For this task, we used CLAS (Collaborative Learning Annotation System) to annotate Lera Boroditsky’s talk:
I really enjoyed this talk because it helped me understand how language is a technology that shapes the texts (e.g., speech, written work) that we can create. Although languages may appear to have similar functions, the nuances of the language are imbued with values, cultural features, and ways of thinking. Given a specific language, the speaker is bound by its conventions and thus thinks within these constraints.
My original annotations
| Timestamp | Comment |
|---|---|
| 0:45 | Boroditsky’s metaphor really highlights how language is a tool for construction. Language is a technology to produce texts and express ideas. |
| 3:40 | It’s interesting to see how different languages offer different “features” (e.g., verb tense, gendering, degree of the verb, observation) and how that influences the type of text that can be produced. With the language as the medium, speakers would come to develop specific skills and values based on it. |
| 7:10 | Language is a vehicle that impacts perception and how speakers attend to specific elements they are observing and what they report. Given language as a technology, this could suggest that speakers produce different texts/narratives within the constraints of the narrative. This is kind of like a different view that filters what can be done. |
| 9:08 | For multilinguals, having multiple languages means access to multiple technologies. Each of these are different tools that may get similar functions, but the experience and degree of success allows multilinguals to select the tool that works best for the desired function and outcome. |
| 10:34 | The example from Gladwell’s 2008 book The Outiers about South Korean plane crashes and the nuance of the Korean language is an interesting observation, but not necessarily scientific. In the book, Gladwell comments on how the nuances of social hierarchy and word choice that may not exist in American English had an impact on the pilots getting help when needed. Gladwell claimed that the fix was for pilots to use only American English and commented on how the decrease in crashes could be due to the better communication. Here language does shape the way people think and the cultural aspects are reflected in the language. |
| 15:05 | Kuuk Thaayorre speakers attend to absolute directions because it’s valued in their language and frequently used. This impacts how they think because the language focusses their attention to this. |
| 16:57 | Egocentrism reflected in the directionality of time is suggests values being placed on the individual in some cultures while others have it relative to the world. For English, this is interesting when we consider the history of geocentrism and heliocentrism. |
| 18:35 | Reminds me of Adrienne Rich’s poem “The Burning of Paper Instead of Children”, the line: this is the oppressor’s language yet I need it to talk to you. I originally read this line in bell hooks’ Language Teaching New Worlds/New Words in high school. The title makes me think that using a different language unlocks new perspectives, things to attend to, and new tools to shape our texts. |
| 29:01 | The use of passive vs. active voice and the use of words to construct alternate narratives link well with Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory where passive voice and Bush’s example deflects responsibility. The word choice shapes the text and evokes different interpretations. |
| 29:05 | In line with language shaping how we think, the passive voice example reminds me of views in science. In a Western context, science is taught such that we use passive voice. In experiments, we try to be observers and control variables to minimize confounders. The scientist is seen as separate. However, in other views of science, the observer is a participant in the environment and these views lead to more values in stewardship and responsibility. |
| 39:40 | Recognition that something is missing, but cannot enter the system: emphasizes that language is a tool for construction and its use has specific affordances. |
| 41:12 | Word choice is important because it’s linked to language’s function. If the word exists in the language, a specific narrative can be constructed. If the word does not exist, this also speaks to what is available to the speaker and what can be expressed. The selection of the word also links back to the perception of the text, hidden meanings, and euphemism. |
| 42:47 | Prune vs. plume suggests that language is value laden. Languages are also value ladden in terms of vernacular (what is socially acceptable to be spoken, how do people react to accents and specific words, who has access to these vernacular, which languages die out) |
| 50:45 | Connecting the translation of texts into other languages, it’s like expressing text in multiple media (e.g., oral, written, print, TV/film, social media video). Depending on the original medium, a translation will lead to a different experience due to the medium’s affordances and constraints. Appropriate translation would require literacy in the medium as well as an understanding of the original expression. |
| 58:21 | Oral language vs. texting: I’m not sure if there’s anything structurally different, but there are different affordances and the difference in the technology means that some information is lost (e.g., body language which may be substituted for emoticons or GIFs). There are also assumptions with the medium (e.g., with text, an immediate response is expected) and new abilities (e.g, the ability to revise/tailor a text message, the ability to use or suffer from auto-correct). |
| 58:33 | Also with the new technologies available that shape language, language changes. In some cases, the evolution of slang and other vernacular links back to multilinguals and how the diversity of people and experiences modifies the languages and texts available. |
| 1:01:11 | Interesting to hear about the merging and thought and how this is reflected in both the text and the technology. Thought and new experiences are shaping the technology and consequently the text. |
| 1:03:38 | Sign language example of how the text shapes the technology (needing a new sign for metaphorical use) that links back to the original sign. The nibbling of acid eating links back to ingestion. |