Sam Redden
September 19, 2009
“Word of the Day”
The English language is a forever growing language. Words are added to our vocabulary everyday; most of these words being slang, of course. I was unaware that there was an online dictionary that held all of the modern day slang. The Urban Dictionary is polar opposites of the Oxford English Dictionary printed in 1989. This dictionary has all the term that you would see in a standard research paper. Both of these dictionaries have a “word of the day” posted on their website. By just looking at these two words and analyzing the differences of the meanings, I had a clear interpretation of the two dictionaries.
My interpretation of The Urban Dictionary is that it has the credibility of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where people can write their own takes on words and events. This dictionary is written by whoever feels like writing a word that day. Dictionaries are typically more trusted when they are written by lexicographers that devote their life to produce definitions that society agrees with. The only time I would use this dictionary is if someone called me a foul name that I did not recognize. For example, the “word of the day” for this dictionary is “pirate bath” which is “The process of washing just the arm pit area and the private area with a wash cloth or handful of water.”
In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more trusted dictionary. It is not vulgar, and I would feel completely comfortable buying it for my grandmother as a Christmas gift. It is impossible to go online and edit the definitions. The word of the day for this dictionary is “festivity” which is “Festive quality, condition, or nature; fitness for occasions of rejoicing; mirthfulness, cheerful urbanity; also (of writing, etc.), agreeable elegance.” This definition is descriptive because it assumes that the reader already knows the meaning of “festive.”
If I had to choose between the dictionaries, I would choose the Oxford English Dictionary because the Urban Dictionary just strikes me as a joke. I admit to using some of the words and phrases that make up the Urban Dictionary, however I would not use it in formal writing.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Trippin'
Tyler Gunnin
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
9/18/09
Language has continually changed throughout the years. The meaning of any certain word can stir up mixed debate. Today the internet presents access to multiple dictionaries, including two of the most well-known: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Urban Dictionary. These two sites allow us to see a "proper" definition, coming from the OED, and a "not-so-politically-correct" definition, branching from the Urban Dictionary. The word I chose to examine from these two sources is "trip". By viewing the OED and Urban Dictionary, the alteration in a single word's meaning becomes apparent through the prescriptive and descriptive definitions.
The OED offers a prescriptive view of the various words in the English language, because it presents the definitions in the way that they technically "should" be presented. "Trip" is a common word, and when searched in the OED, the definition is presented as: The action or an act of tripping or moving lightly and quickly; a light lively movement of the feet. It also gives the definition: A short voyage or journey; a ‘run’. The term used as an act was first used in 1600, and in it was later used in 1691 as a short voyage. The OED is presented by scholars in this prescriptive version, therefore, when trusting a dictionary definition, it is always the smart choice to access the site that produces words approved by the renown scholars themselves.
The Urban Dictionary presents an extremely differed definition of a word. The site is descriptive in the sense that anyone can write their own meaning to a word in the way we think they should be used. First, a point that feels necessary to mention, is the fact that people may sometimes underestimate the OED. For example, when researching the word "trip", I had no clue that it was first used as a slang word in 1959. Although the OED may present the definition as a slang term, the Urban Dictionary displays the term in the way I expected it to be shown. "Trip", according to the Urban Dictionary's definition, is: A noun that refers to a single complete experience of using acid (LSD, which is a powerful hallucinogenic drug), or any other powerful hallucinogenic drug. It is also stated: Can be used fuguratively in a way that is very often used to describe things that are crazy, chaotic, cool, or ,esp., figuratively capable of inducing hallucinations. The Urban Dictionary can be accessed by anyone, and whoever chooses to do so, may post their very own definition, therefore, it is never wise to follow any information linked from the site.
The OED and the Urban Dictionary both have their strong points. The OED presents prescriptive information, because the English scholars research, write, and approve the definitions on the site. The Urban Dictionary presents descriptive information, because "everyday" people write the "everyday" definition in the way that we may be more comfortable with. Although it may be true, the obvious dictionary that is "better" and more accurate is the OED. It may not be the descriptive definition that we may be use to, but it presents the appropriate information in a descriptive manner in the way we should be use to.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Superior definition?
Mary Lowe
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
ENGL 1101
Dr. Hughes
In our world everyone has their own opinion about many different subjects. For this reason various outlets such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia have been created to foster to the human need of being heard. While these avenues of information might provide an opinion on a certain topic, how credible are they? The Urban Dictionary is composed of non- authoritative sources who simply provide the “street” definition which makes this dictionary a descriptive source. Anyone with internet access can provide a definition which means the “facts” on these sites are likely not up to par compared to a prescriptive authority such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary has been composed by a number of esteemed scholars who have climbed the ladder of education toward scholastic superiority. Some though, have criticized this Dictionary by saying, “ it has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”. The Urban and Oxford dictionaries stand as polar opposites concerning authority, but such a subjective decree regarding which one is “better” is a difficult judgment to make.
I believe that there is a time and a place for everything and I think this is no less true pertaining to these dictionaries. For example, the word “lame” has a different definition on the prescriptive and descriptive sites. The definition on the Oxford English Dictionary is “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk”. This is the common understanding of the word which has dated all the way back to 1000 C.E. The Urban Dictionary on the other hand defines “lame” as “just plain stupid, un-original, or lifeless”. Both of these definitions are useful in different circumstances but in formal writing or speaking I would certainly opt to use the Oxford Dictionary and I would dare not obtain information from the Urban Dictionary.
In the majority of our lives we flounder about resorting to slang for various reasons such as ease, comfort and conformity. We are the Urban Dictionary and the realm above who we aspire to be is the Oxford Dictionary. Both are accepted as valid in their own circles but I, and many others, believe the standard is definitely the Oxford for it has endured through the good times and the bad; time evokes respect.
Measurement of someone's heart!!!
Carmen Solis
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Girls love poems, is that right? Well, that term has changed over time. Now, some people, including females and males, read and speak in a poetic tone. There are tons of varieties of poems; it can be a ballad, carpe diem, couple, elegy, lyric, haiku, and much more. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “poem” means “a piece of writing or an oral composition, often characterized by a metrical structure, in which the expression of feelings, ideas, etc., is typically given intensity or flavor by distinctive diction, rhythm, imagery, etc.; a composition in poetry or verse.” This meaning is very complex. Someone like a child would not understand it and, even, some teenager would not either. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the authority is a chief named John Simpson; he searches the vocabulary from an actual source. He has many editors and “receives proposed amendments and suggestions for new entries.” Under Mr. Simpson’s authority, there a lot of people, editors, who chooses which word to put in the dictionary. This OED is a more professional and formal way to look for a word. The OED is definitely a prescriptive because it shows the public how a term should be defined.
On the other hand, I checked in the Urban Dictionary for that same word. It gave me a lot of definitions. Some of them were funny and give someone’s point of view. So, basically, the Urban Dictionary is descriptive because people write what they “think” that word means. In this dictionary, anyone can write and put a definition for any word. It does not have an authority that checks the terms that are added. “Poem” meant “a measuring stick for the depth of one’s heart.” This definition is mostly used by any teenager or person that is in love. If one says this definition, anyone would certainly understand it. There are also some other definitions for “poem,” for instance, it is like a short thing that rhymes and is corny, sweet, or bitchy. All of the definitions are people’s own way to see and explain the word.
I think that both of the dictionaries are right. There is no right or wrong definition. It is just how you explain to someone. The OED is better to use when you are speaking or writing in a professional and formal way. One would look more “sophisticated,” if they use a complex and intellectual sentences. On the contrary, the Urban Dictionary would be better to use when trying to explain what a word is, using simple but descriptive words. The definitions we see in the Urban Dictionary are more casual and used by most of the people. The definition for the word “poem” is the same everywhere; it is just how you explain it that it is different.
"Nifty" is a nifty word. My Favorite word.
Leila Shearon
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Dr. Hughes
9.18.09
A person has many options in the search for the meaning of a word. One can search for the unknown meaning on the popular website among young people in today’s society http://www.urbandictionary.com/ or one could search on a prestigious and highly respected website http://dictionary.oed.com . The Oxford English Dictionary contains over 171,476 words in its collection. In The English language words are added every day. Some people sit and wonder if a word they use is actually an “official” word. The word “nifty” is a word that is becoming common in the world of preteens to young adults. “Nifty” in today’s society is used as an adjective. I can be used in many areas. The urban dictionary states the meaning as “To be very cool or neat; existing in a unique, positive manner.” They also stated “Refers to www.nifty.org, a rather large archive of erotic literature, a bit of it rather odd. Includes a vast array of topics, including, but not limited to, bestiality, incest, rape, bondage, hermaphrodism, gay/lesbian/bi/trans, sex with children, and at least one rendition of the story behind tubgirl”. The most common meaning for young adults is a synonym for the expression “Pretty darn awesome”. Oxford English dictionary is slightly different. As a noun is dates all the way back to 1918 is both an “A joke; a witty remark or story” and “An attractive young woman”. As an adjective it dates back even farther than 1918. The first usage is seen in the year of 1865.Oxford defined “nifty” as “Clever or ingenious; handy, nimble, dexterous” and “Smart, stylish; attractive; of good quality” Nifty used as an adjective has not been popular for over ten years. Now, people hear it in songs and on the tongues of the youth. Soon this word will be as common as the word “cool”. It has been used to describe the decade of the fifties. Soon this word will be able to describe anything and everything. “Nifty” is definitely a nifty word
Snatch
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
18 September, 2009
After Looking at both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, I was able to see many things between the two that were similar. Now while they are similar there are still some differences. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary only has definitions that are agreed upon by a group of scholars and lexicographers, but the Urban Dictionary has definitions that are written by everyday people. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary also are more professional and the Urban Dictionary definitions are more obscene and written in the everyday language of the common man.
The word I chose to research in the two dictionaries was “snatch.” The word “snatch” can be used as either a noun or a verb, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary the noun form is defined as a hasty catch or grasp, and the verb form is defined as to make a sudden snap or bite at something. The Oxford definition of snatch is the one that everyone is familiar with, and is the one that is most commonly used. However the Urban Dictionary also has two definitions for the word “snatch.” The first is to take or grasp at suddenly or hastily. This definition does not differ much from the Oxford definition at all so no one would have a problem with this definition, but the second definition from Urban Dictionary might cause some eyebrows to be raised. The second definition for snatch according to Urban Dictionary is and I quote, “the second most horrifying name for a female’s genitalia.” Now many people have probably never heard the word “snatch” used in that manner before, and until last year I had not either. So many people would object to this definition and berate anyone who used it in that way. By looking up the same word in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary I was not only able to see how different the two dictionaries were, but also how similar they are in context. So while I would not suggest that someone get their definitions from Urban Dictionary I would suggest that they look at it because it is a good source to compare the definitions of different dictionaries.
Words, Words, Words
Bekah Medford
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
“Words, Words, Words”
As time changes, we change, along with everything around us. Technology advances. New Fashions replace the fads before them. New words are created. Older words pick up new meanings. To comparing two popular dictionaries, The OED and The Urban Dictionary, models just how much the words we use change over time.
Dating back to c1325, the word “gay” was used as an adjective to describe someone as noble; beautiful; excellent, fine. This is the first definition of “gay” found in the OED. Though it is not the world’s oldest dictionary, it has a broad span of words with their popular meanings from both the past and present. When I looked up the word “gay” in the Urban Dictionary, I found two dissimilar definitions. The Urban Dictionary is like a collection of modern day American slang. People add in what he or she believes the word to mean. According to the Urban Dictionary “gay” is now a term for a homosexual male or female; or something stupid or unfortunate. The last definition of the two is in almost direct contrast to the original meaning found in the OED. The term seems to have more of a negative connotation when used in the present.
The two dictionaries seem very different but are truly alike. Both dictionaries are presenting people with definitions behind words. Both have definitions that many people believe to be correct whether it be the original meaning or the current slang. The OED searches for the most popular and correct meaning from both the past and the future while the Urban Dictionary has the definitions of words according to what humans view right now. The Urban dictionary is definitely descriptive. The OED is a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive. Though most may see it as just prescriptive, there was a point where prescriptive was descriptive. When giving the words the original meaning, descriptive was used to help form the definition. The OED is more accurate because people cannot add what he chooses vat anytime. The OED is put together with consideration and thought. Though contrasting in their content, both dictionaries have the same purpose: to present words and their many meanings.
You Want to Get Blazed
It is very peculiar and almost funny how in the English language we have so many different meanings for words. The one I chose to look up is “blazed.” According to Urban Dictionary, it is to be really high from smoking marijuana. However, with Oxford English Dictionary, it means to burst into flames. It is crazy to think about how many meanings some of our words actually have. But who is right and who is wrong? Urban dictionary is available to the public to post their own definitions, where as Oxford English Dictionary is from an actual “source.” But now that I think about it, which can you believe or trust? On Urban, everyone seems to agree on the fact that blazed is to smoke weed, and if people today are referring to the word as that, then is that not right? But, on OED, it never once mentioned anything about drugs.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
To me, I think that the definition found on Urban Dictionary came from the other meaning, to burst into flames. Because if someone were to say, “Hey man, want to blaze?” I would think that he was talking about smoking, not setting himself on fire. But since there is fire involved, it could attribute to the second definition. I think that Urban Dictionary is more of a descriptive way of defining words. Because people in today’s society refer to it as “high” and we model that. The Oxford English Dictionary is more prescriptive because it is what is “right” in terms of an actual dictionary.
Personally I think it depends upon the situation to decide which site to refer to. If one is writing a paper or working on school work, Oxford English Dictionary would probably be a safer option to define a word. But if one is just curious about a word or slang, then Urban Dictionary would be better. So next time (if ever) someone says to you, “Wanna get blazed?” make damn sure which definition they are referring to, although I would think it’s the Urban Dictionary form.
Can We Create The Ultimate Dictionary?
Tyler Benson
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Egnl 1101
Ms. Hughes
9/17/09
Looking at both the OED and the urban dictionary, I am going to have to take a position in suggesting that they swap some attributes. The urban dictionary has its strong points in that regular people actually decide what the best definition of a certain word is. On the other hand, the OED actually has the history and facts on all the words you could think of. A merger between the two would be a very nice event, and you might actually see the birth of the standard dictionary.
The word I chose to look up was “junk”. In the urban dictionary it said that junk referred to useless garbage that was tossed out just before the day it is needed. This, of course, was the highest rated definition out of many. The OED referred to junk in two ways; one being to chop something into rough sections and also garbage. Upon viewing both the definitions of junk in these two dictionaries, the idea of merging the two together popped into my mind. I think that these Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionaries should merge into one where the history of the word is located and all definitions from the past to present are posted. Then regular people can go in and vote on the definition they see being most accurate for this time and age. If we do this, even as time and age progresses people will be able to vote on definitions of words and it will stay current. If we merge both the ideas of Prescriptive and Descriptive we can actually have legitimate definitions of words that people can vote on to actually set a standard meaning. Of course it may change as time progresses, but it will still be current and valid because people will still be voting on definitions. If a new meaning comes out, scholars will debate and add it if they see fit, of course the scholars have to be diverse.
The only problem I see in the merger would be getting a diverse group of officials that would actually make some progress unlike the Advisors’ in France. This taken into account, if a group of officials can be assembled we could in fact make a Prescriptive and Descriptive dictionary combined.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What Did You Call Me?!?
Steven Holland
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Engl 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
The word “bitch” has been used for so long it is now a very common word, even though many people consider it to be an obscenity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word, used as a noun, originated as to referring to a female dog. The word has been used for centuries, with its first uses over a century ago. The word has since evolved with its meaning over the many years of its existence. The word then evolved around the 1500’s to include the female fox and wolf, and other “beast” species. The words next meaning came about in the 1400’s. The word’s new meaning would now refer to a treacherous or malicious woman. This is probably one of, if not the most used meanings of the word itself. The phrase Son of a Bitch was then developed with a close meaning to its origin. The phrase usually refers to a malicious man; however it also rarely refers to a woman. The term can also be applied to animals as abuse. In the early to mid 1900’s, the word “bitch” took on yet a new meaning. Unlike the previous meanings, this one had no relationship to the previous meanings. The word was mainly used in Alaska and Canada in reference to a primitive lamp. This may cause some confusion to someone who didn’t know this meaning when a fellow Eskimo asks his buddy to, “Pass me the bitch.” Could you imagine the look on his face? In the 1600’s, we see that the word gets yet another meaning, and another part of speech. The word now gains the ability to be used as a verb. When used in this tense, the word’s meaning is to behave or complain rudely. Now a person can be a “bitch” by “bitching.” According to the Urban Dictionary, which contains modern versions of definitions created by the people who use them (which makes it more accurate for modern-day times), most of the older meanings of the word (with the exception of an Eskimo lamp) are still used today. Urban Dictionary also lists some more new definitions, one specific amusing one being “a person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seat only car meant for 2 passengers or less.” Another new definition is that of a servant. This definition is often used in terms of a relationship where the female is in charge. A friend who spots this tragedy would make fun of the poor guy by saying that he is his girlfriend’s “bitch.” So next time you think about calling someone a “bitch,” make sure you are clear in understanding the development of the word or you might just call them an Eskimo lamp.
Altough there are some differences between the two different dictionaries (OED and UD), there are also some differences that we don't notice. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary is a more formal type of dictionary and it could be classified as being prescriptive. It tells you how the word "bitch" is used and how to use it. The Urban Dictionary, however, is more descriptive. Since it is written by people who use the word regularly, it contains the most up-to-date definitions. The Urban Dictionary seems to be more relaxed since it is not quite as formal as and is more laid back than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Comparing Authorities: OED vs. UD
Dear All,
For your blog this week, you will compare the authoritative practices of two online dictionaries: the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/) and Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). You will probably have to access the OED from a campus computer.
First, you will need to pick a word. The choice is yours. I recommend you look for a word that is either very new (blog, Google, the verb "to friend") or a word that has interesting differences in meaning when it is used formally or as slang (drug terms like: "chronic," "ice," "snow," "juice"; or slang with a sexual charge like: "dime," "box," "cougar"). Be warned that many definitions that you find on Urban Dictionary contain obscenity and offensive material. If you are uncomfortable analyzing this sort of material, try to choose a word that is not particularly "charged" in our society.
Look up that word in both the OED and Urban Dictionary. Analyze the difference between how the two dictionaries function based upon the entries that you read. While looking up the definitions, consider these questions: How do each of these dictionaries derive their authority? Is it PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE? Who are the authorities? How are the definitions composed? Do you think the definitions from one are "better" or more accurate than the other? Why?
Your blog should be between 300-600 words, and it should be written in formal Standard English. Your authority is Hacker!
Good luck, and have fun!
For your blog this week, you will compare the authoritative practices of two online dictionaries: the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/) and Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). You will probably have to access the OED from a campus computer.
First, you will need to pick a word. The choice is yours. I recommend you look for a word that is either very new (blog, Google, the verb "to friend") or a word that has interesting differences in meaning when it is used formally or as slang (drug terms like: "chronic," "ice," "snow," "juice"; or slang with a sexual charge like: "dime," "box," "cougar"). Be warned that many definitions that you find on Urban Dictionary contain obscenity and offensive material. If you are uncomfortable analyzing this sort of material, try to choose a word that is not particularly "charged" in our society.
Look up that word in both the OED and Urban Dictionary. Analyze the difference between how the two dictionaries function based upon the entries that you read. While looking up the definitions, consider these questions: How do each of these dictionaries derive their authority? Is it PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE? Who are the authorities? How are the definitions composed? Do you think the definitions from one are "better" or more accurate than the other? Why?
Your blog should be between 300-600 words, and it should be written in formal Standard English. Your authority is Hacker!
Good luck, and have fun!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Blog 3
Mary Elizabeth Lowe
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
04 September 2009
Language is a vital part of our existence which serves as a tool of communication not only between humans but animals as well. While animals might not be able to verbally speak to us, I know that certain requests are made and offered. Dogs for example prove this fact on a daily basis. When a dog is hungry he or she sits and stares at the food bowl. When play is desired, jumping and yelping emanates from the animal. This intentional body language is a part of communication but I believe animals have the potential for far greater bounds in language if certain characteristics and training were present.
Within Yule’s research about animal communication there were several astounding instances of this such as Washoe, the signing chimpanzee, and Sara, the symbol speaking chimpanzee. These are phenomenal examples of animals being able to communicate with humans, even if it be on a toddler’s level. One definite advantage chimpanzees have though, is the physical attributes which are very similar to a human’s hands and arms. It quickly becomes apparent that in order to communicate in American Sign Language, these physical similarities are quite necessary. This fact persuades me to think that only monkey varieties of animals would be able to communicate on a human level of sign language simply due to the observation of physical attributes. Even if dogs or cats were brilliant and great thoughts were considered in their minds, they would have no way of expressing those discoveries and emotions except through futile barking. This is very similar to the plight of the vocabulary limited person. Even if an individual contemplates earth shattering thoughts, they do not have the necessary tools to communicate them to the world.
Moving forward on the purposed belief that animals contain thoughts, those reflections would only be able to be exposed to humans if a new system of communication was used or invented. Instead of sign language Morse code or paining could be a means of communicating to people. However, since I do not think this is a plausible future reality, I would have to say domestic animals have virtually reached their limit concerning intentional communication with humans. This chapter enlightened me to a world of language powers, but I do not think animals have a patient enough disposition or the needed physical or mental qualities to continue any further down the road of communication. While potential is a goal upon the horizon, does anyone ever truly reach this ambition? I believe only time will tell in both the animal and the human world.
English 1101
Dr. Hughes
04 September 2009
Language is a vital part of our existence which serves as a tool of communication not only between humans but animals as well. While animals might not be able to verbally speak to us, I know that certain requests are made and offered. Dogs for example prove this fact on a daily basis. When a dog is hungry he or she sits and stares at the food bowl. When play is desired, jumping and yelping emanates from the animal. This intentional body language is a part of communication but I believe animals have the potential for far greater bounds in language if certain characteristics and training were present.
Within Yule’s research about animal communication there were several astounding instances of this such as Washoe, the signing chimpanzee, and Sara, the symbol speaking chimpanzee. These are phenomenal examples of animals being able to communicate with humans, even if it be on a toddler’s level. One definite advantage chimpanzees have though, is the physical attributes which are very similar to a human’s hands and arms. It quickly becomes apparent that in order to communicate in American Sign Language, these physical similarities are quite necessary. This fact persuades me to think that only monkey varieties of animals would be able to communicate on a human level of sign language simply due to the observation of physical attributes. Even if dogs or cats were brilliant and great thoughts were considered in their minds, they would have no way of expressing those discoveries and emotions except through futile barking. This is very similar to the plight of the vocabulary limited person. Even if an individual contemplates earth shattering thoughts, they do not have the necessary tools to communicate them to the world.
Moving forward on the purposed belief that animals contain thoughts, those reflections would only be able to be exposed to humans if a new system of communication was used or invented. Instead of sign language Morse code or paining could be a means of communicating to people. However, since I do not think this is a plausible future reality, I would have to say domestic animals have virtually reached their limit concerning intentional communication with humans. This chapter enlightened me to a world of language powers, but I do not think animals have a patient enough disposition or the needed physical or mental qualities to continue any further down the road of communication. While potential is a goal upon the horizon, does anyone ever truly reach this ambition? I believe only time will tell in both the animal and the human world.
Who needs the dog whisperer?
Leila Shearon
Blog 3
9.4.09
Many people see language as a means of strictly communication between humans. I must say that these people disregard the complexity of language. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of language is “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community”. Many people look past the rest of the definition, “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings”. Humans are not the only beings that are able to make sounds and gesture. It is a fairly agreed statement that animals are able to communicate within their species. Is it possible that, to an extent, animals can communicate with humans? When your dog barks aggressively at the door it usually means someone is at the door and he feels threatened. Also, when a dog whines and scampers away with his tail between his legs it means he is frightened. Is this not communication? Is this not language? People may agree that animals can present some types of messages to us. But, can they understand us. When your mom your best friend is angry with you does the tone of their voice changes? I believe that animals may not completely understand the sentence that was spoken but, the tone of voice. Tone of voice is made up of the pitch and volume. The way the words are delivered and the manner are speaking also make up the tone. If one speaks in a loud, angry tone and say the word, "Good dog." One would see a dog cower although, you are actually complimenting him. If you would reverse is and call the dog insulting names in a soothing voice he will wag his tail with happiness. Tone and gestures are a huge aspect of language. It assists not only humans but also animals in communicating easier.
Blog 3
9.4.09
Many people see language as a means of strictly communication between humans. I must say that these people disregard the complexity of language. One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of language is “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community”. Many people look past the rest of the definition, “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings”. Humans are not the only beings that are able to make sounds and gesture. It is a fairly agreed statement that animals are able to communicate within their species. Is it possible that, to an extent, animals can communicate with humans? When your dog barks aggressively at the door it usually means someone is at the door and he feels threatened. Also, when a dog whines and scampers away with his tail between his legs it means he is frightened. Is this not communication? Is this not language? People may agree that animals can present some types of messages to us. But, can they understand us. When your mom your best friend is angry with you does the tone of their voice changes? I believe that animals may not completely understand the sentence that was spoken but, the tone of voice. Tone of voice is made up of the pitch and volume. The way the words are delivered and the manner are speaking also make up the tone. If one speaks in a loud, angry tone and say the word, "Good dog." One would see a dog cower although, you are actually complimenting him. If you would reverse is and call the dog insulting names in a soothing voice he will wag his tail with happiness. Tone and gestures are a huge aspect of language. It assists not only humans but also animals in communicating easier.
Communication With Animals Is No Longer Just For Dr. Doolittle
Jonathan Dishon
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 4, 2009
As everyone knows humans are the smartest animals on the planet, but that does not mean that other animals cannot communicate with us. They may not be able to speak our language but they find other ways to get our attention and let us know what they want. There are many ways that they can do this. For example dogs bark loudly and run to the door if they want to go outside or they will cower and whimper if they are scared. They also will jump all over you and go crazy when they see after a long time. Dogs are the prime example of how animals of what many would call lower intelligence can communicate with humans, but they are not the only ones. Another example is Koko the gorilla. Koko is able to communicate with her trainer through sign language. Koko has been brought up with sign language for in her whole life pretty much, and is now able to communicate on about the level of a toddler. This feat alone is incredible, but what is even more amazing is her ability to communicate emotions. She was given a kitten that would keep her company, and she acted very differently around the cat. She was more energetic and just seemed happier. This greatly resembles what humans do when they are either with their friends or family. She would play with the kitten all the time and developed a great affection for her new friend. So when she found out that her new friend was hit by a car and killed she was devastated. Koko was able to show her sadness by signing “bad”, “sad”, and other depressing words to her trainer. Now every animal is not able to communicate to humans through sign language, but they do have ways of doing so. Whether they change the tone of their sound, the gesture or posture of their bodies, or their attitude, they show humans what they would like to do or how they are feeling.
ENG 1101
Dr. Hughes
September 4, 2009
As everyone knows humans are the smartest animals on the planet, but that does not mean that other animals cannot communicate with us. They may not be able to speak our language but they find other ways to get our attention and let us know what they want. There are many ways that they can do this. For example dogs bark loudly and run to the door if they want to go outside or they will cower and whimper if they are scared. They also will jump all over you and go crazy when they see after a long time. Dogs are the prime example of how animals of what many would call lower intelligence can communicate with humans, but they are not the only ones. Another example is Koko the gorilla. Koko is able to communicate with her trainer through sign language. Koko has been brought up with sign language for in her whole life pretty much, and is now able to communicate on about the level of a toddler. This feat alone is incredible, but what is even more amazing is her ability to communicate emotions. She was given a kitten that would keep her company, and she acted very differently around the cat. She was more energetic and just seemed happier. This greatly resembles what humans do when they are either with their friends or family. She would play with the kitten all the time and developed a great affection for her new friend. So when she found out that her new friend was hit by a car and killed she was devastated. Koko was able to show her sadness by signing “bad”, “sad”, and other depressing words to her trainer. Now every animal is not able to communicate to humans through sign language, but they do have ways of doing so. Whether they change the tone of their sound, the gesture or posture of their bodies, or their attitude, they show humans what they would like to do or how they are feeling.
Blog Three
Jennifer Conley
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
4 September 2009
When most us think of what language our first thought is all the different dialects people have. We fail to think of gestures or behaviors until we are made to think deeper on the subject. Language is universal whether we speak the same dialects or not, or just all together can not talk and have to use sign language. Most of the time when we can not understand a person we begin to make hand gestures in hope that the person we are talking to can try to understand us. This is where most people pretty much stop the thought of communication and just completely disregard the communication they have with their pets. I believe domesticated animals are more than capable to communicate. Whereas they do not speak to us in our language they communicate to us through their gestures. In the wild animals associate with sounds such as birds tweet; cats meow and hiss; dogs bark, growl, and wine; cows moo; and this could go on forever, but that is how they speak to each other in their own language. Then when we bring them into our homes and domesticate them, we make a connection with them.
Scientist begin to question animals communication levels at this point. Scientist say that when individuals teach their dog commands that because of the tone in our voice they will learn to respond the way we want them to every time, but not because they understand us. I agree with this part way. I know when my dog, Chip, does something wrong and I get a stern voice or I yell that he knows he is in trouble. However, there are times when Chip does something wrong and I will just tell him he is bad without changing my tone and he will still put his head down and look up at me with his puppy dog eyes in the sense that he is saying I am sorry. Angel, my other dog does the same thing. Now this is not the case with all the other pets in the world but there are similarities in all of them. Most people feed their dogs or cats at the same time of the day everyday. It is easy for any specie to get into a schedule so its understandable when people talk about their pets letting them know that it is time to be fed. After these two points I start to disagree with scientist who believe in mimicry. I believe that when you have pets you have a bond and relationship with him/her. For example, if I have a bad day or something wrong happens and I get upset to the point that I am crying I usually go to my room so nobody else knows. Just when I think I am going get away with no one knowing I hear Chip, my dog, at my door wining to come in. Usually when he sits with me he rolls over so I can scratch his belly or something to that affect, but when I am upset he will come in and just sit there or lay next to me, like he wants me to know he is there. This shows a sympathetic gesture on his part.
Tone is used between animals when they talk to each other but it can also be used to get humans attention too. For example, Chip doesn't just bark at somebody who comes to the door or when he sees another dog. If he can see out the window of my front door, and the wind blows the trees, he barks. He barks at just about anything that makes a noise that he's not use to or anything he sees outside. However, instead of thinking someone is at the door I can tell the difference in his tones in his barks. When the wind blows the trees he barks two to three times but it is more of a low muffled bark. Then if something is outside or someone is at the door, he barks really loud and it is more drawn out.
In these few examples I have only stated what I have observed on my own. There are cases like KoKo's that have been recorded by scientist for scientific research to prove that she could speak sign language after being taught and she had feelings because of her cat all ball who died. Now whether or not you believe the scientific research is your own opinion, but take into consideration the relationship you have with your pet or other people have with their pets.
Ms. Hughes
Language Controversies
4 September 2009
When most us think of what language our first thought is all the different dialects people have. We fail to think of gestures or behaviors until we are made to think deeper on the subject. Language is universal whether we speak the same dialects or not, or just all together can not talk and have to use sign language. Most of the time when we can not understand a person we begin to make hand gestures in hope that the person we are talking to can try to understand us. This is where most people pretty much stop the thought of communication and just completely disregard the communication they have with their pets. I believe domesticated animals are more than capable to communicate. Whereas they do not speak to us in our language they communicate to us through their gestures. In the wild animals associate with sounds such as birds tweet; cats meow and hiss; dogs bark, growl, and wine; cows moo; and this could go on forever, but that is how they speak to each other in their own language. Then when we bring them into our homes and domesticate them, we make a connection with them.
Scientist begin to question animals communication levels at this point. Scientist say that when individuals teach their dog commands that because of the tone in our voice they will learn to respond the way we want them to every time, but not because they understand us. I agree with this part way. I know when my dog, Chip, does something wrong and I get a stern voice or I yell that he knows he is in trouble. However, there are times when Chip does something wrong and I will just tell him he is bad without changing my tone and he will still put his head down and look up at me with his puppy dog eyes in the sense that he is saying I am sorry. Angel, my other dog does the same thing. Now this is not the case with all the other pets in the world but there are similarities in all of them. Most people feed their dogs or cats at the same time of the day everyday. It is easy for any specie to get into a schedule so its understandable when people talk about their pets letting them know that it is time to be fed. After these two points I start to disagree with scientist who believe in mimicry. I believe that when you have pets you have a bond and relationship with him/her. For example, if I have a bad day or something wrong happens and I get upset to the point that I am crying I usually go to my room so nobody else knows. Just when I think I am going get away with no one knowing I hear Chip, my dog, at my door wining to come in. Usually when he sits with me he rolls over so I can scratch his belly or something to that affect, but when I am upset he will come in and just sit there or lay next to me, like he wants me to know he is there. This shows a sympathetic gesture on his part.
Tone is used between animals when they talk to each other but it can also be used to get humans attention too. For example, Chip doesn't just bark at somebody who comes to the door or when he sees another dog. If he can see out the window of my front door, and the wind blows the trees, he barks. He barks at just about anything that makes a noise that he's not use to or anything he sees outside. However, instead of thinking someone is at the door I can tell the difference in his tones in his barks. When the wind blows the trees he barks two to three times but it is more of a low muffled bark. Then if something is outside or someone is at the door, he barks really loud and it is more drawn out.
In these few examples I have only stated what I have observed on my own. There are cases like KoKo's that have been recorded by scientist for scientific research to prove that she could speak sign language after being taught and she had feelings because of her cat all ball who died. Now whether or not you believe the scientific research is your own opinion, but take into consideration the relationship you have with your pet or other people have with their pets.
Blog 3: No, Mr. Benson, it's not just mimicry.
Jon Cuccia
English 1101
Dr. Jennifer A. Hughes
04 September 2009
When I hear the word “mimicry” or “imitation” in regards to language, I think of arbitrary reproduction, without thought and “devoid of even the barest rudiments of language.” Although by no means on the same linguistic level as humans, I believe that in the few attempts to bestow language upon primates, they have shown an understanding that I would classify as beyond “the barest rudiments of language.”
Through Gua, researchers learned that primates do not poses a vocal tract sophisticated enough to reproduce human words, thus sign language was explored with remarkable results. The chimpanzee Washoe learned more than 100 words and could use them in sentence fragments, displaying similar cognitive ability to a toddler. This included holding simple question and answer conversation as well as understanding signs she never produced. The gorilla Koko showed similar progress, as demonstrated during the short clip showing her requesting her red sweater over the new yellow one.
Of course, the controversy lies within mimicry and imitation, which some have claimed is all the primates were doing. Herbert Terrace described the behavior as a conditioned response to cues provided by humans, often unintentional. He concluded that their linguistic displays were no more than mere “sophisticated tricks.” In response, the Gardners who raised Washoe showed that she could produce correct signs to identify pictures without the presence of any human, and even that a few chimpanzees used sign language amongst themselves with Washoe while no humans were present. Furthermore, a young bonobo named Kanzi grew up accustomed to sign language, and was able to not only sign over 250 words, but even understood spoken English on a basic level equal to that of a three year old child.
To me, the evidence is undeniable. While humans clearly still dominate linguistically, it is unfair to say that animals posses no linguistic capabilities. The primates have shown the ability, though rudimentary, to comprehend the basics human language. While not being worthy of comparison to any human above the age of diapers, these primates provide a level of language far above other animals. Therefore, it would be wrongful to shrug them as off as mere imitators, as though they posses no thought.
English 1101
Dr. Jennifer A. Hughes
04 September 2009
When I hear the word “mimicry” or “imitation” in regards to language, I think of arbitrary reproduction, without thought and “devoid of even the barest rudiments of language.” Although by no means on the same linguistic level as humans, I believe that in the few attempts to bestow language upon primates, they have shown an understanding that I would classify as beyond “the barest rudiments of language.”
Through Gua, researchers learned that primates do not poses a vocal tract sophisticated enough to reproduce human words, thus sign language was explored with remarkable results. The chimpanzee Washoe learned more than 100 words and could use them in sentence fragments, displaying similar cognitive ability to a toddler. This included holding simple question and answer conversation as well as understanding signs she never produced. The gorilla Koko showed similar progress, as demonstrated during the short clip showing her requesting her red sweater over the new yellow one.
Of course, the controversy lies within mimicry and imitation, which some have claimed is all the primates were doing. Herbert Terrace described the behavior as a conditioned response to cues provided by humans, often unintentional. He concluded that their linguistic displays were no more than mere “sophisticated tricks.” In response, the Gardners who raised Washoe showed that she could produce correct signs to identify pictures without the presence of any human, and even that a few chimpanzees used sign language amongst themselves with Washoe while no humans were present. Furthermore, a young bonobo named Kanzi grew up accustomed to sign language, and was able to not only sign over 250 words, but even understood spoken English on a basic level equal to that of a three year old child.
To me, the evidence is undeniable. While humans clearly still dominate linguistically, it is unfair to say that animals posses no linguistic capabilities. The primates have shown the ability, though rudimentary, to comprehend the basics human language. While not being worthy of comparison to any human above the age of diapers, these primates provide a level of language far above other animals. Therefore, it would be wrongful to shrug them as off as mere imitators, as though they posses no thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)