Language corresponds to countless appellations, as the expresser of thought and ultimate origin of philosophy, influencing the world of knowledge with its astonishing qualities. The very essence of cooperation and communication relies eternally on the inspired art of language, without which any possible human development could occur. Furthermore, the perception of verbal communication splits between two realms, reality and literature, constituting two linguistic variations, figurative and literal. Throughout the world of literature, figurative language adds depth and dimension to
The power and idea of language can be express in so many different forms like the ability to communicate with other people. But language as a farther meaning than just communicating, language as the power of understanding thoughts and the feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, in the tone nation of sounds, gesture or even symbols and the message it can send to people. With the aid of these essays “By Any Other Names” written by Santha Rama Rau, “The language of Oppression” by Bosumajian, “You are what you say” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff and “The two faces of language “by Lakoff, will explore how the idea that language can give power and also dominate.
The Language of our Time Language, spoken or written, is a form of human communication consisting of the use of words in a conventional and structured way. The language of our birth, the language of everyone’s first words, creates a powerful bond and shapes an individual’s perception of the world. And yet, only few people truly understand the effects a language can have on others or the extent a language can manipulate people through their state of mind. Language can help define the identity of an individual. It shapes a person’s mind based on their past and helps people into the future.
“What makes us human?”, is an unanswered question asked by many. Is it because of our ability to have empathy for others? Or is it because of our cognitive ability which allows us to look into the future? One of the main arguments made that separates humans from animals is our communication style; our language. Is language inherently unique to human? To answer such a question, we first operationally define language as; “a system of communication based upon words and the combination of words into sentences” (University of Oslo). The purpose of language is for us to be able to convey an infinite amount of ideas to one another. Sign language in general also falls under this definition as it has a complex system of rules and syntax that allow the signed figures to function as words. Animal communication on the other hand, is operationally defined as, “the transmission of a signal from one animal to another such that the sender benefits, on average, from the response of the recipient” (Pearce 1987). With this in mind, current research has shown that the answer is that language is inherently unique to humans.
One universal aspect of the human condition is communication. Finding some way to convey the abstract concepts of our minds in such a way they can be understood by others is a fundamental necessity of being a human in culture as we understand it. It is with this understanding that the question has been asked; if language is the medium through which our perceptions are channeled, how much are our perceptions distorted by language? How much is our language distorted by our perceptions? Is this relationship something that could be manipulated, and how effective would it be? Thankfully, these are questions that
In “The Symbolic Species,” Terrence Deacon states that language has been evolved specifically with the human brain. Deacon He argues that the structure of language should not merely be seen as the amalgam of “words and rules,” but as a complete system. Each word can be separated from one another in a sentence to focus on each word’s definition, but he looks at the combination of those words within a sentence, similar to “genes and organs of an organism.” (113), that provides a completely new pattern and perspective.
Bourdieu considers that, as race, gender is socially constructed (Bourdieu, 1982). Moreover, gender is also discursively constructed. According to Bucholtz, and Hall (2005), social gender is assigned every time that a speaker assign a social gender to other human being. These authors say: “ It is the constant iteration of such practices that cumulatively produces not only each individual's gender identity, but gender itself as a socially meaningful system” (p. 590). In this vein, Bourdieu (1982) posits that utterances are not just signs to be deciphered; rather, they are symbolic representations of signs of wealth and authority that are “meant to be believed and obeyed” (p. 68). Thus, the construction of the female as gender relies in a set
Key features of language include its words and their sub structures such as morphemes, graphemes and syllables at the writing level as well as reading or speaking, words, their meanings and contexts in which the words get spoken or read. Language has to be interpreted as a whole, and not just as the specific word. There must be an explicit pattern or structure. In order for language to be understood correctly, the meaning of words must be arranged in a given context. This is what constructs language; even though words are arbitrary themselves, in order to integrate as a language, they must be used in the appropriate context. This pre-established cultural context is what will enable effective communication. (Daniel Willingham, 2007, p. 1).
Act is led through a argument the middle of these two states. This clue will be further produced in the taking after two actions: encapsulation Furthermore typification (Bourdieu, 1977). Encapsulation is a disguise of information through a individual’s secret word encounter et cetera this internalized information is inevitably objectified. Those distinctive takes in once more Toward cooperating with this objectified learning. Bourdieu’s act hypothesis emphasizes ‘reproduction’ of social structures In view of real internalized dispositions. In this sense, the available structure will be a progressive result of agents’ chronicled encounters. Agent’s activities are unconsciously concluded and are not In light of his/her normal computation. Bourdieu’s perspective will be that social operators actively reproducer hierarchies through their social Also typical engagement for act. For example, social class is not pre-defined. Rather, social class is continually reproduced Toward agents’ real manner that is In view of recorded
The basic property of the sign is that sign points to something different than itself, transcendent to it. The sign is a sign because of the function it performs in cognition or in communication; it is the function of representation. Representation is a complex function and consists in mediating the object represented and not in substituting it; however, this mediation maintains certain aspects of the mediated object. Meaning is an important element of representation. Sign represents something different than itself due to the meaning. Therefore, defining basic properties of the meaning is important for the description of representation structure although on the other hand a
In Bourdieu’s words, “The use of language…depends on the social position of the speaker;” and in effect, the authority of language “comes to language from outside.” The “outside” is created from social conditions fraught with language games. Bourdieu argues that speaking is inseparable from the distribution of power in a society, and the distribution power in society is unequal. Hence, there is difficulty for neutrality. The analysis of language games involves an awareness of social classes and the relative social position of speakers. The institutionalized social relations of speaking establish who is authorized to speak and recognized as such by others. Bourdieu goes on to identify an inverse relation
First, a brief background in the three dimensions of language discussed throughout this paper. The
Throughout twenty-centuries ago, writers thought that ordinary language and literary language were two different languages. But this is an analytical assumption. There is only one language, which
This article, written by Bourdieu focuses on language and symbolic power. In the beginning Bourdieu talks about a concept he calls linguistic exchange, this refers to a transfer of language between two people, one who holds capital or assets and another who consumes the capital (knowledge) given by the speaker. For Bourdieu language is extremely symbolic and to go along with this symbolism are certain rules that people naturally understand and follow. It comes from the belief that language can be a form of power, those with power (capital) in a given situation are perceived as an authority over another because of the capital they hold. The article goes on to discuss what Bourdieu calls symbolic capital, that is the acknowledgment placed upon the speaker that grants them a recognized form of power over others.
Language is used by different people in various situations. As an aspect of study of the relationships between codes and social structure, diglossia is an important concept in the field of sociolinguistics. The term diglossia refers to a situation in which two dialects are used by a single language community.