COM 125 discussion
Respond to 2 peers:
Peer 1: Nate S
I do agree with most of the criticisms that are brought against this hypothesis. They- spiar-wolf- never completed any studies involving the scientific methods. It was not until 1920 when German Linguist Leo Weisgerber reformulated this testable hypothesis. Linguists view it now as a view that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in a non-trival way. Howeve. I belive that language is very very important in shaping our own personal world views In making it our own unique way of viewing and interpreting the world around us. It is how we react to this amazing world we live in. It is fundamental that language helps us shape outworld view. It is at the core of who we are. If it were not for our own personalized worldview through the way in which we interpret it. There would be no core to our world. What I mean is this, It is our worldview that shapes who we become and inevitably help us pick where we would like to spend the rest of our life in terms of careers. For example, if you are good at conversational language and the language of persuasion, then you may find yourself in a courtroom as a judge or attorney. However, if you are good at sports, this is a language in and of itself, you may find yourself in the middle of a football stadium as the WR. Albeit, you must be athletic first and for most for this to occur. This is the language of fitness. This type of dialogue helps shape who we envision ourselves to be as we grow up and age. My case is for the Hypothesis due to the fact that it is the basis- even though not scientifically supported in many ways- and foundational aspects and is what lead people like Leo Weisgerber to reform this first draft of sorts and revolutionize what it means to have discourse in our lives. So I am for the hypothesis for that reason. I hate trump, he is an ass. Or I could say, "I love trump he is the best thing this country has ever had". Now, depending on what context this is taking in, it could either be very good or very bad. You have to learn how to read a room and respond correctly. Otherwise, you will find yourself with a potential black eye and on the wrong side of the argument. I could also say something like, "This class is amazing, it is by far the best class I have ever taken". This could be a form of humor in the form of sarcasm; it could also be used to sincerely say that this is really the best class I have ever been a part of. It is all situational and language must be interpreted through the lens of context. If you do not have any context, you are going to be very lost and confused, maybe even a little upset. Also, my example could be construed as hate speech to a certain population that views the opposing side of such debates. They would be upset and would probably not find this first point I made about trump funny at all. All in all, you must learn to respond with your worldviews of what is appropriate for a certain time and what may or may not go over well in a certain room of people.
Sources for the first part of response:
1. Koerner, E.F.K. "Towards a full pedigree of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis: from Locke to Lucy", chapter in Pütz & Verspoor 2000, p. 17.
Respond to 2 peers:
Peer 1:
Nate S
I do agree with most of the criticisms that are brought against this
hypothesis. They
-
spiar
-
wolf
-
never completed any studies involving
the scientific methods. It was not until 1920 when German Lingu
ist Leo
Weisgerber reformulated this testable hypothesis. Linguists view it now
as a view that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes
in a non
-
trival way. Howeve. I belive that language is very very
important in shaping our own personal w
orld views In making it our
own unique way of viewing and interpreting the world around us. It is
how we react to this amazing world we live in. It is fundamental that
language helps us shape outworld view. It is at the core of who we are.
If it were not f
or our own personalized worldview through the way in
which we interpret it. There would be no core to our world. What I
mean is this, It is our worldview that shapes who we become and
inevitably help us pick where we would like to spend the rest of our lif
e
in terms of careers. For example, if you are good at conversational
language and the language of persuasion, then you may find yourself in
a courtroom as a judge or attorney. However, if you are good at sports,
this is a language in and of itself, you ma
y find yourself in the middle of
a football stadium as the WR. Albeit, you must be athletic first and for
most for this to occur. This is the language of fitness. This type of
dialogue helps shape who we envision ourselves to be as we grow up
and age. My c
ase is for the Hypothesis due to the fact that it is the
basis
-
even though not scientifically supported in many ways
-
and
foundational aspects and is what lead people like Leo Weisgerber to
reform this first draft of sorts and revolutionize what it means
to have
discourse in our lives. So I am for the hypothesis for that reason. I hate
trump, he is an ass. Or I could say, "I love trump he is the best thing this
country has ever had". Now, depending on what context this is taking
in, it could either be very
good or very bad. You have to learn how to
read a room and respond correctly. Otherwise, you will find yourself
with a potential black eye and on the wrong side of the argument. I
could also say something like, "This class is amazing, it is by far the bes
t
class I have ever taken". This could be a form of humor in the form of
Respond to 2 peers:
Peer 1: Nate S
I do agree with most of the criticisms that are brought against this
hypothesis. They- spiar-wolf- never completed any studies involving
the scientific methods. It was not until 1920 when German Linguist Leo
Weisgerber reformulated this testable hypothesis. Linguists view it now
as a view that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes
in a non-trival way. Howeve. I belive that language is very very
important in shaping our own personal world views In making it our
own unique way of viewing and interpreting the world around us. It is
how we react to this amazing world we live in. It is fundamental that
language helps us shape outworld view. It is at the core of who we are.
If it were not for our own personalized worldview through the way in
which we interpret it. There would be no core to our world. What I
mean is this, It is our worldview that shapes who we become and
inevitably help us pick where we would like to spend the rest of our life
in terms of careers. For example, if you are good at conversational
language and the language of persuasion, then you may find yourself in
a courtroom as a judge or attorney. However, if you are good at sports,
this is a language in and of itself, you may find yourself in the middle of
a football stadium as the WR. Albeit, you must be athletic first and for
most for this to occur. This is the language of fitness. This type of
dialogue helps shape who we envision ourselves to be as we grow up
and age. My case is for the Hypothesis due to the fact that it is the
basis- even though not scientifically supported in many ways- and
foundational aspects and is what lead people like Leo Weisgerber to
reform this first draft of sorts and revolutionize what it means to have
discourse in our lives. So I am for the hypothesis for that reason. I hate
trump, he is an ass. Or I could say, "I love trump he is the best thing this
country has ever had". Now, depending on what context this is taking
in, it could either be very good or very bad. You have to learn how to
read a room and respond correctly. Otherwise, you will find yourself
with a potential black eye and on the wrong side of the argument. I
could also say something like, "This class is amazing, it is by far the best
class I have ever taken". This could be a form of humor in the form of