Blog - P4Q2
In the extract from Lera Boroditsky, the question of cognitive impact on language is brought into question. The question is, 'can language shape how we think?' The extract goes over several reasons as to why the idea that language shapes the way we think theorem is true and not the other way around.
One of the first things that gets brought up is the difference between English and Japanese in terms of how language is used during an accident. The paragraphs talks about how English tends to play the 'blame game' and will automatically associate the accident back to the person who caused it. For example, when a person knocks over a cup, in English the person would say, 'She broke the cup,' but in Japanese or Spanish, the response would be translated to, 'the cup broke itself.' This tendency of English speakers to place the blame on the person is directly associated with the words and language that they used. Because the concept of a cup breaking itself is not introduced in the English language, we normally would not think to consider saying it unless the speaker is well versed in other languages. This is a direct example of how language affects cognitive ability.
The difference in tenses is also explained in a further paragraph. The usage of multiple tenses makes the language much more specific. Languages that use these different tenses tend to be better at locating different time frames and relating certain memories to a specific time frame whether that be two months in the past or two years in the past. English on the other hand, has one past tense and can not be distinguished between two months and two years.
Furthermore, the divergence of these languages is further aiding the development of language. As these languages are created and differentiated new concepts are brought up into existence leading to a new way of thinking. This proves that language impacts cognitive development and not the other way around.
Hey Aiden
ReplyDeleteFor AO1:
- The first bullet point you receive 2 marks the reason why is because you had a limited understanding of the text and the question clearly says ‘use your knowledge outside of English language’, rather than you just reworded the text, however in the second paragraph towards the end you did make a relevant point.
- The second bullet point, you receive 1 mark is because you didn’t have much of points that you referred to, rather than you just referred to the text only and not any other things, which was minimal.
For AO2:
- The first bullet point, you receive 2 points because you didn’t refer to an audience and your expression is clear, but it may not have flown easily whitch generally didn’t impede communication.
- The second bullet point you receive 1 point. The content may be relevant to some parts, but there is a very minimal reference to a piece of ideas.
For AO4:
- The first bullet point, you receive 1 point is because you didn’t put in any theories or any linguistic points that were referred to in your blog. It was a basic understanding and you just stated what it was overall.
- The second bullet point, you receive 1 point because you had a minimal reference to a wider study of linguistic issues. In face you didn’t even refer to any winder study of a feature. You didn't refer to any theorists or methods.
You have written a total of 335 words, which is half of the minimum word count. I feel like you did this last minute, as you submitted it on the day it was due. You could’ve included theories and there were plenty of chances to do better.
Total: 8/25