There are lots of reasons for not overdoing your texting – it’s dangerous (when driving), it’s rude (when you’re texting while someone is talking to you), it can cause health problems (strains and pains in your hands and fingers). But, now there’s another reason to limit your texting – it could make you dumb!

That’s not an overstatement according to a study by a Canadian expert in linguistics. She claims that texting has a negative impact on people’s linguistic ability to interpret and accept words. In other words, the more you text the less your ability to assess the meaning of words and be able to converse at a high level.

Image via Wikipedia

Testing Texters

To prove her theory the researcher asked a group of university students about their reading habits, including text messaging. She then gave them a range of words that were both real and made up. She also collected data having to do with how well the volunteers grasped grammar, and the extent of their exposure to various media (the number of text messages received per month and the number of books read in the past year, for example).

After analyzing her findings, the final study showed that the students who texted more were also the ones less accepting of new words. On the other hand, those who read more traditional print media such as books, magazines, and newspapers were more accepting of those words. In other words, with more of their focus on texting, where word use is limited and where grammar and spelling are of little value, the high texters were less open to learning and the use of words because that’s not a high value when all they are doing is sending and receiving short messages to convey a point or emotion. On the other hand, people who read traditional media are demonstrating their interest in words and word craft in order to fully understand a subject. The study suggests that reading traditional print media exposes people to variety and creativity in language that is not found in colloquial peer-to-peer text messaging.

What Does It Mean For Society?

“The people who accepted more words did so because they were better able to interpret the meaning of the word – or tolerate the word – even if they didn’t recognize the word,” said the researcher. “Students who reported texting more rejected more words instead of acknowledging them as possible words.”

“Texting is associated with rigid linguistic constraints which caused students to reject many of the words in the study. This was surprising because there are many unusual spellings – for example, textisms such as ‘LOL’ – in text messaging language.”

What do these findings mean for the future? It’s not a particularly pretty picture. If fewer people are reading, or know how to communicate well because they lack linguistic skills, can society function well? The next time a distracted driver almost runs you over while you are crossing the street you may have the answer.

Click here for more articles by The Writin’ Cowboy.

There are as many reasons for creating a new language as there are people who do so. It could be to facilitate communication between people who do not necessarily speak the same language or dialect but would often come into contact with each other. These constructed languages are sometimes called auxillary languages. Conlangs appear in some works of fiction in order to create a sense of credibility.

Languages which are developed for practical use and are genuinely intended for a significant number of people to use on a regular basis tend to be called planned languages. Those which don’t sometimes become known as artificial languages, which can often be seem as a derogatory term. It seems that even natural languages are planned at least to some extent. Different conlangs derive vocabulary from many different sources. Interlingua is a conlang which takes its vocabulary from a small set of natural languages, so much so that its users would be unlikely to perceive it as artificial in any way.

It is common when analysing constructed languages to group them in one of two categorisations. There are priori languages and posteriori languages. Priori languages are ones whose words are made up by the language’s inventor without any basis on another language. This is as opposed to posteriori languages which are often based on other natural languages and are modifications or simplifications of it. Klingon is perhaps the best known priori language and Esperanto is the best known posteriori language.

Posteriori languages can be subdivided further into two main subcategories. There are schematic languages in that the vocabulary fits in with the rules of the language and naturalistic languages which keep some of the character of the natural language on which it was originally based. An example of a schematic posteriori language is Esperanto and an example of a naturalistic posteriori language is Interlingua.

Engineered languages are ones whose original intention is to analyse the whole process of language building and for experimenting with the whole process of inflections and conjugations, for example. They are not necessarily intended for people to speak. Auxiliary languages are actually intended for people to use across language barriers, to create a new lingua franca. Artistic languages are ones used in works of fiction or are secret languages used between friends.

You may be interested in reading:

How To Make Lactose-Free Milk

How To Make Petrol (Gasoline)

Islam’s Rise

Biobutanol

Royal Jelly

Hunting For Truffles

So, the first thing that foreigners notice when they visit NZ is, undoubtedly, our accent — which is completely different to any of the American, British (or even Australian) accents. Our way of speaking is often confused (by people in America and Britain) with the Australian accent, but you really don’t want to say that to a Kiwi. We have a bit of a love-hate relationship with our closest neighbour, so any New Zealander would go to great lengths to point out the differences between our two tongues (but, deep down, we love the Aussies…)

The New Zealand accent came from a mixture of the Southern British accent, Irish English, Scottish English and a little bit of influence from our buddies across the ditch in Australia. Other influences were ‘Received Pronunciation‘ (or ‘Queen’s English’) and the Maori language.

Pronunciation

The New Zealand accent is one of the newest native speaker varieties of the English language. Although it is a little similar to the Australian accent, there are some distinct differences. The most obvious difference between the two accents is the short ‘i’ vowel sound. For example, a New Zealander says the word “Pin” much like an American would. However, an Australian pronounces this word as “Peen” — rhyming with the word “Scene”. 

However, on that subject, an Australian would say the word “Pen” much like an American would (maybe only slightly different). A New Zealander, on the other hand, would say “Peen” (the same as the Australian “Pin”). This is true for a lot of words with a short “e” vowel sound, such as “Left” (”Lee-ft”), “Head” (”Hee-dd”) and “Red” (”Ree-dd”). 

The difference between the two languages becomes obvious when you compare some sentences:
Australians might say “Halve you gotta peen?”, while a Kiwi would say “Have you gotta pin?”. On the other hand, an Australian might say “I’m using a pen”, while a Kiwi would say “I’m using a peen”. New Zealanders often accuse Australians of saying the words “Fish and Chips” as “Feesh and Cheeps”. Aussies often accuse Kiwis of saying “Fush and Chups“. So, basically, I’m saying that the accents are quite distinct.

There are only two properly distinct dialects of New Zealand English. These are the standard Kiwi accent and the so called “Southland Burr“. Southland, a region that is (funnily enough) located at the very south of New Zealand, has had a greater Scottish influence in the development of its accent. So, when ‘normal’ New Zealanders say the words “Purple Work Shirt”, they don’t pronounce the r’s (another characteristic of Kiwi Speak — the word “Girl”, for example, is pronounced somewhat like “Gill”). Southlanders, however, say “Purrple Worrk Shirrt”. This phenomenon is famous throughout New Zealand and is the source of some ridicule in the country. 

If you want a classic example of Kiwi pronunciation, try listening to the Flight of the Conchords — a New Zealand duo who shot to stardom within NZ and even made a little bit of a presence in the US. On their HBO sitcom, one of the duo, Bret, constantly has his name ‘mispronounced’ due to the difference between the NZ and American accents — in New Zealand, it is pronounced “Bree-t”, but American’s pronounce it similar to the word “Brat”.

Words

There is a lot of slang that has developed in New Zealand that is completely different from the English of America and Britain. Although there are many similarities with Australia (due to proximity) and, to some extent, Britain (a left over from our time as a colony) there is also many distinct words and phrases. Here are a few examples:

~As – Used to emphasise an adjective. Eg, “Sweet as“, “That car is cool as”
Au, Ow – Used mainly by Maori or Polynesian youth, can be used to emphasise a question, eg, “What’re you up to, ow?” meaning “What the hell are you doing?!”. Also used ambiguously to add emphasis but may add very little meaning at all. As in the phrase, made famous by the animated sitcom Bro’town, “Not even ow“. 
Bach or Crib – A modest holiday home, usually at a beach or lakeside location.
Bei – a mutated form of the slang word “Bro”. Mostly used around the area of Gisborne.
Bikkies, Bikky – A biscuit/biscuits, cookies.
Big Bikkies – Worth lots of money. Eg, “He’s worth big bikkies”
Bottle Store – Alcohol shop, Liquor Store.
Boy Racer – A young person who races their car on the street. Has negative connotations in the news media etc.
Bogan – A type of person typified by classic rock/metal inspired attire and heavy alcohol consumption. New Zealand’s version of white trash.
Bugger – Damn, An exclamation of regret. Also can mean unfortunate. Eg, “Oh, that’s a bugger”
Buggered – Tired, Exhausted
Cheerios – Red cocktail sausages
Chilly Bin – Cooler
Chocker, Chocka, Chocka Block – Full, Overflowing
Choice – Great, Excellent
Chunder – Spew, Vomit
Cock Up – Mistake, Also a verb, eg, “Bugger, I cocked up!”
Cockie – A farmer
Cuz, Cuzzy Bro – Cousin. Also used to refer to friends, compare “Mate” and “Bro”
Dodge – Dodgy, Unsafe, Strange, Not to be trusted. Eg, “It’s pretty dodge… I wouldn’t trust it”
Dole – Government funded unemployment benefit
Dairy – A convenience store, a corner store.
The Ditch – Refers to the Tasman sea, the dividing body of water between NZ and our closest neighbour, Australia.
Egg – Dork, Idiot. The use of egg as a friendly insult was widespread in the 1980’s and regained popularity in 2010 following it’s use in the NZ film “Boy“.
Footy – Rugby
Greasies – Fish and Chips
Gummies – Gumboots, Wellington Boots.
Hokey Pokey – Hard, gold coloured sugar candy. Most popular in Crunchie Bars and hokey pokey ice cream
Hottie – Hot water bottle
Ice Block – Popsicle
Jandals – Flip Flops, Thongs
Jug – Electric kettle. Eg, “Boil the jug”
Ka Pai – A Maori saying meaning well done, good job etc.
Kia Ora – Indigenous Maori greeting but commonly used throughout NZ
Knackered – Tired
Lollies – As with Britain, in NZ, candy is called lollies.
Marge – Margarine
Mean – Awesome, Cool, Good
Munted – Broken, destroyed
Nick – To steal
Pav, Pavlova – A meringue pudding with fruit and cream
Piss – Alcohol. Eg, “On the piss” means a night drinking, “Piss up” means an alcohol fuelled party, “Pissed” means drunk.
Primo – Excellent, Great. Similar to “Choice”
Puku – A commonly used Maori word meaning stomach
Rattle Your Dags – Hurry up!
Root – Have sex with someone
Scull – To consume an entire drink in one go. Often used when challenging someone to ’scull’ an alcoholic drink, like a bottle of beer.
She’ll Be Right – Commonly used expression meaning that something isn’t a problem. The “She” in this phrase isn’t actually referring to any particular female.
Shot – Thanks
Shout – To buy something for someone. Eg, “Dinner’s my shout”
Skite – Brag, Show off
Sook – Wimp, Person showing little courage
Squiz – A brief look. Eg, “Can you take a squiz at my car? It’s not going”
Stink – Bad, Unfortunate, Unskillful, Ungenerous, Mean . Eg, “Oh, that’s stink”, “Don’t be stink”, “I’m stink at surfing”
Suss – To figure out. Eg, “We’ll have it sussed by the morning”
Sweet As – A very versatile saying meaning great, good, no problem, thanks etc.
Ta – Thanks
Togs – Swimming trunks, swimsuit
Trolley – Shopping Cart
Vivid – A popular brand of permanent marker, the name of which is now just used generically for all similar markers. Sharpie, Texta
Whanau – Commonly used Maori word for family.
Wop Wops, Wops – The country, An extremely rural area, The middle of nowhere
Yeah, Nah – A commonly used phrase in NZ that confuses foreigners. It basically means something along the lines of “Yes. (No) Don’t worry, I understand what you said and I agree…” or “Yes, I understand what you said but…”. It is used very vaguely and most Kiwis don’t realise how often they say it! Maybe this is one that only New Zealanders will ever understand.

Bear in mind that this is a nonexhaustive list and there are many new slang words that come into use every year. However, these are some of the ones that have survived the test of time and are still in common use in most places. 

So now, if you ever come to New Zealand, you might actually be able to understand what we’re all saying. So please, take this as an invitation to our beautiful and interesting country. Please come, if for nothing more than to hear this “Kiwi Speak” in action!

There is a great amount of variety in both the semantics and in many incidences the vocabulary of these different types of Chinese. They are all tonal languages, however. Tonal languages are ones that have different meanings for words that would otherwise have an identical sound and meaning. Standard Chinese has four standard tones, for example. Standard spoken Chinese is often known as Putonghua, and it is derived from the dialect which was originally spoken in the region around Peking (Beijing). It is China’s official language, is one of the official languages of the United Nations and is among Singapore’s four official languages.

It is believed among most Sinologists (experts in the study of the Chinese language) that many of the languages native to the Far East are descendants of a common language which they call Proto Sino-Tibetan. Despite a large amount of investigation into this hypothesis, it is difficult to determine the sounds of the words that would have been spoken, and any comparison with Modern Chinese is purely speculative.

There have been many attempts, notably from Europeans, into a systematic method of categorising the Chinese language. Among the earliest of such attempts was made by Bernhard Karlgren about a century ago, and the process seems to be an ongoing and neverending task.

The Chinese language that was in use in the earlier periods of the Zhou Dynasty is referred to as Archaic Chinese. The Zhou Dynasty ended in the Third Century BC. Pieces of work which have been produced during such times include history and poetry of Shijing and Shujing. Many of the characters written in this style of Chinese contain radicals which give the reader clues as to how the character is spoken and the deeper, and often abstract, meaning it has. Other languages which have borrowed characters from Chinese, most notably Korean and Japanese, offers hints towards their original pronunciations in some incidences.

The Chinese which was spoken and written during the Middle Ages became to be known as Middle Chinese. It is the variety of Chinese that was in use during the Song and the Tang Dynasties. Clues regarding how different Chinese words were pronounced at that time come from many different sources, such as foreign word translations and various dictionaries that were compiled by contemporaries.

The Chinese language has followed a rather complicated path from its earliest foundations as inscriptions of oracles in bones and shells to the modern day. The complex geography of China has played a profound role in the development of its language. The plains across Central China allowed the more dominant and widely used Mandarin to spread, whereas the more mountainous areas of the country affords a more diverse range of influences in both ideas and phrases to its inhabitants.

There have been many attempts in the past three hundred years or so to make the more spoken Mandarin, and especially that regional variant spoken in Peking, the standard across the country. This had little success until the latter half of the Twentieth Century, however, when local people still continued to use their local language. In many parts of the country today, people can understand both the standard dialect and their local one.

It was the state education system in China which ensured Mandarin’s dominance over the other regional dialects. With the exception of Hong Kong, all school children from a young age must study in Standard Chinese. This step made Standard Chinese intelligible to just about everyone on the Chinese mainland. Mandarin is having more and more of an influence on day to day life in Hong Kong in spite of the status Cantonese has there.

You may be interested in reading:

How To Make Lactose-Free Milk

The Synthesis Of Petrol (Gasoline)

Islam’s Rise

Biobutanol

Royal Jelly

Hunting For Truffles

In more modern times the theories discussed can be roughly divided into two great classes, the anthropological and the biological. Adherents of the biological theories seek the origin of language in the characteristics and tendencies of the animal world; adherents of the anthropological theories look in the history of language for its most early constitutive elements and concentrate particularly on the speech of non civilized tribes.

 The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel via Wikipedia

The principal anthropological theories are more numerous: the babble theory seeks the origin of language in the spontaneous babbling of children. Words like pop, daddy, mammy and many others are adduced in support of this view; the song theory, accepted by most of the ancient Greek philosophers and by many moderns, holds that singing was the original form of language; the symbolical theory, values are attached to pictures, sounds, objects, and these values are symbolically expressed in language; the contact theory, emphasizes the relation of the individual to a social unity. It regards language as the result of a natural trend in all social creatures toward reciprocal contact, understanding, and approach; the utilitarian theory maintains that language originate from the practical necessities of human-cooperation.

Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language via Wikipedia

The more important biological theories fall into two classes: the theory of animal sounds seeks analogies to the origin of the human language in the sounds emitted by animals, especially in those that can be observed in the study of apes; the theory of expressive gestures and sounds derives language from the natural movements that express passions. Since interjections supply important evidence for this view, it is sometimes called the interjectional theory.

Various methods are open to the study of language origin. Some look to the careful study of languages in general for light on the origin of language, for example, shows that the linguistic categories of the adjective and the article, and probably also the conjunction and the adverb, are of late creation, whereas verbs, nouns, and interjections are very old. Adherents of the biological theories of language origin enter still another field in their investigation, studying the utterances and gestures of the animal world. Others seek the early stages of speech in the archaic languages of primitive tribes; their studies have resulted in valuable discoveries, but it is probable that even the most primitive languages have a long past. The theological theories of the origin of the language maintain that language is a gift from God, or that it is the effect of wisdom inherent in nature through the will of God.

Learnability and Evolution of Languages: Order and Chaos Both Required

Languages are characterized by both “ ‘pockets of systematicity’ ” and arbitrariness. Pockets of systemacity transpire in such cases as the following: A multiplicity of English words that begin with “sn” display affinity with the nose, e.g. sneeze, snort, snot. “In many languages,” words describing something big (such as a boulder) have incorporated into them “vowels made with the back of the tongue, such as ‘o’ and ‘ah’.” By contrast, “vowels made at the front of the mouth, such as ‘ee,’ often denote something smaller (flea).” Whether these pockets systematicity are paradoxical accidents or have something integral to do with language learning is unknown, according to Padraic Monaghan of Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. Arbitrariness is given instance by the fact that “microorganism” is a long word compared to the object it denotes whereas whale is a short word compared to the object it denotes.

To ferret out  what role systematicity and arbitrariness play in language learning (and perhaps, in the evolution of language), Monaghan and his group used computer algorithms to create “ ‘alien languages’ ” that were then “taught to human volunteers” by pairing words with pictures. The computer-generated alien languages displayed either extreme systematicity (e.g. big objects were always described by long words) or extreme arbitrariness (e.g. no relationship between the size of words and the objects they denoted). The volunteers found learning either of these alien languages difficult.

Monaghan and his group then developed an alien language that was half arbitrary and half systematic, e.g. “describing big things with short words, but long vowel sounds.” The volunteers “learned this language” with greater facility, suggesting that both arbitrariness and systematicity are required for language learning. An explanation Monaghan offers why this must be so is as follows: If words were not arbitrary and “words denoting similar objects all sounded alike, we would be more likely to confuse those objects.” That this hypothesis has at least some foundation in fact was revealed by an analysis conducted by the group of 5000 of the most common nouns and verbs used in English and French: The analysis revealed that “these words have both systematic sounds and arbitrary ones within each word.”

The results of a study done by “[l]inguist, Simon Kirby, of the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom,” appear to support Monaghan’s results that both systematicity and arbitrariness are required if language is to be learnable and therefore acquire the capacity to propagate and evolve . Kirby also used computer-generated languages in his study. Initially, he gave volunteers “long lists of random syllables and told them they were words that described pictures.” As might be expected, because of the randomness, the words were recalcitrant to being learned.

In the next phase of his study, Kirby incorporated the answers of his first group of volunteers into a slightly modified language meant for another group of volunteers. The next group found out words began emerging which served to put objects into categories. “For example, the volunteers created words or sounds within words that indicated an objects’ color or its shape: words ending in a “k” sound, for example, might be red.” In other words, the language became more systematic to temper its arbitrariness before it became learnable.

Their results have impressed both Kirby and Monaghan that the learnability and consequent evolution of a language operates pretty much like natural selection in biological evolution: “ ‘You make mistakes, but those mistakes aren’t random,’ Kirby says. They modify the language slightly, making it ‘easier for next person to learn’.”

(Reardon, Sara. 2011. “Calculating the Language of Babel.” Science. 23 September.)

Definition :
Symbols or verbal messages are every kind of symbols that use one or a lot of words. The words are abstractions of reality that may not afford individually cause a reaction that is that the totality of objects or ideas represented by those words.

Language could be a system of verbal code. Language could be a set of symbols with rules for combining symbols, that are used and understood a community. Language is that the primary suggests that to precise thoughts, feelings and our intentions. the basic operate of language is to call or nickname of individuals, objects and events.

Language operate

• Naming (naming or labeling) pertaining to the commit to determine objects, actions or individuals by name so it may be referred dlam communication.
• Interaction Emphasizes sharing concepts and emotions that may invite sympathy and understanding, or anger and confusion.
• Transmission of data Through the language of data may be passed on to others. The specialty of language as a way of transmitting data over time, by linking past, gift and future, enabling continuity of culture and our traditions.

Terms Languages to be told a lot of regarding the planet around us handling others making coherence in our lives.

Limitations of Language

• The restricted variety of words out there to represent the item. A word solely represents relaitas, however not the truth itself. The words on the partial. Adjectives tend to be dichotomous (rich, poor, enemy-friend) however the truth isn’t black and white. Verbal messages are commonly used to explain one thing that betrsifat factual, descriptive and rational.
• The words are ambiguous and contextual as a result of the words represent the perceptions and interpretations of various individuals, who embrace social and cultural backgrounds vary.
• The words contain cultural biases Language is certain by the cultural context. Language may be viewed as an extension of the culture.
• The which means of the word which means arises from the special relationship between the words (as a verbal symbol) and humans. The which means isn’t inherent within the words-words, however the words evoke which means in people’s minds. thus there’s no direct relationship between an object and therefore the symbols used to represent them. Understanding is our subjective feelings that image. Denotative which means is that the which means of the particular (factual) and a lot of public. Connotative which meanss are a lot of personal meaning that’s outside the reference objective.

There are 2 ways that to outline the language:
First, the definition of a useful read of language as a tool that’s shared (socially shared means) to precise concepts. this suggests that language will solely be understood if there’s agreement among the member-member social teams to wear it. as a result of as we all know, given the which means of words arbitrarily (sema u it) by teams. we have a tendency to never worry regarding why the organism’s body began to limit the neck up is named the pinnacle, whereas in way of life we have a tendency to ​​know the trees and coconuts. actually a way cry link between the which means of the word book and batik. The word seems and is employed by community consensus alone, can’t be hunted for logical reasons.
        Second, the formal definition that states that language is all the unimaginable phrase, which might be created per applicable rules of grammar, to be: i have to learn to be clever. each language has rules compilation of language (grammar) respectively. Indonesian incorporates a totally different grammar from English, French, Spanish and thus on. If we wish to supply meaningful sentences during a language, then we have a tendency to should master the grammar is bothered.

DEFINITION OF NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
        Non-verbal communication are human acts that intentionally transmitted and interpreted because the goal and therefore the potential for feedback from receiving it. One necessary facet of nonverbal communication is once we commit to perceive the which means of every message communication. within the lifestyle of non-verbal behavior is incredibly various and really useful and plenty of which means in every communication message.

Communication gestura
Emblems are signs which will replace words or phases directly. for instance, in agreement with circular finger and thumb. Illustrators related to tries to portray a message. for instance, if we wish to explain our world boloa illustration by hand during a circle, look efeksi is facial movements that mengekspreseikan the meanings of emotions: anger, fear, happiness, passion, or fatigue.

The regulator could be a style of non-verbal behavior, that is ready up (monitor, maintain, or control) in conversation with others. Like, within the application we have a tendency to don’t seem to be passive, staring eyes, shook and nodded her head, pursed lips, focus the body, and create numerous paralanguage.                The adapter could be a non-verbal behavior is completed to form a way of comfort in meeting specific wants. for instance, smoking at the time of the exam, mengaruk itchy skin, adjusted his glasses and others. Perialku might consciously or unconsciously. however in sure circumstances, it’s laborious to guess this behavior. for instance, somebody who scratched his scalp, whether or not as head itch or are considering one thing, or one thing else.

different sorts of verbal communication

• Face communication
• Eye communication
• Communication bit
• Communication space
• Communication time

It is possible to think without language, every creature on earth does it. But to put meaning to our thoughts, and gain the ability to share them with others, requires a complex system of symbolism to represent and articulate the internal images of our brains. Susanne Langer, in her essay “Language and Thought”, describes the difference between signs, recognizable by all living inhabitants of our world, and symbols as “a sign causes us to think or act in face of the thing signified, whereas a symbol causes us to think about the thing symbolized” (Langer 55). Understanding this critical difference aided me in my own curiosity of understanding the separation between human speech and the more primitive means of communication employed by animals.

Helen Keller, a crucial case study, exemplifies the intimate relationship of thought and language. Through her unique perspective, we gain insight on the question: can thought exist without language? If so, in what form? In her essay “The Day Language Came into My Life”, she describes her life before the moment when she connected the hand motions of sign language that spelled the word ‘water’ and the “wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand” (Keller 45) as being “at sea in a dense fog… without compass or sounding- line and had no way of knowing how near the harbor was” (Keller 44). As someone who cannot remember a time when I didn’t have language as a tool, trying to imagine this inescapable claustrophobia is dizzying, frustrating, and ultimately impossible. I tried to think without words, to see if I could imagine what it must have been like for Ms. Keller. My head was alive with images, but the incessant need of my inner-monologue to put words to these pictures was, in the end, unconquerable.

Orwell takes the connection of language and thought even further, proposing the notion that if you control a language, you can control, to a large degree, the thoughts of the people who speak it. In “the Principals of Newspeak”, he says, “The purpose of Newspeak was… to make all other modes of thought impossible” (246). By laying out detailed and specific rules for his made up language, he created a bland and emotionless form of communication in which exchanging detailed and complex ideas becomes difficult. Though fictionalized, this employment of language resembles the way modern politicians utilize carefully crafted sentences to bend the public to their will. Instead of the “Open Logging, Tree-cutting Initiative”, we have the “Healthy Forest Initiative”. Instead of the “Standardization of Education to the Point of Eliminating Teacher Creativity Act”, we get the “No Child Left Behind Act”. These clever uses of language put the concepts described by Orwell to use by making topics that might otherwise be controversial sound undeniably good. Who wouldn’t want healthy forests? And who wants any child to be left behind?

The English language takes root in a multi-layered history of origins and influences that range everywhere from Germanic tribal languages, to Norse, to French, to Latin and beyond. Throughout its history, English has undergone dramatic transformations and wholesale changes. These developments continue today, leading to a great debate over “Standard English”, what is considered correct, and what is not.
 
For my own part, I was rarely taught formal “correct” English directly in public schools. Instead, I was forced to rely on ascertaining my knowledge from the various books, movies, and television programs I enjoyed. I did, however, get the sense during my education that this “correct” form of English existed. There were times when I was correct, and then there were the big red marks on my essays that indicated when I wasn’t. More so than ever before, my feelings have now shifted away from this mode of thought- that we are either correct or that we are not- into a more arbitrary and philosophical perspective that is difficult to define.
 
Correctness is important, that much I believe, and the language cannot be allowed to roam free as it will. Were this the case, the intricate communication of our thoughts and ideas, the very purpose of language, would become impossible. We would all develop essentially our own individual languages- with our own ideas of spelling, grammar, and syntax- and would eventually become mutually unintelligible to each other. Defining the line, where correctness of a language and its freedom to continually develop meet, becomes the true, and difficult, question. Even regional and demographic dialects might disagree on what correct means. Perhaps this sense of correctness comes from historical precedence. Ideas of language standards accepted earlier in history and described by authoritative sources, such as dictionaries, lend those ideas some credibility. On the other hand, those whose ideas came later could claim that language is constantly evolving, and what was once considered correct may no longer be true.

In his essay “The Prescriptive Tradition”, David Crystal quotes Jonathan Swift, “It is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually changing” (Crystal 3). For all the attempts made to thwart this change, however, none have been, thus far, successful. Language, like pop culture, is subject to the scrutiny of a large population. Changes on a broader scope are not the ward of any individual, or small group, no matter how influential. For true change (or lack thereof) to take place, it must be through the general, and often unconscious, consensus of the masses. Like one generation’s parents trying to “wish away” rock and roll, or the next trying to “wish away” rap, the inevitability of this change flows like the gravity-powered currents of a river. Trying to swim upstream results only in a slow regression and exhaustion.

As a writer striving to find the best way to utilize language, I pay attention to grammar as classically prescribed. An editor considering whether or not to entertain your prose expects a certain degree of correctness. Breaking rules simply because you don’t believe they should exist is surely the quickest way to find rejection. But good writing is not as simple as sticking strictly to the rules, but finding the best and most effective way to communicate those thoughts that reside in our heads. If sticking to the rules is the most effective way to achieve a standard academic voice, than perhaps tastefully bending, and even occasionally breaking, those same rules may be the best way to set yourself apart.

Linguistic Relativity: How Language Affects Thought and How Thought Shapes Language.

            Since the beginning of the 19th century, research has been shining new light on the connections between language and thought. It has been theorized, in what is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language affects the way in which people conceptualize the world (Swoyer). The answer to the question “Does language affect thought?” has been previously answered. The answer is a simple “yes.” Therefore, instead of aiming to answer a previously answered question, this writing will attempt to expand on this topic of linguistic relativity and to answer the question “How does language affect thought?” by attempting to explain the properties of linguistic relativity, providing evidence for conceptual restriction in thought due to language, and by providing evidence that language affects organizational thinking.

            Linguistic relativity in itself is the concept that one’s language affects the way in which they think or perceive the world.  In an implied sense, linguistic relativity is also the idea that the inability to express a concept in one’s language, makes it difficult or even impossible to ponder or understand said concept. This form of the concept of linguistic relativity has been included and examined in some popular fiction. For example, the newspeak language of George Orwell’s 1984, which was created to dim human consciousness by removing concepts such as “freedom” from existence by removing any words which make the concept possible to understand.

Several studies on language have shown that some concepts can be pondered without having representation in language. These studies include a study enclosed in one of the blogs of Dave Munger at Cognitive Daily on how language affects the perception of objects, and how perceptions of objects affect our language. In this study, an experiment involving the creation of 16 never before seen objects and 48 college students revealed that while it is possible to conceptualize reality without language, it is more difficult. This experiment also slightly demonstrated the formation of language, as students who were unaware of the object labels still categorized the objects, and could in theory create their own words for the two categories. This illustrates the point that, when faced with two groups of new objects, we can conceptualize their differences even if we do not have a word for it (Munger).

However, while it is possible for people to conceptualize some things without the benefit of language, it may be difficult, as shown in a study by a Mr. Alfred Bloom on the effects of the Chinese language on Chinese ability for counterfactual reasoning, for natural speakers of certain languages to ponder concepts not found in their natural language. It is even wondered if the Chinese language is responsible in part for China’s slow rise into new technologies (Elman).In Bloom’s report, he supposedly asked several native Chinese hypothetical questions, questions which, being counterfactual in nature, the native Chinese repeatedly answered with responses indicating their inability to think in a counterfactual sense (Li). It is quite clear from Bloom’s studies that language can inhibit thought.

Since the 19th century, many other experiments and observations have been done in regards to linguistic relativity. This includes studies by people such as Maria Sera, who studied the effect of grammatical gender classifications on a person’s perception of an object. This study in particular illustrates that the way that people think—more specifically, how they think in relation to organization—can be influenced by the languages that we use. Therefore, the answer to the originally posed question is this: many ways. However, it can more specifically be confirmed by the evidence provided, that language definitely affects the way that we as people think about groups of objects and how we classify them.

Note: An apology is due. My reference page has been lost. As a result, if I offend anyone with this article due to my lack of formal citation, please feel free to email me @ bls61793@gmail.com, and I will remove the article ASAP.