(via blondie)

This quarter in Anthropology we learned a lot about how human-beings interact and communicate in such a way that they create a ‘culture’ with shared values, lifestyle, and language. In this paper I will analyze specifically language, how the individual utilizes it, and how it relates to their culture. I believe that language is very individually-oriented, but that it captures the essence of a culture within it.

Language is a unique form of communication that so far only humans have a capacity for on Earth. Due to its unique and complex nature we are only just beginning to understand how we create language; we understand phonemes as the most basic units of sound, which differentiate meaning. A difference of one phoneme creates a difference in meaning in the human mind, which we attach to objects and ideas. Forever afterword, when we hear that combination of phonemes we associate it with that idea (1). All concepts are learned differently from individual to individual; given subtleties of definition by the experiences the individual has had, the words their parents taught them. Different cultures view colors, family members, even everyday items in various ways depending on what they have experienced their whole life. This loosely-worded theory that our thoughts are driven by the words we hear or use is known as the ‘weaker theory’ of linguistic determinism. Such is the nature of language; since no two people are raised the same, no two people could ever define a word in the exact same way, and when they hear a word, at least slightly different meanings come to mind. This idea about language being ingrained in a culture—in an individual’s experience—defines what an individual’s lexicon is: it is the ideas that accompany specific phoneme patterns (or words) as defined by that individuals’ experience.  When I say “freedom” or “create” a series of ideas and mental pictures flows through the mind; this is unique to every individual and has to do with everything they have seen and done in their life. After all, the entire reason for language is to communicate experiences to others—without a common language it becomes very difficult to convey specific meanings. “At best, the likely result is symbolic confusion: an inability to think or communicate in objectively definable symbols. At worst, language may be used to purposefully obfuscate (3, pg. 37).” I will argue that language relates to an individual’s lexicon; how it shapes and preserves cultures, and the implications that this has linguistically, anthropologically, and socially.

The individualistic nature of language begins unfolding from day one of development with the acquisition of phonemes from parents. At an early age, children start mimicking phonemes that they hear and learning how to create sounds with the different areas of the mouth. This development ends with puberty, after which an individual can no longer learn new sounds, but can only use those they know to re-create unknown sounds. This is a huge aspect of language in itself: one cannot understand phonemes which one didn’t hear, or learn to differentiate, during development. If a language differentiates meaning with different sound units, like sounds /b/ and /p/ in English, then they are separate understandable phonemes, however, if a language does not differentiate (like between the un-aspirated /p/ and aspirated /p/ sounds in English) then those sounds are known as allophones, and are not easily discernible to the listener (2, chapter 5). Not only do perceived sound units change (depending on what individuals learn), but the morphological and syntactic components of language are also uniquely related to individual experience, and I consider them a part of one’s lexicon.

Linguist Noam Chomsky stated in an interview with Discover Magazine that every human-being has “some internal system of rules that determines the structures and the interpretations (5)” which they use. These rules are, without a doubt in my mind, gained through interactions during development—taken in with the phonemes used to speak and used to create a personal lexicon. We learn the language that we grow up with, but Chomsky’s theory implies that an individual could learn any language as long as they were immersed in that culture. In other words; the language we speak isn’t genetic, but the way in which we learn language is hardwired into our brains. Although little understood, in the same interview Chomsky put it as such: “There are all kinds of things going on in the environment, what William James called a “blooming, buzzing confusion.” Somehow the infant reflexively selects out of that complex environment the data that are language-related. No other organism can do that; a chimpanzee can’t do that. And then very quickly and reflexively the infant proceeds to gain an internal system, which ultimately yields the capacities that we are now using (5).” Basically: we all have the same capacity for language, the same rules used to learn. The reason we haven’t developed a single language through which everyone can communicate is because of cultural considerations.

Morphemes are the smallest meaningful combinations of phonemes, so it makes sense that every language would have slightly different combinations of sounds that they equate with certain meanings. These sound patterns are word structure; there is root morpheme, affixes added to it, and compounds formed with it. Every language has different morpheme roots and affixes that they use and its own rules and grammar; syntax. In Athabascan languages, verbs can have many different affixes that describe features of the noun being discussed. Features like length, rigidity, enclosed vs. open, weight and numbers are contained in the verb instead of added to the sentence separately, as in English (1). People who speak these languages tend to notice those features of an object much more than English speakers. Eskimos have many words for different types of snowfall that in English are all simply called “snow”. Clearly these words, and the ideas associated with them, would not have arisen without the need of the culture for the concept. The Eskimos need the different descriptions of snow in order to better prepare for conditions. The Navajo and Apache (Athabascan languages) place more importance on the use of materials than their color, for instance, or shape. These distinctions in language represent and accompany the culture, and that is why living languages must be able to adapt and envelop ideas from other cultures, because they always must be able to envelop new ideas.

The only reason separate languages develop is due to isolation, everyone has the need to communicate. If everyone were in one community: one language would be spoken that includes the ideas of each member. Walt Wolfram writes in “Black Children Are Verbally Deprived” about the development of Black English Vernacular: “When people from different cultures come together, the languages reflecting these cultures mix and adapt. And when groups are segregated, isolated and excluded, they maintain and develop in different ways, thus enhancing language differences (7).” In America alone there is Standard American English, Black English Vernacular, as well as many regional dialects of each (1). This reflects how any type of isolation causes distinction in language because new generations learn what they interact with. For example, children born into slavery learned Gullah and other pidgin languages in early American history; causing the dialects to become their own creole languages; the only way those children knew how to communicate. Before just a few hundred years ago, different cultures were still very isolated and children could only learn to speak the way their parents/culture spoke. This isolation served to preserve the ideas and language of the cultures, but prevent communication between cultures. Now, with a rising global economy and the world coming into contact more, many dialects and languages are dying out in favor of more prevalent ones. Fortunately, all living languages change over time and the ideas from every culture influence the adaptation and even the creation of new language.

New language can be seen in such dialects as Chicano Spanish (2) which uses both English and Spanish words and grammar to convey ideas which don’t necessarily translate well. An essay by a freshman at NYU states that “when I am planning out an essay or trying to answer a challenging thematic question, I struggle with the concepts themselves, a difficulty I almost never have in my native language. I am so used to having a plethora of very specific, meaningful English words at my disposal when writing essays that, when I set pen to paper in Spanish class, the ideas that I connote with those words might as well have vanished into thin air. I have so many more limits in Spanish, because the thoughts that race through my brain when I am writing in English can only break through that language barrier to a certain extent (4).” This highlights the aspiration of every linguistic anthropologist: to communicate these culture-specific ideas across every culture, to make a universal language for translation and understanding.

As I have tried to outline with the paper thus far; every language includes the ideas and experiences of that culture, so there will be words that do not translate effectively. Words like “macho” for hyper-masculinity in Spanish, or “recipe” for cooking instructions in French are easily borrowed in English. However, some concepts, like “nakama” in Japanese are much harder to convey in any language other than Japanese. Nakama means crew, or best friends, with a very familial sort of feeling attached, but in English there is no word for this, only “friends”. Because of this, confusion can arise between different cultures; one might refer to his friend as nakama, and the friend might not realize how close this implies the two are, having only the idea of “friend” in English to think of. In an ideal world, all people would speak one language, which has words for every different idea from every culture. In this world, however, language is a very personal tool used to communicate. No one will ever understand exactly what you mean when you say freedom, because freedom is different to everybody—depending on lexicon. A very important distinction is that no language is any better at communicating than any other. This is called linguistic relativism (1). In “Some Languages Are Just Not Good Enough,” Ray Harlow writes “In order for us to discuss some topic in a particular language, that language must…have the appropriate vocabulary. …some languages have developed vocabularies to deal with topics which are just not discussed in some other languages. And ‘developed’ is the crucial word in this matter…all languages are capable of the same types of expansion of vocabulary (6).”

That is the true quest of linguistic anthropologists: to stress that all languages have the capability of expressing all thoughts. In my opinion, a single language could be created that would encompass all ideas, but it might as well be composed of words from every language in existence. Cultures preserve their ideas, their experiences, and their sense of unity through language. Therefore, language is something that must be remembered and upheld in order to preserve the knowledge and experience of many generations.

“Blue city” photo by Damienne Bingham

(via greenorgans-deactivated20120109)

National Geographic 2010 photography contest

(via floweerchild)