Paper 4 Question 2
The text raises many issues that pertain to the English language. Specifically how the English language shapes how we think. The article speaks on Lera Boroditsky’s studies of how different languages require the speaker to include more or less information. For example, in the English language the time of the event is always mentioned in the tense of the verb. This cannot be said the same for other languages such as Indian where they use the same verb tense every time. This is important when looking at how language relates to thought because it shows that using different languages can require you to think of different details and notice different details in a scenario.
Another difference is between Japanese and English. In English if someone broke a cup, even accidently, we would say ”She broke the cup”. However, in Japanese they would say something similar to ,”the cup broke itself”. This is an important detail because it relates to how language affects a person's thought. In this example we can see how the blame is placed. In other languages when there are accidents they do not blame anyone but in English we do. This affects the way people think because it focuses their attention on other details.
The Sapir-Whorf theory supports Boroditsky’s theory very well. The Sapir Whorf theory looks into the words and grammar of the English language and how it relates to people's thoughts. He looked at the Hopi Indians' speech and found that they do not think through their tenses. This is due to the fact that they did not have a concept of time. This was all found out to be false because they found that the Indians did use tenses. However, it relates to Boroditsky because they both looked at how language relates to thought. They also both found that there were people that did not use tenses although it was found one was false.
This article can relate to the genderlect theory in a sort of way. This is due to the fact that Borditsky looked at the differences between people of other languages and thought. Deborah Tannen wrote about the relationship between gender and language. Along with this she looked at the way that the different gender’s thoughts were affected by their language. She found that through their language men tended to be about the giving and receiving of information in cultures. When she looked at women’s conversation she found that they tended to do more with building and reinforcing cooperative relationships.
AO1: 4/10 marks
ReplyDeleteYou only have a little more than 400 words which show you don't have clear or detailed knowledge of the context being provided. However, you do show limited reference to a wider knowledge of the context by briefly stating a specific example. Your examples are brief and you don’t use much knowledge from the text that is provided. This doesn’t show that you understand what you are talking about relating to the context and question that is being asked.
AO2: ⅖ marks
Your response is clear and can be understood however there are a few grammatical errors such as commas. This does not impede communication though. Your content is relevant to the topic of the relation between language and thought but again it is brief. To make the ideas developed explain more about what is being said in the examples except just saying the examples and that is it. This would also help you meet your word count.
AO4: 3/10 marks
You show a basic understanding of the linguistic topics as you use them in examples. You do state-specific theories or buzzwords to strengthen your writing. Again you should be more in-depth when explaining this way you can show a basic or clear understanding of the context being provided.
Overall 9/25 marks
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteAO1: 3 marks
You just have a rudimentary grasp of the text. Meaning, context, and audience are all mentioned. Only a few specific topics are mentioned. The reason I say so is because you only presented a summary of the text and didn't really provide an explanation or your own opinion on the subject.“In English if someone broke a cup, even accidently, we would say ”She broke the cup”. However, in Japanese they would say something similar to ,”the cup broke itself”.” This is an example of what and how you may say or speak on your blog, and it was quite short and didn't go into great detail. This example you provided from the literature was discussed extensively in the text and was a wonderful topic to discuss how It was restricted.
AO2: 1 mark
Because you didn't employ much contact in the text, I could perform a simple expression. Even though you didn't make many mistakes, the information you utilized was irrelevant and might have developed the thoughts of the issue you were discussing better. As a result, you failed to include your own contribution and background information. “This article can relate to the genderlect theory in a sort of way. This is due to the fact that Borditsky looked at the differences between people of other languages and thought.” This is a quotation from your blog, and you attempted to provide your background knowledge and larger studies to the theory utilized in the text, but it did not work out in your favor since it did not flow, and you lost your reader at this point.
AO4: 2 marks
Basic comprehension I've been going at it using the text's principles, methodologies, and approaches. That is because you did not use any of your prior knowledge to help your reader grasp and comprehend the content. There are just a few allusions to broader language stick topics, concepts, methodologies, and approaches. The reason I think so is because you just employed one approach throughout the whole text analysis. “The Sapir-Whorf theory supports Boroditsky’s theory very well. The Sapir Whorf theory looks into the words and grammar of the English language and how it relates to people's thoughts.” This sample was created from your own blog, and as you can see, it was difficult to read. And you tried to provide you with a broader range of linguistic options and ways, but it didn't work out, and it came out choppy and difficult to follow.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThis blog is pretty good but you are weird. I think that this blog was pretty short but it has some pretty good points. For AO1 i think that you had shown a limited understanding of the text and the language that was discussed so i would give you 3 marks because of your horrid stench. I also think that for AO2 you had shown a clear expression but it did not flow very well so i would give you 2 marks. For AO4 i also think that you had shown a clear understanding of the linguistic concepts that were discussed in the text so i would give you 4 marks. Overall that's 9 marks. Great Job!