Below are my contributions to Lera Borditsky’s SAR lecture from May 2017:

As Lera Boroditcky started her talk, I began thinking about the way in which language is invasive. Within an interaction, the words of one participant can affect the way another feels, about themselves or the world, thinks and acts. We are limited in our ability to stop the usage of language of others and are in a constant state of vulnerability. Words need only be said, there is little control in hearing. Words work in one direction –out. At the kindergarten level, we teach girls about the significance of words and describe them as bubbles. Once you put them out into the world, they are impossible to get back. Pop.

It’s also interesting that although politicians have used language as their tool for engaging constituents, gaining popularity, challenging opponents, etc. the way in which politicians are engaging with social media has affected the way messages, ideas and position are communicated. Written language has become paramount in this age of Trump twittering where reach is instantaneous and permanent. Additionally, social media platforms have provided a space where overly casual language is accepted, even from the POTUS.

But at the same time, it is impossible to say the same thing in a different language or dialect, as suggested by De Luca.

I also loved the way in which Alexander MacDonald spoke about shared story. That one tapper might use a move of another, therefor adding one dancer’s story their own. He refers to this idea as “collective authorship”. For me, it’s a really beautiful concept that works to connect people together. In connecting to this idea, the director of the Junior School once said to me (after I borrowed her exact words in a separate conversation) that someone using her words to express themselves was a great compliment. This could be seen as another form of collective authorship. Thoughts?

And perhaps even history, as De Luca mentions.

We’ve been having a lot of professional dialogue around background knowledge and the effect it has on the ability to engage and connect with text, perceive information and understand meaning. That layered with varying language backgrounds provides a challenge when thinking about assessment practices and strategies.

I’m not sure if there wasn’t a written form, or if it just wasn’t the norm/tradition. I got the impression that oral language was the predominant, but not exclusive, means of communication.

Although Lera’s jesting a bit here, the fact that two individuals who are familiar with each other’s nuances still might find it difficult to communicate or understand each other using the same language, only illustrates the complexity of this topic.