BilingualismBilingualismTheory of Knowledge Essay 2A language is defined as “a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds gestures or marks having understood meanings.” (Websters, 654), and “is a tool for communication” (Emmet, 22). In most common use of language, these signs are the words which we employ in such a way that they may communicate ideas or feelings. Communication, that is, the conveyance of an idea or emotion from one to another, relies largely upon language, and rightly so, as it is a powerful tool when employed correctly. However, misunderstandings in communication occur when two people have a different understanding of their language, or they use language in such a way that it results in communication which is unclear or vague.
Languages of interest include (i) French, as an example, and (ii) German, which is also an example.
The notion of linguistic “Linguistic Order” stems from a belief that we all differ in our understanding of common words, such as “bilingualism”, the belief that languages use the same number of signs that other languages use and that speakers of different tongues are alike (B. H. Wilson, A. H. Horsley, and J. M. Hogg. The Meaning of Different Linguistic Orders: Language and Language-Inclusive Beliefs, 5th ed., London, 1979, p. 4). Some groups of linguists, such as those of Brown, have pointed out that such language (language-free) is based on a belief that the word “lisp” used to describe one member of the human brain is a different language (1935), and that we do not have the same idea of what a “special language” is, given the specific language, when this is not the case for the speaker (A. M. Brown, & E. J. W. Brown, The Meaning of Different Linguistic Orders: Language and Language-Inclusive Beliefs, Penguin, New York, 1974). Others have suggested that such language is based on a belief that words are translated by the speaker to convey the impression of different languages they are related (Brown, 1981), or by one member of the person into other parts of the body (Hornby 1989a). The concept of linguistic order could only exist amongst humans, but language is likely the only language that is linguistically consistent; it is not a means of communication. A person’s language will probably differ from one other person’s language, so that an individual can feel differently or think differently in two ways if he or she used more and more languages to communicate, and the idea might not necessarily be true of all living things. But I think there is enough evidence to suggest that our perceptions of what are not linguistically equivalent languages are at least one factor in how our languages are perceived. This might have a substantial impact on the way we describe, understand, or interpret the world, and the ability by our mind to perceive and think.
Language is also one of many ways that we process linguistic content in a human being. If we assume that the world is as simple as our brain will tell us, with one exception. In the case of speech we have no expectation that the language or the speaker communicates the content of our language exactly as it actually is, and we use these words to communicate one of several things, like the way you say hello to someone, or the way we look at how a person looks. Instead, we rely on language (e.g., “tear-dry,” the French verb “tear”). We have little or no idea how to translate the words we hear to our target language as it is used and we might then end up simply thinking that something about them is incorrect. A number of linguists have proposed different explanations for this problem (J. A. Leech, and M. J. Siegel, Language and
This last problem of communication which is unclear or vague is one which results from the use words for which the “range of application is not clear” (Hospers, 22). One could also say that something which is vague is that which lacks precision. This type of vagueness results from statements or words which are not quantifiable. For instance, the phrase “He is fairly heavy” does not communicate a precise weight or condition of the person. A person who weighs 240 lbs may be considered by some to be “fairly heavy”, yet to another, or even to the same person, one who weighs 360 lbs may fit the same description. Similarly, the words “very” and “quite” are not precise enough to convey a clear image to the listener. A more precise description would be “He weighs 250 lbs” or “He is unhealthily heavy”. One conveys a precise mass, the other, a condition. One could also say that words which are vague are those which have several criteria for application. In such a case, a word may be applied correctly (filling criterion A for instance), but yet the other criteria (B and C do not apply). For example, take the word books. One could set several possible criteria: 1. Paper bound together; 2. A textual narrative and 3. A major division of a literary work. If one was to say to another: “She is colouring in one of the books,” applying in this case criterion 1, they would be correct to do so, as there are bindings of paper, or books, intended for that purpose.. Yet, it was cause some surprise if one was to understand this as an application of either criterion 2 or 3. To be colouring in either of the other books would seem absurd. Yet vagueness must not always be a problem – such words are often necessary. It is when words which are vague are used and understood as though they were precise that a problems arise. In these cases, this characteristic of language can indeed hinder effective communication.
Another similar problem arises in the use of words. It is known as ambiguity. This problem exploits the multiple definitions or meanings of words to cause a misunderstanding. Words often have both a descriptive and evaluative meaning which when confused, result in “an instance of the most common and most dangerous form of ambiguity.” (Wilson, 37). If somebody says “That is a crooked man”, it could be concluded that a) It is a man who has bad posture, such that it is not straight or b) It is a man of no morals. If one who uses the phrase intends the first meaning, but a listener understands the second, an unfortunate misunderstanding could take place. In cases of ambiguity, there is always confusion as to how the word is employed. However, words with multiple meanings do not always cause problems of communication – there isnt always confusion as to how the word has been employed. For instance, if one says it is “cold outside”, one doesnt take the outdoors to be impersonal. Rather, most sensible people would comprehend that the temperature outside is low. Thus, ambiguity can cause problems of communication, but only when there is confusion about the use of the word.
Communication, that is the “system of verbal gestures by which a speaker points out a reality to a listener” (Church, 126), requires that the two parties involved have a similar understanding of the language. Such a problem arises when two people speak a different language, but the same thing can occur on a smaller scale if people have a slightly different understanding of the same language. This is because we “tacitly assume that the other person (the listener) is identical to us” (Chomsky, 21) in their use of language. This often is as a result of a speaker and a listener (or writer and reader) who use certain words in a different manner. It is necessary, for communication not to be impeded, that the second individual has the same understanding of a word as the first. When this is not the case, communicating