As today's is our last blog post, I decided to dedicate this blog to the class as a whole, and write about my experience "reading" the class instead of an article.
What is language? How did humans develop language, and for what purpose? What allows humans to learn and pass on such complicated systems of language, something no other creature can do? These are the questions I had coming into this class--questions I had hoped the class would help me answer.
It did not. And I am extremely glad it didn't. Instead, the introsem has taught me never to seek a concrete answer for these questions, as there will likely be none. This in no way implies that we should stop looking for answers, however, only to seek keeping all the possibilities, previous evidence, and opposing theories in mind. It definitely also convinced me that language not only reflects, but shapes thought and society. What now, are the implications?
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I will never be able to look at a bridge again without wondering if it was "feminine" or "masculine." And, occasionally, when I'm trying to remember something or remind myself of an image I only have a vague idea about, I will definitely wonder what part of the English language made me remember only that specific part of the memory, and not other parts. Of course, it may just be that the language had nothing to do with it, and the whole ordeal only reflects my failing memory, but at least I will still be aware of the possibilities. Speaking on a larger scale, however, how does language's influence on thought translate into action? Or does it? If a people perceive buildings or bridges as more feminine or more masculine due to the gender markings of the language they speak, are they more likely to design future bridges more femininely or masculinely, turning language-related perceptions into realities? And if so, how do we determine the boundaries between the effects on thought of the thought-shaping language, and of the action influenced by thought? Similarly, a child growing up surrounded by art portraying a strong, manly sun will perceive the sun differently from a child growing up in another country, where the sun is feminine in the language (and typically depicted with softer features and longer lashes). The effects of language on art here seems obvious. The effects of language on the child, however, are hard to distinguish from the effects of the art on the same child in shaping his gender-wise perception of the sun. Which here is more influential? Which has more potential to be influential? Does the degree of influence depends on the time of exposure, degree of exposure, or both? Since perception and thought are such complex processes simultaneously influenced by so many different events and situations, it will definitely be difficult to determine any of this with certainty.
Source: class discussions, ideas, and slides
I think I will miss writing these blogs next quarter... Along with the biweekly race/vicious fight for a table spot, of course. Thanks for making Psych 17N the awesome class that it is. Happy holidays, everybody!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
aww it's so sad that we are done! I agree with what you said about not having a concrete answer. I think that what I got most out of this class is how to think about language, and how to question different aspects of language and theories about language. It's funny that you brought up gender issues because I am actually referencing them in my paper :)
Great post and I agree yours and autumn's sentiments. I'm going to miss these discussions a lot, and agree that one of the most important things that we got out of the class is the ongoing debate over these topics. One other thing that I got out of the class is that there are several key players in the field that seem to be in continual discussion over these topics, and it's interesting seeing how these "battles" continue to be waged.
Post a Comment