Blog for Friday, Oct. 2: Introduction!

For this week's blog, you will compose the introduction to your paper. As Hacker says, a good length for an introduction is between 50 and 150 words. Write an introduction and integrate your thesis into it.

This introduction needs to do several things. It needs to grab your reader's attention. You should establish the topic and show that you know something about the topic -- that is, you need to evince your academic credibility. Also, be sure that your writing leads up to your thesis statement(s) effectively.

This is a short assignment, but I expect you to work hard to polish this into a strong and interesting introduction! Finally, as this is a formal paper, make sure your writing is clear and conforms to Standard English grammar.

Language Learning: DeShan

The learning of a language is done through a person’s biological composition and through their cultural surroundings.


“They know that it is man’s most important cultural invention, the quintessential example of his capacity to use symbols and a biologically unprecedented event irrevocably separating him from other animals. (Pinker, instinct 17)”

“it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. (Pinker, instinct 18)”

“some cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological faculty, a mental organ, a neural system, and a computational module. But I prefer the admittedly quaint term “instinct.” (Pinker, instinct 18)”


Justin DeShan

blog jack dowdell

How do we learn language

Thesis: Language is learned using both biological and cultural drives.

“In spite of commonsense notions parents do not actually teach their children to speak. Children learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends and other sources. “(Daniels 19)

This quote would be useful in showing that language is a instinct. The child right off the bat listens to all the sources listed above to learn how to better communicate and interact with his world.

“In the tiny gap between the time the light reflected off your thumb till when it reached your eyes your brain had to scan its memory and compares its features to recall past information” (Shakespeare 61)

This shows the biology of language. Retracting a word is a process of the brain. It shows instinct

“Languages are intimately related to the societies and individuals who use them” (daniels 31)

This quote clearly demonstrates how culture plays a major role in the learning of a language.

The Effectiveness of Human Language vs. Animal Communication or Language

Ryan Carr
Composition 1101
Professor Hughes
Blog 5
Thesis Statement

The Effectiveness of Human Language vs. Animal Communication or Language

Animal communication is limited in its effectiveness because it cannot be used to relate to the past or the future. However, it can communicate the present by using vocal utterances and gestures as it relates to their surroundings. Therefore, they are limited in their effectiveness of communication. Human’s communication through language can convey their thoughts and intents about the past, present, and future clearly and concisely. Their articulation of language is more effective because of the use of utterances, signals, and gestures along with an infinite vocabulary.

“Hey! Hey! Get outa there!” (George Yule, pg 8) An example of harbor seals copying human language using utterances. Do they understand what they are vocalizing or is it a conditioned behavior? This will be discussed as a supporting statement of credibility.

“Humans are continually creating new expressions and novel utterances…the potential number of utterances in any human language is infinite.” (George Yule, pg 10) There can be no question as to the effectiveness of the human language vs. animal language however, the limitation of animals ability to learn human language does not in itself lessen the effectiveness they have in communicating with each other. This will be discussed as a counterargument.

“Important lessons have been learned from attempts to teach chimpanzees how to use forms of language.” (George Yule, pg 16) Chimpanzees have proven their ability to relate to human language. Is this because they were conditioned by animal trainers to produce certain responses? Although the evidence supports the chimpanzees’ use of sign language among each other when no humans were present there is still much controversy over the effectiveness of their communication on a human level. This will be used as an evidentiary topic.

Can language express our emotion?

Thesis: We all seem to have those moments in life where we cannot seem to put our emotions into words and even when we are able to place our emotions into language, are we accurately describing our feelings? One might object and say they are confident in expressing themselves but, language is no comparison to expression of emotion therefore it makes it difficult to express our self or understand the experience of others.

Main Source: Stumbling on Happiness  By: Daniel Gilbert

Quote 1:  (Gilbert p. 60)

“And yet, strange as it is, there are times when people seem not to know their own hearts. When conjoined twins claim to be happy, we have to wonder if perhaps they just think they’re happy. This is, they may believe what they are saying, but what they’re saying may be wrong. Before we can decided whether to accept people’s claims about their happiness, we must first decide whether people can, in principle, be mistaken about what they feel.”

This quote is an excellent example of establishing credibility from the main source I have chosen, Gilbert. He clearly states in this quote that he does not believe that people are always accurate on how they feel and whether they even truly believe what they state. It will always be a great way to connect the personal experience of the little boy without one of his limbs. With a strong persuasive argument and the connection to a creditable author readers will be more likely to accept my position on an individual’s expression of emotion.

Quote 2: (Gilbert p.45)

“One of the functions of language is to help us palp them—to help us extract and remember the important features of our experiences so that we can analyze and communicate them later.”

Within this quote there is a direct reference to language in comparison to our experiences. I plan to utilize this quote to establish how language is meant to allow us to express things we have experienced and also to share these experiences of our life with other people. It shows that in general all people who have language have the capability to express themselves whether they can accurately or not.

Quote 3:  (Gilbert p.70)

“As we have seen, it is extremely difficult to measure and individual’s happiness and feel completely confident in the validity and reliability of that measurement.”

More than likely, I will develop this quote toward the end of my paper when I am trying to ensure I have established my view and show how difficult it is to use language to express and measure our happiness and feelings. If we cannot accurately use language in our own experience how can we even attempt to judge, and express the happiness and feelings of others?

Language Authority in the United States of America

Thesis: Language and people in the United States would suffer if the nation was to mirror France by standardizing language.

Quote 1
"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, 'Grandma, I don't understand you,' " Wright says.”She said, 'Then who are you?' "
Wright says he told her his name was Billy. “‘Your name's not Billy. Your name's 'TAH-rruhm,' “she told him.”And I went, 'That's not what they told me.' " (Bear, paragraphs 14-15)

This quote helps to convey the message that standardizing English isolates people from older generations who may or may not have been through the educational system. It also shows that when America tried to control language win the past with the American Indian people, the general effects were negative.

Quote 2
“There has never been a successful academy to govern the English language, either in Britain or the United States”. (Curzan page 34)

This quote will help me to show that previous attempts to standardize English have failed, which could lead me to saying that the English language is too complex and diverse to ever really restrict by the method of standardization.

Quote 3
“An arbitrary, open conventional system of sounds used for communication within a linguistic community”. (Tomassi’s definition of language)

This definition shows that standardizing English would be a direct contradiction of Tomassi’s definition of language; we are supposed to be able to come up with new words and be free to use them as the evolution new words and phrases helps language, rather than hindering it.

Should there be an official language authority in the United States?

Through many attempts to create an official language authority in the United States, all have failed. Although some individuals believe that this change would be for the better, it, in fact, would not. Language authorities of America should remain extinct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-"Second, the network of authorities that assumes responsibility for prescribing the standards for the English language is an informal one, not all authorities are 'on the same page'"(Curzan 38)

--This is questioning the "would be" authorities of language. It conveys the idea that the authorities would not be any more qualified than an average citizen. Also, that no two people are the same. Therefore, how could these people be relied on to determine right and wrong in a language?


-"Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto that i flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that i have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify. -Johnson 1974/1975.9 (Curzan, 35)

--Here Samuel Johnson discusses his realizations that the publishing of his dictionary was not as successful in limiting a word to one specific, or few, meaning. Johnson confesses that his previous purpose in publishing the dictionary will fail as a standard. He explains that there are no examples that show a language remaining the same for a long period of time. Language is always changing.


-"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to speak Indian to her and I said, 'grandma, i don't understand you,'" Wright says, "she said, 'then who are you?'" Wright then says that he told her his name was Billy. She responds by saying, "Your name is TAH-rruhm."Wright then responds by saying, "that's not what they told me". (Bear, paragraphs 14 and 15)

--This displays an example of the dramatic effects, in history, of an individual being forced to speak a certain way. It takes away from the individual's identity and their character. It also limits the person's ability to fully express them self.

Biological and Cultural Language

Do remember speaking your first word or your first phrase? Do you remember how you obtained the knowledge to speak it and how you knew exactly what to say? Language is a form that is considered both biological and cultural, especially when dealing with how to learn it.



"In spite of the commonsense notions of parents, they do not "teach" their children to talk. Children learn to talk, using the language of their parents, siblings, friends, and others as sources and examples -- and by using other speakers as testing devices for their own emerging ideas about language." (Daniels, pg 19)

-Children learn to speak by simply observing the ones around them. Parents can not speak baby, so ergo they can not translate what they want to get across to their infant by speaking "baby" language to "grown" up language. There has been proven sign language that aids in communication between infant and adult, but that is not the same communication as a spoken out loud language. Children learn by simply putting things together by example, observation, and listening.


"Many of the world's languages have a "standard" dialect." (Daniels, pg 24)

-This quote helps support the fact that language is also cultural. Although the "standard" language in the United States is English, there can be some consideration that there are different dialects. Take for instance, Black English and good 'ole southern English. The same language, English, is spoken, just with different twists to them and different termonology when referring to different things. Also with northerners and southerners. It depends on your cultural background for which dialect you may speak. For instance, I was born and have been raised in the south, so I use some termonology that northerners don't use, but we still speak the same language. I might say "Can y'all please pass the sweet tea?" or "I'm going for a swim down at the holler." and they may have no idea what that is.


"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, 'Grandma, I don't understand you,' " Wright says. "She said, 'Then who are you?' " (Bear, pg 1)

-This quote clearly shows how language is a very vital and meaningful part of their culture. I think it even has more of a special meaning to them, since it is a part of their culture and who they are. They are the minority and their race is thinning out, so the fact that their language survive is crucial. Their cultural language is as much of their identity as their actual physical traits.

"OInkers Oink and Talkers Talk, Oinkers Don't Talk"

THESIS STATEMENT

Let's face it, people and animals have their own distinct languages regardless of what many people think. Animals use what are called communicative signals to communicate with each other. These signals can include motions toward one another, noises (i.e. grunts, growls, purrs, etc.), and other actions. As we all know, humans use a far more extensive form of communication that involves emotion, expressions, and some extensive verbal skills. With this being the case, it is very apparent that animals and humans both have their own language and ways of communication leading to the statement that humans and animals cannot communicate with each other. They each have their own unique ways of communication that serve the purpose of communicating between each other but does not extend to ways of communication between the species.

QUOTES

"Humans are continually creating new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations. This property is described as productivity and it is linked to the fact that the potential number of utterances in any human language is infinite." (Yuler 10)

-This quote will be useful in crediting the point that human language is far more advanced than animal language and continues to grow as time goes by.

"The limiting feature of animal communication is described in terms of fixed reference. Each signal in the system is fixed as relating to a particular object or occasion." (Yuler 11)

-This quote will be used as my argument from the animal point of view. It backs up my statement of animals using noises and actions to communicate while they lack the more advanced concepts of language that humans have.

"It is clear that humans are born with some kind of predisposition to acquire language in a general sense............We acquire our first language as children in a culture."

-This may seem like an out of place quote but I am going to tie in several concepts from class. As Yule states, we acquire our first language from a culture. Granted that animals and humans are different species, both species learn language from what their surroundings. This may seem like a weak argument but no matter what the species, if the species does not have the the amount of teaching that another species has, the lesser educated species will not have as strong of a language base.

The ability of animals to communicate with each other is very obvious, but the ability of an animal to have a language is not present. There is no denying that any animal found in the wild or in captivity can use some form of communication; the inability of humans to understand or comprehend the noises is the reason people disagree that animals have language, though.

Quote 1
"In one experiment, a hive of bees was placed at the foot of a radio tower and food source was placed at the top. Ten bees were taken to the top, shown the food source, and sent off to tell the rest of the hive about their find. The message was conveyed via bee dance and the whole gang buzzed off to get the free food." (Animals and Human Language 11)

This proves that animals can communicate. I will use this statement to support the argument that animals can communicate with each other. When the bees dance they are signaling by the direction they dance which way the food is so the other bees can go feed as well.

Quote 2
"Among other creatures, each communicative signal appears to be a single fixed form that cannot be broken down into separate parts." (Animals and Language 12)

This is another statement supporting the fact that animals can communicate. It also leads into the point that animal's communication is not complex. It is a simple repititon of the same sounds for the same meaning. The meanings are usually not new, but ones that have been used over and over. These meanings would mostly be about food, mating, and other native actions.

Quote 3
"You could keep your horse in a field of cows for years, but it still won't say Moo." (Animals and Human Language 15)

Animals can communicate, that is supported through much evidence; however, the diversity of the communication is poor. Dogs can only communicate with other dogs, and cows can only understand other cows. This leads to a point that animals have different forms of communication. They have different biological limits in communicating, so a cow cannot understand a horse or a chicken on a farm.

Should the U.S. have a language authority or even a national language?

Thesis: The United States does not have the authority to force its inhabitants to adopt one specific language or language type.

“There has never been a successful academy to govern the English language, either in Britain or in the United States, although it has certainly been suggested.” (Curzan, 34).

-This quote supports the idea that the U.S. just cannot have a language authority. I plan to use the quote to support my assertion about the inability to have an authority in the U.S. partially because it has never worked in the past.

“Students at federal boarding schools were forbidden to express their culture—everything from wearing long hair to speaking even a single Indian word.” (“American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many,” Para 13).

-The statement in this quote could be used as a ‘shocker’ element to show just how terrible the Native Americans were being treated. I could use this to make the point that Americans have attempted to force their culture on people in the past.

“It follows that no language or dialect is superior to any other and that models of verbal communication cannot be ranked according to complexity, expressiveness, or any other virtue.” (Dalrymple, Para 18).

-I would use this quote as a straightforward reason for why the U.S. should not force a particular language on people. This blatantly says that all languages are equal, and if all are equal then there is no reason to mandate the use of one specific language.

Animals Language

Although animals are not able to communicate the same as humans do, they have their own way of communicating through sounds, signals, and how they carry themselves. If animals were unable to communicate, they would not be able to get what they want or exclaim how they feel.

The Study of Language-George Yule
(p. 9)
“It has been proposed that bee communication may have the property of displacement. For example, when a worker bee finds a source of nectar and returns to the beehive, it can perform a complex dance routine to communicate to the other bees the location of this nectar. Depending on the type of dance (round dance for nearby and tail-wagging dance, with variable tempo, for further away and how far), the other bees can work out where this newly discovered feast can be found.”
This portrays how the bees communicate and can inform each other exactly where the nectar is. Animals may not understand what we are saying because we have our language just like we are not able to understand the language that they are “speaking".

(p. 11)
"Each signal in the system is fixed as relating to a particular object or occasion. Among the vervet monkey’s repertoire, there is one danger signal CHUTTER, which is used when a snake is around, and another RRAUP, used when an eagle is spotted nearby."
Monkeys are able to tell each other when and what is coming to attack them. This proves that there is a communication between the different monkeys that allow them to tell others what they are seeing, thinking, and feeling.

(p. 15)
“Washoe lived in a domestic environment with a lot of opportunity for imaginative play and interaction with fluent signers who were also using sign language with each other. They report that a group of younger chimpanzees not only learned sign language, but used it with each other and with Washoe, even when there were no humans present”
This is proof that animals do not merely mimic because they will receive something for their actions. This is proving that the animals are communicating what they are feeling not only for the humans but for themselves as well.

Language: Biological, Cultural, or Both?

Thesis Statement- We as humans learn language not from biological impulses or the culture in which we are raised but rather a combination of the two: An instinctive drive to learn the language which surrounds us.

Quotes:

"He does so because the faculty of language is part of human nature, inscribed in man’s physical being, as it were, and almost independent of environment." (Dalrymple "The Gift of Language")

-I think this quote will be useful simply because it can easily be debatable because he is saying that language can be solely learned from just environment.

"Children will learn their native language adequately whatever anyone does, and the attempt to teach them language is fraught with psychological perils. For example, to “correct” the way a child speaks is potentially to give him what used to be called an inferiority complex. Moreover, when schools undertake such correction, they risk dividing the child from his parents and social milieu, for he will speak in one way and live in another, creating hostility and possibly rejection all around him. But happily, since every child is a linguistic genius, there is no need to do any such thing. Every child will have the linguistic equipment he needs, merely by virtue of growing older." (Dalrymple "The Gift of Language")

- This quote is saying that a child learns his language as he goes on in life. And if we were to change what he knows then that would be like taking him away from what he learned growing up and was born with. I could use this in my paper as if it were biological and cultural based on the fact that he is learning the language that he was raised up on but also that could be his culture.

"I find it difficult to believe that this is entirely a coincidence and that imitation has nothing to do with it. Moreover, it is a sociological truism that children tend to speak not merely the language but the dialect of their parents." (Dalrymple "The Gift of Language")

- This is saying that the child is speaking what he has heard all his/her life from listening to parents. Basically I could argue from what I just said above on the last quote.

Two Assets to the Learning of Language

Thesis Sentence

The learning processes to conceive a language come from two very different contributors in a congenital sense along with cultural interactions to determine language development whether derived from the learning from cultural influence, or our biological make-up as human beings as the "instinct to acquire an art."

Opening Paragraph Quotes Pinker(16-17)
"A common language connects the members of a community into an information-sharing network..."
"Language is so tightly woven into human experience that it is scarcely possible to imagine life without it."

Learning from influence/culture
"...verbal communication is the spoken language we acquired as children"Pinker(16)
"...children learn to talk from role models and caregivers."Pinker(18)

Children learn by forms of mocking their caregivers and role models. This form of mocking those around them, is often encouraged by the caregivers of a child due to the fact that a mother wants to hear her child say "mommy" first instead of "daddy." The repeating of words leads to the links between words and objects to help define a child's language. Later in life, children learn to act in different ways in order to get something they want or need. Often times their communication skills seem undeveloped and then are corrected by those around them. Therefore, the learning of language comes from the influence of those who surround them throughout their family and culture.

Biological Make-up
"...it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction..."Pinker(18)
"...language ability is "an instinctive ability to acquire an art,"Pinker (20)

The idea that language comes naturally to a child seems plausible. Therefore, it would prove true that language falls under the classification of an instinct. Children feel the need to communicate with their surroundings. Therefore, language seems to lie forever as a pre-determined biological means of communication. The need to express emotions and the needs of a child to communicate, play a major role in the acquiring of the languages people speak today.

Comparing Human and Animal Communication

Thesis: When comparing the language of humans and animals it is easy to see that humans have a more complex way of speaking. Displacement, productivity, arbitrariness, cultural transmission, and duality are the elements that make human language more complex and greater than that of an animal.

“As in many critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees’ behavior is views as a type of conditioned response to cues provided (often unwittingly) by human trainers.” (Yule 15)
- This backs up the point that animals may learn or be conditioned to respond in a way that humans can understand, but it’s not their second nature. If you were to try interacting with a wild chimpanzee you would not get the same encounter had the chimp been raised in captivity around humans. I would use this to back up the point that animals do not automatically know how to communicate with humans.

“Because chimpanzees lack the vocal apparatus to make a variety of modulated sounds, the animals were taught a vocabulary of hand signs -- an approach first suggested in the 18th century by the French physician Julien Offray de La Mettrie.” (http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html)
- Biologically a chimpanzee is not going to be able to form words like humans. They are able to make grunts but that’s as far as their speech gets. This supports my point that animals can not talk like humans.

""All primates express emotions, but because of her command of sign language, Koko can convey to us feelings that her wild counterparts cannot," explains Dr. Francine (Penny) Patterson, who heads the Gorilla Foundation and has been working with Koko and teaching her sign language since 1972.” (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/koko/)
-Even though animals may not be able to verbally speak they still have forms of communication. Animals are capable of learning, but will this language they have learned be temporary. This supports the fact that animals can communicate, but they have to be conditioned

“In appearances on television talk shows, trainers claimed the chimps could construct sentences of several words. But upon closer examination, scientists found strong evidence that the chimps had simply learned to please their teachers by contorting their hands into all kinds of configurations. And the trainers, straining to find examples of linguistic communication, thought they saw words among the wiggling, like children seeing pictures in the clouds.” (http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html)
- This explores the fact that animals may not actually know what they are signing. The Law of Effect means that if you do something and you get a good result you are more likely to do it again. This is the counterargument for the point I’m trying to make in my paper. This says that animals just do signing to please their trainers, and they do not really understand.

Animal Communcication

Thesis

One would believe that animals have a way of communicating based on sound. When in reality these sounds are the lack of language because of displacement, arbitrariness and productivity.

Quotes
“when your dog says Grrr, it means Grrr, right now,because dogs don't seem capable of communicating Grrr,last night, over in the park. In contrast, human language users are normally capable of producing messages equivalent to Grr, last night, over in the park, and then going to say In fact, I'll be going back tomorrow for some more."(pg.9)

- This quote describes what displacement is all about. Displacement is the property of human language to refer to the past and future time. For example in this quote even though a dog says Grr, he is not describing I want to go to the park today or tomorrow because they are not capable if accomplishing such a task.

"For the majority if animal signals, there does not appear to be a clear connection between the conveyed message and the signal used to convey it. This impression we have of the non-arbitrariness of the animal signaling may be closely connected to the fact that, for any animal, the set of signals used in communication is finite. That is, each variety of animal communication consists of a fixed and limited set of vocal or gesture forms."(pg.10)

-This quote describes what arbitrariness is in relation to animal communication. It declares that even though just like human language their sounds do not directly correlate with what they sound like. They are not communicating through language because they are limited in their vocal capability.

“Productivity (or creativity or openendness) and it is linked to the fact that the potential number if utterances in my human language is infinite. The communications systems of other creatures do not appear to have this type of flexibility. Cicadas have four signals to choose from and vervet monkeys have thirty-six vocal calls."

Should There be an Authority on Language in America?

The United States of America does not have an official language, therefore there is no need of an authority to govern one.  It would be unfair to have an authority because it would force people to conform, possibly losing their culture, it would make America look hypocritical as she calls herself a melting pot of nations, and it would take away from the diversity of the nation.

“Today, english is governed by a loose network of “language authorities,”; English teachers, editors, journalists, columnists on language, and authors/editors of dictionaries, grammar and usage books, and style guides.” 

This could be a useful quote because it gives examples of the current “authorities” of language.  Though they’re not official, we give them the authority they have.

"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, 'Grandma, I don't understand you,' " Wright says. "She said, 'Then who are you?' "- Bill Wright                         This is useful because it shows first hand the negative experiences of trying to embrace an authority of language, such is the case in the mid 20th century when Americans tried to force Native Americans to learn English and lose their culture.

“...however, he seems to have realized that English would change despite efforts to keep it stable.”       This quote would be useful as in introductory to discussing the melting pot of cultures.  It helps explain the effects of such a large diversity of culture, leading to a constant changing of the English language.  This would mean an authority would be useless if the language is changing that often.

Blog 4 OED vs UD:Bad

Ryan Carr
Composition 1101
Dr. Hughes
Blog 4
OED vs UD: “Bad”

Composition 1101 is bad! This phrase describes in urban slang my perspective of the class, Composition 1101. I find it challenging and am definitely enjoying the experience of learning the different styles of writing. My class, Composition 1101 is bad, is a phrase that means the opposite in the prescriptive definition of the Oxford English Dictionary. This definition, of course is not my perspective however I prefer this definition as I am a very traditional person. The scholars who authorized the linguistic terms defined in the OED base their professional opinions on the long standing custom or usage of the words they define. They are defining the normal standard of use over many, sometimes hundreds of years. Therefore, their definitions are particularly in the prescriptive form. “Bad” meaning: “not achieving an adequate standard”, “evil”, “sinful”, “vulgar” or “obscene”. The OED is the “Gold Standard” of defining the English Language.

In comparison to the OED, the Urban Dictionary is a slang, modern, and descriptive source for terms and its definition. “Bad” meaning: “good”, “great”, “a lot” or “good looking or attractive wanted by many”. Such as, “I love you so bad!” and “she is bad!”
This reference claims its origin or use is derived from “Black English”. Its use is slang and the authority is known and unknown as it is posted by viewpoints of anyone who cares to submit their ideas of American Slang. Both the OED and the UD compose its definition as an adjective.

The references, OED and UD are equally accurate today, according to the use of language and the intent of its user. However, I prefer the OED as the standard reference for the English Language when needed for articulating standard, formal English. Although, the UD is informative and useful in today’s environment such as how language is currently used on the internet, informal writing, and communication. These “everyday”, “slang” uses are an important part of our society and culture as we become more “mosaic” or “blended” as an American, English speaking nation. It is important to relate to those around you whether you prefer one form of speech to another, so that you can clearly understand what message it is that someone is communicating to you be it written or spoken.

Blog Prompt for Friday, Sept. 25

Dear All,

This week for your blog you will be preparing to write your first formal paper. Here is what you need to do.

The title of your blog should be your topic. That is, in the "Title" block should be something like: "Learning Langauge: Biological or Cultural?," "Defining Animal and Human Communication," or "Language Authority in the United States."

Write your thesis statement/s. Remember that it should be CLEAR, PRECISE, and DEBATABLE. As discussed, sometimes, a thesis "statement" can be more than one sentence.

Record and cite (author, page number!) three quotes from the reading that you think you could use as material to establish credibility, as evidence for your argument, or as a counterargument that you will address.

After each quote, explain in a few sentences what the quote means and how you plan on using it in the essay (credibility, evidence, counterargument).

I will not be checking the length of your blog, but this is not an invitation to slack off. Your explanations of the quotes will take some effort! I will be grading you on how well you followed directions, and how well you pulled the material together as the basis of your paper. Your writing should be in formal Standard English -- I will mark down for poor or sloppy grammar.

We will be going over these blogs in class on Friday!

The world has changed very much over the past hundred or so years and so has the English language. Many words have gained new meanings that people in the olden days just wouldn’t understand. The word “chronic” is no different. The Oxford English Dictionary defines chronic as “of or relating to time, or lasting a long time, long-continued, lingering, inveterate.” The Urban Dictionary has a little bit of a different definition. The Urban Dictionary defines chronic “as very potent, high grade marijuana, typically categorized by it’s lack of seeds and high concentrations of white or opaque crystals.” Chronic is also known as marijuana that is laced with cocaine for a more intense high that lasts longer. I find it interesting because the Oxford definition defines it as lasting a long time and chronic is the strongest type of weed which gives you a longer lasting high. I guess Snoop Doggy Dog did his research before he started rapping about it. The Oxford English Dictionary derives its authority from the fact that it has been around for such a long time and is one of the largest English dictionaries. The original authorities of the OED were John Simpson, Edmund Weiner and many other college scholars. The Oxford Dictionary is descriptive and the Urban Dictionary is prescriptive. The Oxford Dictionary is much more reliable of a source because college scholars are the ones that compose the definitions. In the Urban Dictionary, anyone who feels like composing a definition is allowed to do it. The Urban Dictionary has many words that the Oxford English Dictionary does not have because many of the words have been recently added to our language, or they have just gained a new meaning. The OED is more accurate than the Urban Dictionary because not just anyone can compose a definition in the OED.

jack dowdell blog 5

The English language is a very difficult language to learn for many reasons. One of these reasons is the fact that many words and phrases have multiple meanings. For example, the phrase “ I heard that” literally conveys, that I physically heard the noise that was made or i understand the sentence that was just spoken to me. However, it also can express agreement to a statement recently made by another person. The English language is chock full of these double ended words and phrases.

Of all the doubles in the English language the word “Cougar” is by far my favorite.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word cougar as a large feline quadruped, found wild in most parts of America: also called puma catamount etc. The forementioned definition of the word is its original intention. Hundreds of years ago some men came across a large cat and decided to call it as such.

As we have learned in this class though language is a constantly evolving and changing entity that will adapt to meet the needs of the world as it currently is. Because of this we now have a secondary meaning to the word cougar. Urban dictionary defines the word cougar as an older woman who frequents clubs in order to score a much younger man. This new definition of the word cougar is a pure reflection of changing times. The definitions are in no way related except for the word they define.

This brings up the question of which of these definitions is correct? Because there is technically no English standard truly we can not make that distinction. We can, however, examine the source of the knowledge and input in the definitions and through this make a stab at which one is more correct for usage in papers speeches etc. 

The source of our first definition is the Oxford English Dictionary. For all intensive purposes this is the correct source for formal settings. It is a peer reviewed source meaning that it is reviewed and corrected by Professors as well as other academics and represents the traditions of the English language. This gives it credibility and makes it the place to find prescriptive definitions.

Urban Dictionary is the exact opposite of Oxford English Dictionary. It is a wiki style source in which the words are added by users as they appear in the lives of American youth. Because it is so new though it is highly unlikely you will find a definition accepted by the world of academia. This makes this a source of descriptive definitions because it is not qualified, but rather describes current situations.

These sources are a good reflection of the English language as it is today. A combination of both the old order preserving the integrity and tradition of the English language, as well as the youth of America making up new words to carry the language into the future.

Righteous

The word I have chosen is righteous. I heard somone say it today when they were referring to something being completely incredible, so it made me wonder about the different ways you can use the word righteous. I have never thought about using the word righteous in my normal, everyday vocabulary so I decided to look it up. Occording to Oxford English dictionary, the word righteous means, "1. a. Of persons: Just, upright, virtuous; guiltless, sinless; conforming to the standard of the divine or the moral law; acting rightly or justly. 2. Of actions, etc.: Characterized by justice or uprightness; morally right or justifiable. Chiefly Sc. Rightful, lawful, legitimate. Right, genuine; correct, exact. Obs. rare." In comparison, the Urban Dictionary states righteous as, " Containing the best possible attributable qualities. A state of extreme perfection bordering on divinity that bestows moral authority upon the subject. Amazingly amazing." The Oxford English dictionary is a professional useful source of dependable meanings to words. The author worked for many, many years with a team trying to perfect every word and and include a variety of words spoken in the english language. The Urban Dictionary, on the other hand, is not a dependable source of vocabulary knowledge. The Urban Dictionary has been known for being more "crude" and also anyone can log on and edit the meaning, make it their very own. Taking into account all of the facts, I believe the Oxford English Dictionary is the more dependable source and it would definately be the one I would always turn to for answers. The Oxford English dictionary is more prescriptive while the Urban dictionary is descriptive. The prescriptive category would be the more accurate and dependable one if you are looking for a more professional meaning. There are different meanings to different people though. To the surfer, righteous might be used to refer to a totally wicked wave he just dominated but to a religious person, it might be a comparison to someone's actions. The difference between the two is that we have taken words and put a modern, slang twist to them and made them into meaning something new and different, along with the old meaning. Personally, when trying to be professional, I will always use the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and will hardly use the Urban Dictionary definitions. If I want to use a definition along those lines, then I will just make it up myself from the slang I use!

Cougar

Cougar… Rrrrrrrr! This word may bring one of two images to your mind. Typically, the first thing that most people would instantly associate with cougar is the image of a courageous feline. In contrast, some people might correlate cougar with an aggressive, slightly older lady. (This definition will get more detailed as you read later.) Depending on which image came to mind, you are indiscreetly revealing your age or the generation you grew up during. Oxford English Dictionary Online defines cougar as “a large feline quadruped, found in most parts of America; also called puma, red tiger, American lion etc.” More enticing, one of my favorite definitions of many from the Urban Dictionary defines cougar as: (see also hunt, prowl, corner, pounce). Noun. A 35+ year old female who is on the "hunt" for a much younger, energetic, willing-to-do-anything male. The cougar can frequently be seen in a padded bra, cleavage exposed, propped up against a swanky bar in San Francisco (or other cities) waiting, watching, calculating; gearing up to sink her claws into an innocent young and strapping buck who happens to cross her path. "Man is cougar's number one prey.” There is obviously great distinction in these diverse definitions. One refers to and animal and the other is in reference to an older female. Such contradiction derives from the sources of authority behind each of these established definitions. Authority in the Oxford English Dictionary Online is prescriptive because their definitions are established by educated and qualified individuals to give a standard meaning to the word. It is typically used as a standard dictionary for a scholar. The Urban Dictionary is a descriptive authority because it is how we speak, the plain fact, and not a standard. This dictionary would be good for trying to define newer terms or slang words that have recently developed. Such a divergence in one definition is due to how the word’s use has changed over time. Younger generations would more likely associate with the second image of the word cougar because it is becoming increasingly popular to use the slang “cougar” to describe these older ladies. Although I am bias of the Urban Dictionary definition of “cougar”, I still believe that an Oxford English Dictionary definition would be more accurate because it is the typical definition of cougar. It is a dependable source. Urban Dictionary is an unreliable and inaccurate source for many words because it does not have a standard for who can establish the definition of a word. Therefore allowing anyone to have the capability to change a word based on what they think it is will vary drastically and be inconsistent among numerous amounts of people. This is why there were pages of definitions of “cougar” although many of them were similar everyone seemed to have their own different way of defining this word. A definition should be consistent and accurate.

english blog 5

If you were to ask my granddad what the meaning of “bitch” was, he would respond by saying, “A female dog” and look at me with a puzzled expression as to why I asked him such a simple question. On the other hand if you were to ask one of my friends the same question the first ideas that would spring to their minds would include a person with a bad attitude or someone that always does what others say; even if it degrades them. This shows that as time progresses peoples understanding of certain words changes as they are subjected to different environments.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes the term as being “The female of a dog” and “The term applied opprobriously to a woman; strictly, a lewd or sensual woman. Not now in decent use; but formerly common in literature. In modern use a malicious or treacherous woman; of things: something outstandingly difficult or unpleasant”. The Urban Dictionary contains similar meanings as well as some which are more painful to the ear. For example one entry describes bitch as “A woman that doesn't give a flying f*ck anymore and that can and will be cruel to men”. Another strong example is “An exceedingly whipped guy who does/wears/thinks/says whatever his girlfriend tells him what to do”.

The Oxford English Dictionary derives its authority prescriptively as it includes the mechanisms for establishing and maintaining an interregional language or a standardized spelling system. It also includes declarations of what particular groups consider to be good taste. The addition of new words to the dictionary can be a long process as each definition is painstakingly revised. This time consists of the contributions of several different people, and the work may in fact be spread out over a period of months, during which the entry is drafted, sent out for specialist consultation, and then returned for final editing.
The Urban Dictionary however derives its authority descriptively as it observes and records how language is used in practice. It also eschews value judgments and makes no recommendations unlike prescription. It is very much like Wikipedia as it allows anyone to add their own meanings to the website which as already shown, can result in graphic descriptions being added.

In conclusion I believe that it would be unfair to say either dictionary is better then the other. This is based on the fact that although the Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions are more ‘Standard English’ and politically correct than the Urban Dictionary, the latter’s definitions simply can’t be frowned upon. They may have some degree of graphicness in some of their definitions, but this only highlights the diversity of our language and how it is actually used in today’s world.

Gone

Many words are used in different ways depending on how it is said in a conversation. When a person leaves a room to go somewhere else, the people in the room may say that the person is gone after they left. A different way “gone” may be used is if there is an extremely drunk person to the stage that they do not know what the difference between right and wrong is, the person may be considered “gone”. If a person died, to make it not sound so bad, someone might say, “She has gone to a better place.”
As a person hears the phrase “going once, going twice, gone!” at an auction, it is meaning that the option of purchasing the object for a higher price is going away quickly. A phrase a person may hear the night after a college party is, “that guy at the party last night was completely gone.” Gone in this sense is being completely drunk or high.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines gone as someone who has passed on or who is dead, not here anymore, or unavailable. The Urban Dictionary defines gone as something that is not here anymore, someone who is dead, and is also a word describing a person who is extremely drunk or extremely high. These two different sources which give similar but different definitions are both correct.
They are each correct depending on the text which a person chooses to use this word in. The authorities of the Oxford English Dictionary are scholars which choose to put this word into the dictionary. The authorities of the Urban Dictionary are just random people who have different meanings and different ways they can use the word “gone”.
The Urban Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary are both considered a prescriptive authority because they are telling the reader how the word is used.

What a Cock

To most scholars and people over the age of 25, the word “cock” conjures the image of a rooster. To most college kids, the same “cock” elicits a giggle and the image of the male reproductive organ. According to the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, both definitions, penis and rooster, are correct. Each dictionary also has several other definitions. Most of the definitions in the Urban Dictionary are related to the male reproductive organ and those definitions are very graphic. The definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary are much more diverse. Some examples of the definition of “cock” from the Oxford English Dictionary are: a night watchman, a leader or chief, something that stops the flow of liquid, a part of the mechanism for discharging a firearm, to fight, and to bend up or stick up at an angle. While neither dictionary contains definitions that are wrong, the dictionary that is most accurate, in terms of quality and depth of information, is the Oxford English Dictionary because it has actually been reviewed and worked on by educated people. The reason I feel that the Urban Dictionary is less dependable is that the definitions have been submitted by many people and most of the definitions are repeated with just some words different therefore when you read it, you can get caught up in reading the same thing over and over again. The authority for the Oxford English dictionary is a Chief Editor, which means that it is a prescriptive authority because it is written and reviewed. The authority for the Urban Dictionary is anyone who gets on the website and decides to give a definition for a word. Since there seems to be no editor, I would say that the Urban Dictionary is a descriptive authority because it does not really give any importance to the use of the words in written form.

Sick

The word "sick" has been known for centuries to label someone that is physically ill. The Urban Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary both recognize this word, sick, as a term for describing someone who is not healthy at the time, but the Urban Dictionary has an additional definition or meaning for the word. The history of "sick" can be traced back to the early 1000's. The same meaning has surprisingly stuck for a whole millennium. That record is becoming unheard of for a word to maintain its original meaning for that amount of time. The chain of time has been broken, though.

There is now two additional to the original use of "sick". The common and older version was defined as a person who was suffering from illness. The slang is used to describe something that impresses you or is new, crazy, or daring. Also, it could be describing something bad, as in a prank that was overly rude or crude. This may be identified by a phrase such as, "That joke about her was completely sick." This word could also replace the word cool when referring to an act or material that attracts attention in a good way. An example of this may be, "That trick on his dirt bike was sick." This may be said after a group of people witnessed a new stunt.

The Urban Dictionary is the more modern reference between the two, the other being the Oxford English Dictionary. The Urban Dictionary has the ability to be updated by anyone, as a result it has the most recently updated information. Also, more crude slangs are offered on the Urban Dictionary than the OED, which allows for words to have more interpretations. The usefulness of both sources are limited according to what word is being searched and for what type of definition is being desired. They are both great sources; however, the Urban Dictionary is more geared toward slang and the OED is focused on serious definitions.

Dope

The first term that comes to my mind when thinking of something that would have a definition in both the Oxford English Dictionary and Urban Dictionary is the word “dope.”  In recent times, dope has become a popular word to use to describe the drug heroin, or for those who don’t know what they’re talking about, to reference marijuana.  The authorities of the definition for each dictionary change, as do the definitions.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition for dope is 1. a. Any thick liquid or semi-fluid used as an article of food, or as a lubricant. U.S.  This is a prescriptive definition, being that the authorities from the OED lay out rules for their definitions, based on what they think is “right and wrong.”  This is a very classic definition for the word dope, and can be referenced as far back as 1876.  The authorities of this definition have many degrees in English and devote their lives to deciding definitions of words.

On Urban Dictionary, the definition of the word dope is a little bit different.  My favorite definition for the slang is “heroin, not crack, not powder, but heroin. not marijuana, not meth. but heroin. heroin is the only thing that dope could ever be. people who don't know what dope is are people with very sheltered lives.”  This shows that Urban Dictionary’s authorities are just about anyone who wants to post a definition.  They’re all very much opinionated, and often quite humorous.  There is no “right or wrong” like in the Oxford English Dictionary, but rather pretty much any definition can be posted.

In my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary and Urban Dictionary are useful for different words.  If I wanted just a standard definition for a word, I would use the authorities of the Oxford English Dictionary.  However, for any newer phrases or slang words, Urban Dictionary would give me the most diversity and choices for words.  As can be seen, dope when used in modern speech is a better word to look up on Urban Dictionary than in the Oxford English Dictionary.

OED vs. UD

Merry Bridgeman
Comparing Authorities: OED vs. UD
Dr. Hughes

Everyday our society comes up with more and more words. Sometimes these words are stolen from the past and given a new meaning or created to fit something that has just been invented. Most of these new words or meanings can usually be somewhat insulting. Faggot, for example, is a word that has much controversy. This word has the power to be very demeaning and rude. With the word, faggot, one can see how over time society changed a words meaning to something totally different.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives several meaning for the word faggot. Some of these definitions include “A bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees bound together and the practice of burning heretics alive.” It even includes the slang definition which we are more familiar with, “a (male) homosexual.” People, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, have been using this word to refer to male homosexuals since around 1941. Even though this word has two different meanings, society tends to use the more discriminatory definition in everyday vocabulary. Urban dictionary is a little more contemporary in the fact that anyone can post a new word or a new definition that they themselves created. For this reason I find this website to be less credible then the Oxford English Dictionary. However, Urban Dictionary did contain both definitions for the word faggot.
There are always going to be some new words that magically appear out of nowhere. Words such as google, blog, and email were not even thought about in the 1950s, but they have become common, household names. Urban Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary can both be extremely helpful resources. However, I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary would be more helpful when looking up words for a paper or school projects. This dictionary is what I would consider to be prescriptive due to the fact that authorities do check over the content to make sure it is correct. On Urban Dictionary, anyone is free to write what they feel a word means and after reading some of their definitions you realize not all of them are correct. This is why I believe it to be a descriptive resource. Not to put Urban Dictionary down because I have used it myself and found it to be very informative, but it probably is not the most reliable source of information.

The Mack Daddy...

The word or term "mac daddy" has it's own special place in both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary. However, both of the dictionaries analyze the word to have the same meaning, but, the authorities, and how they derive their authorities remain quite different. For the Oxford English Dictionary, language specialists decide if the term "mac daddy" can conform to their regulations in order to become endowed with the definition of an actual word or phrase. These authorites, considered to have high rankings in the area of language, are elected an are considered to hold high positions in the dictionary publishing world. In that, lies the opinions of these authorities who see themselves as "over" the language. The term "mac daddy", though it has been formed and used by the slang users of many days in age, is seen as a "true" phrase or word. Therefore, the authorities of the Oxford English Dictionary, recognize this term in their dictionary. Their definition, the most seemingly "correct" explanation of the word, is comprised of " [a] supremely successful, respected, or influential person; spec. a man who is extremely attr
active to or sexually successful with women." Their definition then goes on to say that the term "mac daddy", has been in use since the nineteen sixties. The word shows up in the 1964 publication of the book "Deep Down in Jungle II." The Urban Dictionary depicts the word or phrase "mac daddy" to have the same meaning; but, the term is further described in a more "slang" and lamens terms way. The Urban Dictionary definition consists of "[t]he pimp-meister, the king of the streetwalkers, possessor of the blingest of bling-bling. The mac daddy is the man who means everything (and the only man who really means anything) to his ladies of the night." Therfore, the Urban dictionary appeals to the younger generation of slang users, rather than the proper and more seemingly "politically correct" terms in the Oxford English Dictionary. The Urban Dictionary conforms to the definitions its contributors. These contributors happen to be the people who use the terms, but who are not elected officials or anyone whith a higher ranking language appeal. The definitions of these two dictionaries carry the same word and somewhat the same definitions. However, The Urban Dictionary will appeal more to all readers because of it's almost "humor filled" definitions, contributed by those who know the words the best.

Blog Number 4?? Matthew Peeler

In today's society, there are many words that have a somewhat different meaning than they might have had for years before. As time continues to move forward, certain things that have been a part of society forever start to take on a new meaning. Many times this change will be for the worse as words take on a much more vulgar and explicit meaning compared to its definition throughout history. In my opinion there is not a more perfect example of this than the word "weed".
According to The Oxford English Dictionary a weed is a herbaceous plant not valued for use or beauty, growing wild and rank, and regarded as cumbering the ground or hindering the growth of superior vegetation. This definition is not only the meaning that has been behind this word for years, but it is also the meaning of the word that has pestered so many people when it comes to gardening. Regardless of how annoying this word may be to many, this definition is a far cry to what many people consider the word weed means in today's society.
In contrast to a pesky plant that grows in places where it is not wanted, there is another more modern definition of the word weed. According to Urban Dictionary, the definition of the word weed is God's gift to the world, brings peace when used wisely. Many people, after reading this definition, would ask themselves who would consider a weed as a gift from God? The truth behind this particular meaning of weed however is that "weed" is a word used as a substitute name for the drug marijuana. To many, this may be quite a shock but as the times change, people are becoming more and more familiar with the word weed being associated with the drug opposed to the plants in their gardens that are not so welcome.
As time goes on, things change, including the definitions of words. As I have mentioned here, words do not always change definitions for the good. In my opinion, as sad as it is, the Urban Dictionary definition of the word weed is a more accurate definition simply due to the fact that so many more people today are exposed to this drug. This is purely a sign of the times that we live in today and a perfect example of how a word can change definitions over time.

ICE

The word “ice was meant to be used only to describe only certain things in the human language. Over time, humans have expanded the meaning of the word into a whole different context. The variation of the word "ice” is evident in the differences of the Oxford English Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary. In the Oxford Dictionary, the word “ice” is defined as frozen water; water rendered solid by exposure to a low temperature. You might be thinking to yourself that this definition is very obvious and that there are no other definitions available. The Urban Dictionary tells us otherwise. Among frozen water, it defines “ice” as killing or murdering someone, the street name for the famous methamphetamine drug and the beautiful diamonds that one would wear on a necklace or earring. The differences in these two dictionaries are very fascinating because all of these definitions are in fact true. For example, one would think that there is no way that “ice” could mean to kill or murder someone. But, the term "ice" is used for the describing of a murder, like " that man just got iced" or " if that fool don't pay his rent he is gonna get iced." I know that this is not the proper Standard, but this is what separates the two dictionaries. The problem is that the Oxford Dictionary is descriptive while the Urban Dictionary is prescriptive. This is proven because the Oxford dictionary is written by scholars who have excelled in English courses throughout their college careers. The Urban dictionary can be written by anyone who knows how to use a computer, the fact is that anyone with a brain or no time on their hands can go make up a definition for any word that they choose. The Oxford dictionary has an authority while the Urban Dictionary has none, because everyone can write on it. I believe that the Oxford Dictionary is the more correct dictionary because more people are familiar with the definitions that they use rather than the Urban Dictionary.

Comparing Authorities: OED vs. UD

Dear All,

For your blog this week, you will compare the authoritative practices of two online dictionaries: the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/) and Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/). You will probably have to access the OED from a campus computer.

First, you will need to pick a word. The choice is yours. I recommend you look for a word that is either very new (blog, Google, the verb "to friend") or a word that has interesting differences in meaning when it is used formally or as slang (drug terms like: "chronic," "ice," "snow," "juice"; or slang with a sexual charge like: "dime," "box," "cougar"). Be warned that many definitions that you find on Urban Dictionary contain obscenity and offensive material. If you are uncomfortable analyzing this sort of material, try to choose a word that is not particularly "charged" in our society.

Look up that word in both the OED and Urban Dictionary. Analyze the difference between how the two dictionaries function based upon the entries that you read. While looking up the definitions, consider these questions: How do each of these dictionaries derive their authority? Is it PRESCRIPTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE? Who are the authorities? How are the definitions composed? Do you think the definitions from one are "better" or more accurate than the other? Why?

Your blog should be between 300-600 words, and it should be written in formal Standard English. Your authority is Hacker!

Good luck, and have fun!

Blog 3, Question 1, Tom Crosby

The five properties of human language all help to differentiate ourselves from that of other species. I believe the decisive property which helps separate us is productivity. An example of productivity is that humans continually create new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations. This property is described and is linked to the fact that the potential number of utterances in the human language is infinite. The communication systems of other creatures do not appear to share this type of flexibility. This limited feature of animal communication is described in terms of fixed reference. Each signal in the system is fixed as relating to a particular object or occasion. This inflexibility is supported by the study of velvet monkeys. Among the vervet monkey’s repertoire, there is one danger signal “CHUTTER”, which is used when a snake is around, and another “RRAUP”, used when an eagle is spotted nearby. These signals are fixed in terms of their reference and cannot be manipulated. Evidence of possible productivity in the monkey’s communication system would be an utterance of something like “CHUTT-RRAUP” when a flying creature that looked like a snake came by. Despite a lot of experiments involving snakes suddenly appearing in the air, the vervet monkeys did not produce a new danger signal. If a human were to be put in a similar scenario, they would be quite capable of creating a ‘new’ signal, to respond to the stimulus. For example producing something they have never said before like “Hey! Watch out for that snake!”
In conclusion I believe that although displacement, arbitrariness, cultural transmission and duality play a fundamental part in differentiating human and animal communication, it is productivity which plays the key role. The creation of new words and utterances helps all human languages to continually evolve, adapt to new situations and as a result prosper where as the languages of other species seem to remain static.

blog 3 question 2 jack dowdell

I believe very strongly that our household pets have the ability to communicate with us on a regular basis. I have a 3 year old Wheaton Terrier puppy named Sady. In my home beside our telephone there is a treat jar. Sady has learned that if we are on the phone and she growls long enough we will understand that she wants one. This is an example of communication.

However, this is in no way an example of understanding. When I tell Sady no and to be quiet she does not understand this. She continues to growl because she has learned that if she does eventually we will give in. This is through multiple examples both she and I have had. Through this an expectation has not been reached, not an understanding.

If you truly believe your dog can understand what you are saying then you either suffer from insanity or a very forgiving definition of understanding. Dogs have the ability to interpret circumstances and can learn things by repetition. To show true understanding though Sady would have to ask for a treat when i was nowhere close to her treat jar. She has never done this. She simply sees her treat jar and me in the same vicinity and recognizes circumstance.

Vice versa though Sady has learned some things from me through repeating circumstances. She knows that if i raise my voice at her and she continues her action she will get popped. So now one voice raise is substantial. This is an example of our ability to communicate, in the same instance though if i told her to stop in a low voice she would not because she does not understand me, just remembers past experiences.

Means of communication is a possibility between humans and animals. However I highly doubt understandings will ever be reached. They understand tones and remember circumstances just as we do. A great deal of time with a specific animal is required to reach this point as well. A word for word translation from human to animal language will never happen.

blog 3 question 2

 believe very strongly that our household pets have the ability to communicate with us on a regular basis. I have a 3 year old Wheaton Terrier puppy named Sady. In my home beside our telephone there is a treat jar. Sady has learned that if we are on the phone and she growls long enough we will understand that she wants one. This is an example of communication.

However, this is in no way an example of understanding. When I tell Sady no and to be quiet she does not understand this. She continues to growl because she has learned that if she does eventually we will give in. This is through multiple examples both she and I have had. Through this an expectation has not been reached, not an understanding.

If you truly believe your dog can understand what you are saying then you either suffer from insanity or a very forgiving definition of understanding. Dogs have the ability to interpret circumstances and can learn things by repetition. To show true understanding though Sady would have to ask for a treat when i was nowhere close to her treat jar. She has never done this. She simply sees her treat jar and me in the same vicinity and recognizes circumstance.

Vice versa though Sady has learned some things from me through repeating circumstances. She knows that if i raise my voice at her and she continues her action she will get popped. So now one voice raise is substantial. This is an example of our ability to communicate, in the same instance though if i told her to stop in a low voice she would not because she does not understand me, just remembers past experiences.

Means of communication is a possibility between humans and animals. However I highly doubt understandings will ever be reached. They understand tones and remember circumstances just as we do. A great deal of time with a specific animal is required to reach this point as well. A word for word translation from human to animal language will never happen.

Taylor Haney Blog 3

What makes it so difficult for animals and humans to communicate with one another? Or what is the reason why we can not communicate with each other through speech or a particular language? In Yules book he describes all the reasons and meanings behind it why we as humans and animals can not communicate through a language as I said before. He list five properties in his article that differentiate between human and animal communication: Displacement- When humans can refer to past and future time. Arbitrariness- No “natural” connection between a linguistic form and its meaning. Productivity- When you create new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations. Cultural Transmissions- Process whereby a language is passed on from one generation to the next. Duality- When human language is organized at two levels or layers simultaneously. I believe that displacement and arbitrariness both are the main reasons why we can not communicate with animals. But if I were to chose one it would have to be arbitrariness simply because neither humans or animals have a natural connection with each other. For example, the video we watched of Koko the gorilla, Penny and Koko could communicate but it was by their own sign language if you will. So that means there is still a language barrier there between us humans and animals. Even though there is a language barrier there we can still communicate but not as well as we would like. Also another example would be with a dog. When we say “sit” or any other type of command they will obey most likely just by the way or tone you say it in. I do not think dogs can fully understand us when we say something but just by the way we say it they will do anything. They also do whatever you do by making hand gestures. Back to the conversation on Koko, well see she could let you know when she was mad or sad for example when her cat died because she learned the hand gestures for sad and mad. It shows that while there is still this language barrier that animals have such as Koko, can still communicate.

Blog Prompt 3, Question 2

Ryan Carr
Composition 1101
Professor Hughes
Blog Prompt 3
Question 2

Abbey is my chocolate Labrador Retriever. I also have a Jack Russell Terrier named Bear (an oxymoron). However, my brother’s dog Dexter which is an American Bull Dog is the most communicative of the three. My communication with our domestic pets is not only clear, it is very experienced as the oldest, Abbey is ten years old. Abbey is an absolutely beautiful dog. Her personality is to please no matter what the cost to herself. She will fetch just about any object you ask. Asking her to fetch the remote control is most helpful! She does so with exuberance! When asked, she perks up her ears and watches your expressions explicitly. Once you nod your head that seems to be her signal to perform that task that was assigned verbally. When she has accomplished the mission, she wags her tail in anticipation of praise. Knowing that a treat is in store in the form of a carrot or simply petting her profusely. When she is outside her tail is constantly wagging as a sign of joy. That also communicates her mood as well as when her tail is tucked between the legs conveying her anxiety when she is being scolded for running away. Afterwards her ears are down and she looks as if she had just lost her best friend. When we go inside she lies down on the rug in front of the fireplace and looks forlorn as if to say, “I am so sad I was disobedient”. (reference to Koko clip)
Bear is impishly angelic. His jumping like a Mexican bean when a family member arrives home implies his joyfully elation to the fact that we have not abandoned him forever! His actions imply such happiness! However, when we leave for our daily duties to work, college, and so forth he has separation anxiety which demonstrates itself in shreds of paper, magazines or tissues greeting us upon our arrival home.
Dexter on the other hand is extremely obedient, observant, and communicative. His very gaze and sideways motion of the head sounds his intentions as if he were speaking verbally. Whenever asked to sit, wave, close the door, and many other requests that he has been taught by our family, he seems to blink as if to say, “Okay, gladly!” Then while wagging his tail performs such tasks with a precise execution that shadows any human’s attempt to obey a direct verbal command. Hence he is the most obedient and shows the utmost intelligence in non-verbal communication as even one type of look you give him will command him to sit, stay or even bark. Yes domestic animals, such as our personal family pets are able to understand and communicate with us. (reference to Koko clip)

Blog Prompt 3

Amber Allen 

Language Controversies 

Dr. Hughes

Blog Prompt 3: Human and Animal Communication

Human language is more unique than words could begin to express or explain. In The Study of Language by George Yule there is a chapter about human language in comparison to animals communication.  Through several explanations and examples Yule shows how there is five properties of language and asks us to determine if it is possible that a creature could learn to communicate with humans through language. The five properties and distinctions of human language are the following:  displacement, arbitrariness, cultural transition, productivity, and duality.  Displacement is being capable of referring to past and future time, and talking about events not present in the immediate environment (Yule 9). Arbitrariness is the relationship between linguistic signs and objects in the world (Yule 10). A property of human language that allows humans to continually create new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations is described as productivity (Yule 10). The two levels that are simultaneously organized in the human language is referred to as duality (Yule 12).  After closely examining and studying each of these properties of language presented by Yule, I have concluded that productivity is the most important dimension of human language that differentiates communication of humans and animals.  Productivity makes human language infinite. If one language is infinite and the other is limited, then how is it possible for effective communication to take place? There is great distinction made through the flexibility of humans to create new expressions. Animals are limited in their ability to communicate because they do not have this feature. As Yule explains on page 11, the fixed reference of animal communication is the fact that each signal in the system is fixed as relating to a particular object or occasion.  This aspect separates human and animal communication drastically because it cannot be true communication if there is not an unlimited ability of expression. Animals can undoubtedly communicate in some fashions, but animals certainly do not obtain every distinction of human language. The most important feature animals lack is productivity and this restriction will always keep them from being able to truly communicate with humans. Think about the way humans are even limited in how to express themselves at certain times because they are not able to figure out how to express themselves, and how frustrating this can be. With that in mind, think of how it must always be for an animal trying to communicate. Animals are always limited to their language and expression and because of this I am sure they are never really able to communicate their true meaning in attempting to communicate with humans.

Carol Blog 3

The family pets are thought by many to be creatures who know what their owner is feeling no matter if they are sad, really happy or upset. A domestic animal can tell if their owner is having a bad day or a good day. My family has owned 2 dogs and 2 cats. Our cat, Ginger, was able to communicate whenever he was hungry, wanted to go outside or really mad. The other cat, Willow, understood us so well. Every time my sister would say, “treat”, Willow would go to the step that he would be able to get to the treats the fastest.
Koko is in some ways Penny’s pet. She would communicate with Koko in ways that a person would communicate with their cats and dogs. In the video the class watched about Koko, Koko was able to tell what she was thinking by signing to Penny she was sad that her cat, All-Ball, got hit by a car and died. Although she did not use words like an average person would use their words, she was able to communicate what she thought.
In The Study of Language, George Yule says that when a dog produces woof he does not mean something just with the word woof. The dog is trying to convey different meanings every time they bark and we understand that by watching their body language and their actions. Pets are able to understand what we are saying and have a higher level of understanding than some people give them credit for. People are able to understand their pets and their pets understand them through each other’s informative signals. These signals are what each use to inform the other when they are sad, tired, mad, happy, or even annoyed. Somehow the animal understands their owner the most of anyone else when their owner does not even say anything. Pets are able to communicate at times more effectively than humans who are able to speak.

Most people in this world have some sort of animal that they like to call their pet. These animals are the pride a joy of many peoples lives. Being so close to their animal, humans feel like they can communicate with the pet. Human and animal communication is a very interesting topic that has the potential to bring up many debates.

Animals have ways of communication that are very unique in many ways. The majority of this communication takes place through communicative signals such as movements, noises, etc. Some examples of this communication between animals are things such as mooing by cows, barking or growling by dogs, and meowing or purring by cats. These ways of communication between animals are also used by animals to communicate with their human owners as well. When a dog barks or growls, it typically means that he or she is angered in some way or fashion. To us humans, this is the signal to go away. This signal sends a very obvious message to the human as they understand the dog completely and listen to this message. The same thing goes for when a cat purrs. This soothing noise tends to mean "Hey I want to be petted", and nine times out of ten, the cat will get his or her wish as their owner will listen. With these examples, it is a rather simple concept to realize that yes, animals do have the capability to communicate as we discussed in the reading. With the gestures and tones that animals produce, they are fully capable of having a successful animal-to-animal conversation (i.e. the examples mentioned above) but can only succeed in certain points of conversation with humans.

Just as Yule discusses in his article, animals ARE able to speak a language. It is a language that is completely unique with only parts being decipherable by us humans. When it comes to discussing how advanced this language spoken by animals is, another interesting debate arises. This is another difficult conclusion to make as different people have different interpretations of what their animal is actually saying to them. In my opinion, the language spoken by animals is more advanced than many might assume but is also far less advanced that many people may think. This, in my case, puts the advancement of the language right in the middle of the scale. Yule states that "...we clearly do not have a totally objective and non-controversial definition of what counts as using language..." With this being said, it is logical to say that animal language is misunderstood on both sides of the table as far as questioning how advanced animal language is and how well they can communicate within themselves as well as with humans. This debate will continue to be an important topic in both scientific and linguistic minds for many more years to come.