This is an interesting question:
If one learns to speak in a foreign language, then would his/her thoughts no longer be limited to those associated with his/her native language? Or would thoughts become even more limited, due to difficulties in communication?
All of these observations depend upon the environment and its population. If you are with someone who is fluent in both languages, you are bound to express yourself more freely. If you are with someone who speaks neither, your outward emotions are limited. According to Hayakawa, however, the idea that we are contemplating this makes us high-level thinkers. We are not dwelling on the grammatical aspects of languages, but rather the actual communicational skills. I daresay we are more advanced than T.C. Mits, who is unaware of the power constituted by the Niagra of Communication.
The subject of T.C. Mits brings me to Chapter 1. I would like to hear some thoughts in relation to the "Which Animal Are You?" subsection of the first chapter. I find it so interesting that humans are able to progress with life, technology, etc., due to their possession of language. Animals are limited in their exchange of speech and thus are a less sofisticated society. Their warning calls are independent of one another, yet as humans, we have the power to branch out our speech in many directions. Our language is so complex that we constuct phrases about other phrases, and so on. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this speculation?
(Samantha Maliha)
If one learns to speak in a foreign language, then would his/her thoughts no longer be limited to those associated with his/her native language? Or would thoughts become even more limited, due to difficulties in communication?
All of these observations depend upon the environment and its population. If you are with someone who is fluent in both languages, you are bound to express yourself more freely. If you are with someone who speaks neither, your outward emotions are limited. According to Hayakawa, however, the idea that we are contemplating this makes us high-level thinkers. We are not dwelling on the grammatical aspects of languages, but rather the actual communicational skills. I daresay we are more advanced than T.C. Mits, who is unaware of the power constituted by the Niagra of Communication.
The subject of T.C. Mits brings me to Chapter 1. I would like to hear some thoughts in relation to the "Which Animal Are You?" subsection of the first chapter. I find it so interesting that humans are able to progress with life, technology, etc., due to their possession of language. Animals are limited in their exchange of speech and thus are a less sofisticated society. Their warning calls are independent of one another, yet as humans, we have the power to branch out our speech in many directions. Our language is so complex that we constuct phrases about other phrases, and so on. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this speculation?
(Samantha Maliha)
No comments:
Post a Comment