Is one language common to the whole world a defensible project?
The reasons for a creation of one language that is common for the whole world is understandable; however, I strongly disagree that this should be done or that other languages should end because of this one language. As we have seen some posts before this, there are words in every language that are unique to that language in particular and, being translated, are either nonexistent or do not have the same meaning or intensity. The creation of language that is common to the whole world would lead to the extinction of many languages and with that we would lose many valuable words and expressions. One thing that I find really interesting is how the same things in different languages can create different reactions on people and with the creation of that common language that would also end. Another thing that is very important to point out is that the language a person has been born to and has grown up learning, makes the person different. The diversity of people and the various ways of understanding life are actually due to the different languages and ways people have been raised. The creation of a new common language for the whole world is absurd and would end with the diversity of people all over the world creating patronized people, all over the world.
How does technological change affect the way language is used and the way communication takes place? How might innovations in language, such as Internet chat or text messaging, be assessed: as contributions to or assaults against how language and communication “should be”?
Language has been a part of human culture since the early times of its existence. If we look at the evolution of language we can say that it has changed quite a bit over the centuries. An important thing to look at is the manner in which language changes. Many people will say that from ancient times to the late 18th and early 19th century’s language is advanced, adding new words and becoming more complex, by being able to communicate many expressions. Such people will also say that in this modern era of the 21st century, language is decaying because of “text talk”, and the use of acronyms to make communication simpler. In my opinions people need to stop living in the past. History has shown us that language is always changing and not matter which language is changing, the overall use of language always been preserved. Humans have never adjusted based on the change of language. Language has always evolved based off of human change. “Text Talk” first appeared because of cellular devices. The original cell phones did not have full “qwerty” keyboards. People had to press a button multiple times to get just one letter. There soon became a need to shorten language so that it could be typed, sent, and read faster. Because of this need we now have “Text Talk”. However, we now have full keyboards on our cellular devices as well. In my opinion all these acronyms and “text talk” will soon be eliminated because there is no more need. Humans have always been innovating to simplify. We comes up with complex things to make other complex things in the end much more simple. At one point in time there was a need to shorten language, but soon we will simplify methods of communication so well that you only need to think that it will be done. No matter how much our innovations seem to affect our language, we cannot worry about the language of the past. People no longer need to speak as formally as was done in the 18th century. There are no more kings, and high people of the court. The world is becoming more evened out with larger middle classes than ever before. In my opinion a middle language will be found. This language will not be overly formal and over the top, or filled with incomprehensible slang, but with innovation changing our lives so much and so often, who knows if even that language will stay for long.
Is it reasonable to argue for the preservation of established forms of language, for example, as concerns grammar, spelling, syntax, meaning or use?
I believe that it is unreasonable and unnecessary to preserve the established forms of language as they are now. Language is constantly evolving overtime and to stop that evolvement would be irrational. For example, over the past 500 years, the English language has changed tremendously. Text from centuries ago can sometimes be so hard to read due to the change in use, spelling and formality. Shakespeare is one example of old English. Language now is much different than how it was 500 years ago and we should allow language to keep growing and improving just as the world keeps changing. There are many texts already written that will preserve the language as it is today for history yet overtime things in the language will change such as spelling and use of words. Change is inevitable and there is nothing we can do to stop it, so it would be foolish to try stop language from growing. Also, what makes today’s form of a language the best one to preserve? It is impossible to pick a version of the English language that is the “best” because it is a personal opinion. Some people argue that Shakespeare’s English is better than today’s English. However, I don’t think there is ever an overarching version of the English language. Language grows as a part of history and will never stop changing.
In what ways does written language differ from spoken language in its relationship to knowledge?
Written language differs from spoken language in its relationship to knowledge by less objectively expressing one’s knowledge of ideas and concepts than spoken language. Due to its often abstract terms and names, written language can sometimes leave it too open for multi-interpretations of the reader, since it does not specify how one should read it, only what should be read. For example, writing “I have feelings I do not know how to express” and saying “I have feelings I do not know how to express” are not the same because when one says it, other factors such as the tone/ volume of the voice affect the meaning of what is said. In this example, saying it enthusiastically with a high volume of voice would be much more objective and meaningful to those who listen to it than those who simply read the phrase and have to use their discernment to figure out what the phrase intends to suggest. Also, we tend to use less adjectives and complementary words and rather be “more to the point” when we speak because we think and reflect less to speak than when we write, for we can reread what we wrote and correct mistakes, but not simply delete something we say- we can only attempt to fix something we said by saying something else.
What may have been meant by the comment “How strangely do we diminish a thing as soon as we try to express it in words”?
This comment is really familiar to me because I often do this when I try to speak; I cannot express everything that I am thinking and when I say it it seems much simpler and with less information than what I had intented. What he meant by this comment is that sometimes, when people try to speak something that they are thinking about, they end up speaking much less than what they were thinking because they are not able to fully express their thoughts. This happnes all the time with me and it certainly makes me stutter, because I'm thinking a lot of things in my mind and I try to express it altogether, so I try to say everything that I am thinking really fast because I am afraid to forget something, and I end up messing everything that I am saying, stuttering and not correctly expressing what I was thinking. I belive that this is caused becasue the human mind has so much information stored, that we humans end up having so much to say about some topics, which cause us to want to say everything, and in this process we end up not saying important information which makes what we say to be diminish from what we were originally thinking.
Welcome to ToK.