live up in the mountains or are isolated from the rest of the world have no chance but to create mixtures of words that sounds like a language, but it is not one. Dr. Pinker calls those interpretation and imagination “pidgin” or “creoles.” Pidgins or creoles exist but those are not language. Those are misinterpretation of sentences. Those people that are up in the hills developed a wrong kind of communication. Those are the influenze of culture because those people goes by and learn the way that everyone else is learning. On the other hand, if you live in a city or somewhere where there is a school, you are going to learn the right way to write and speak. That language is the Standard American English. I know that the only professional language is the Standard English and that one needs education to further one’s path and knowledge.
Hypocritical??
Rebekah Medford
Ms.Hughs
Language Controversies
“Hypocrite: 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” In every class, type, occupation, or sex, a person of the definition above is present. Hypocrites are among even the “best” of us: teachers, police men, politicians, religious figures and …linguist? Can this be true? Theodore Dalrymple seems to think so. In his article “The Gift of Language: No, Dr.Pinker, It’s Not Just From Nature,” Dalrymple accuses Pinker of being a hypocrite with his writings on language deriving from instinct and biology. He states “Pinker doesn’t really believe anything of what he writes, at least if example is stronger evidence of belief than precept.” Dalrymple makes several good, clear points against Pinker’s writing but are they enough to classify Pinker as a true hypocrite?
Towards the middle of his article Dalrymple points out a very interesting example on why he thinks Pinker is a hypocrite. Dalrymple and Pinker’s ideas on how a person develops language contrast greatly. In this particular case Dalrymple tries to catch Pinker contradicting his own belief that children do not learn language from imitation and parents. Trying to prove this, Dalrymple examines Pinker’s book dedication which reads “For Harry and Roslyn Parker, who gave me language.” Dalrymple tries to use this against Pinker. The dedication does not mean the Pinker is a hypocrite, it does not mean he is contradicting himself. Pinker’s words could easily be a thank you to his parents for giving him birth and the chance to live life and speak. By giving him life Pinker’s parents gave him language.
Dalrymple continues to try and prove Pinker as a hypocrite, presenting the idea that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Pinker wrote in Standard English because it was what he was use to writing. He wanted to make sure what he was writing was clear to the reader. Though Dalrymple does find interesting points to use against Pinker none of them can truly be used or correct in categorizing Pinker as a hypocrite.
Ms.Hughs
Language Controversies
“Hypocrite: 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” In every class, type, occupation, or sex, a person of the definition above is present. Hypocrites are among even the “best” of us: teachers, police men, politicians, religious figures and …linguist? Can this be true? Theodore Dalrymple seems to think so. In his article “The Gift of Language: No, Dr.Pinker, It’s Not Just From Nature,” Dalrymple accuses Pinker of being a hypocrite with his writings on language deriving from instinct and biology. He states “Pinker doesn’t really believe anything of what he writes, at least if example is stronger evidence of belief than precept.” Dalrymple makes several good, clear points against Pinker’s writing but are they enough to classify Pinker as a true hypocrite?
Towards the middle of his article Dalrymple points out a very interesting example on why he thinks Pinker is a hypocrite. Dalrymple and Pinker’s ideas on how a person develops language contrast greatly. In this particular case Dalrymple tries to catch Pinker contradicting his own belief that children do not learn language from imitation and parents. Trying to prove this, Dalrymple examines Pinker’s book dedication which reads “For Harry and Roslyn Parker, who gave me language.” Dalrymple tries to use this against Pinker. The dedication does not mean the Pinker is a hypocrite, it does not mean he is contradicting himself. Pinker’s words could easily be a thank you to his parents for giving him birth and the chance to live life and speak. By giving him life Pinker’s parents gave him language.
Dalrymple continues to try and prove Pinker as a hypocrite, presenting the idea that Pinker clearly values Standard English as higher language because he writes in it. Dalrymple says Pinker wrote to “please schoolmarms.” Pinker wrote in Standard English because it was what he was use to writing. He wanted to make sure what he was writing was clear to the reader. Though Dalrymple does find interesting points to use against Pinker none of them can truly be used or correct in categorizing Pinker as a hypocrite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)