Ambiguity and garden path sentences.
The name "garden path sentence" originates from the saying "to be led up the garden path", or "to be misled". Simply put, garden path sentences are sentences in which the reader's intuitive response is usually contrary to the intended meaning of the sentence, due to initial ambiguity and duality in the usage and meanings of some of the words.
An example of a garden path sentences would be the title of this blog "The old man boats". In this case, the word "man" is usually intuitively parsed as a noun, in part due to the adjective "old" preceding it, which forms the common noun phrase "old man". However, upon seeing the word boats, the mind realises that there cannot be two nouns ("man" and "boats") appearing consecutively in a sentence, and therefore one of them has to be otherwise. In this case, contrary to initial examination, "old" is a noun (rather than an adjective), whilst "man" is a verb (rather than a noun). The above sentence is in fact a simple sentence with the structure of subject-verb-object, however, due to the duality in the parts of speech regarding which "old" and "man" can be parsed, whilst at the same time ignoring the duality in the part of speech of "boats" (in this case a noun rather than a verb), the mind has to simultaneously parse 3 dual meanings (in terms of parts of speech), to find the 1 out of 6 permutations which actually makes sense.
Garden path sentences may prove, firstly, that initial parsing of sentences is dependent on frequency of personal experiences, and secondly, that parsing of sentences occurs upon the hearing of each word.
Firstly, I feel that the reason that the mind processes "old man" as a noun phrase rather than "old" and "man" as a noun and verb respectively, is simply due to the frequency in which they occur in everyday speech. "Old" rarely exists as a noun, but rather, as an adjective which forms a noun phrase, in the cases of "old people", or, indeed, "old man". "Man" as a verb is also rarely used in everyday conversation, taking charge of boats apparently not a very popular conversation topic. As such, the mind immediately parses "old man" as one noun phrase, rather than a noun and a verb separately, despite the latter being the supposedly more "simple" form of a sentence.
Secondly, I feel that another reason that the mind processes "old man" as a noun phrase is due to the fact that the mind intuitively tries to connect one word to the previous or the next when parsing sentences. Upon hearing the word "old", the mind would have intuitively tried to associate the next word with it. If the word had been, say, "run", the mind would have taken "run" as a verb, because "old run" as a noun phrase makes no semantic sense. On the contrary, with the word "man" processed immediately after the mention of the word "old", the mind would have attempted to connect the two, discovered a logical link and sense in the meaning of the noun phrase formed, thus parsing it as "old man" (although no doubt also helped by this noun phrase's frequent usage in everyday conversation). As such, I feel that this shows that human beings do, in fact, process information one word at a time, always attempting to find a logical relationship between the two which, in the case of garden path sentences, may prove to be wrong.
Therefore, I feel that garden path sentences and the ambiguity they bring serve to show many things about the human mind when it comes to the parsing of sentences.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The place of Singlish in Singapore
The place of Singlish in Singapore
The primary purpose of a language in society is for effective communiction. Using colonialism as a base, English has prospered to become one of the world's most common lingua franca, by virtue of the fact that it possesses a large number of speakers, native or otherwise, spread across the globe, which paves the way for effective communication, thus fulfilling a language's primary purpose.
In the case of the creole Singlish, which I personally regard as a disfiguration of the English Language, I feel that it is not an effective enough means of communication. Creoles are amalgamations of languages from immigrants and settlers of varied linguistic backgrounds which have a fixed structure, however, this develops into a unique vernacular rather than a universally understood language, only being understood by their relatively small populations of native speakers. For exampe, taking the Hawaiian 'pidgin' (or creole) as an example, it is understand for speakers of English, be they native or not, to understand this creole easily with the warped pronounciation and slang. Similarly for Singlish, terms such as "lah", "leh", and "lor" are as alien to most English speakers as other foreign languages, and the intrusion of slang such as "wah lao", or malay terms such as "makan" into everyday usage further exacerbates the ability of Singlish to allow Singaporeans to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.
I feel that if Singaporeans were able to transit fluently from Singlish into, at least, grammatically-correct English, there would be no problem with Singlish's existence. However, this is not the case, as Singaporeans generally have a poor command of the English Language. (I shall refrain from using the example of Ms Ris Low.) As such, I feel that Singlish, as long as proper English is not clearly evident in Singaporean society today, has no place in our small but purportedly globally-connected island city.
The primary purpose of a language in society is for effective communiction. Using colonialism as a base, English has prospered to become one of the world's most common lingua franca, by virtue of the fact that it possesses a large number of speakers, native or otherwise, spread across the globe, which paves the way for effective communication, thus fulfilling a language's primary purpose.
In the case of the creole Singlish, which I personally regard as a disfiguration of the English Language, I feel that it is not an effective enough means of communication. Creoles are amalgamations of languages from immigrants and settlers of varied linguistic backgrounds which have a fixed structure, however, this develops into a unique vernacular rather than a universally understood language, only being understood by their relatively small populations of native speakers. For exampe, taking the Hawaiian 'pidgin' (or creole) as an example, it is understand for speakers of English, be they native or not, to understand this creole easily with the warped pronounciation and slang. Similarly for Singlish, terms such as "lah", "leh", and "lor" are as alien to most English speakers as other foreign languages, and the intrusion of slang such as "wah lao", or malay terms such as "makan" into everyday usage further exacerbates the ability of Singlish to allow Singaporeans to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.
I feel that if Singaporeans were able to transit fluently from Singlish into, at least, grammatically-correct English, there would be no problem with Singlish's existence. However, this is not the case, as Singaporeans generally have a poor command of the English Language. (I shall refrain from using the example of Ms Ris Low.) As such, I feel that Singlish, as long as proper English is not clearly evident in Singaporean society today, has no place in our small but purportedly globally-connected island city.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Will Newspeak work in curbing unwanted views?
Will Newspeak work in curbing unwanted views?
Newspeak, as a restriction of language so as to prevent any outward expression of an alternative viewpoint contrary to that of Ingsoc, may only work in curbing unwanted views if the following hold true: 1) Thought is independent of language; 2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations, and 3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania.
1) Thought is independent of language
As explained by the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the way the world is perceived is limited by one's own language. I personally feel that the apparent untranslatability, or at least difficulty in translation, of certain words, such as "saudade" or "mamihlapinatapai" (here's hoping that's the correct spelling), demonstrates that one's expression of thoughts is restricted by one's language, at least in part. With there being no direct English equivalent, even when focusing only on denotation, we can see the limitations language can pose on our expression. While some people can use "mamihlapinatapai" to easily describe a situation, native English speakers have to resort to the rather convoluted "a look shared by two people with each wishing that the other will initiate something that both desire but which neither one wants to start" (Source: en.wikipedia.org).
However, does limitation of expression necessarily result in limitation of thought? With regard to this, I personally beg to differ. Although a speaker of English may not be able to adequately describe "saudade", he is still able to feel the intense longing for something that he had previously loved but is now unable to do so for one reason or another which has created a empty void within him, or whatever else saudade may denote or connote. There is a reason for proverbs such as "非笔墨所能形容" (something which cannot be described with pen or ink), and this is, I feel, that outward expression is not, and may never be, able to showcase our innermost and strongest feelings and thoughts. As such, we can thus see that although language may restrict expression, expression most certainly does not restrict thought and feeling.
Secondly, language in its spoken and written form has constantly changed over time, be it the branching out into different dialects or languages, or even within a particular language itself. The word "toilet", for example, originally meaning "a dressing table", "the cleansing of a body area as part of a surgical or medical procedure", "dress or attire", or "the act or process of dressing or grooming oneself", has gradually fitted into its present definition so snugly that the phrase "I toilet myself" will most certainly trigger a bout of incomprehension, not to mention sniggers. With an alternative definition as "a room in which one defecates and urinates", how willing would one be to proudly proclaim, "I toilet myself"? And so "toilet" shed its original definitions in favour of the new, with the thoughts of humans influencing the new meaning. This shows that language is by no means innate to humans, and has gone through significant development and refining, shaped by the thoughts of humans, as in the case of "toilet". Now, think about cavemen. I'm pretty sure they didn't have a word for "defecation", nor any other means to express a desire to relieve themselves. Did that mean, since they could not express this desire, that they never had the desire to do so? As far as I know, defecation is a natural process that takes place irregardless of whatever passes through the digestive system, be it chicken, leaves, or woolly mammoth. Thus, I feel that, just as defecation is independent of food eaten, thought is indeed independent of language.
2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations
In restricting vocabulary, Newspeak certainly has restricted the number of denotations which can be derived from words, however, it neglects to, or may be simply unable to, restrict the connotations which may derive from these words. For example, while the word "brat" originally and still denotes the same meaning as the word "child", it has come to acquire a negative connotation. This can be further emphasised through the usage of numerous rhetorical devices such as metaphors and simile, whereby different objects or actions are juxtaposed with each other, bringing about a comparison between the characteristics, or more importantly, the connotations of the two objects or actions represented by the words.
Connotations are largely determined only after a significant progression of time, whereby man has gradually come to associate certain attitudes or characteristics with the object or action represented by a particular word. Throughout constant observations of nature, man has, for example, come to see monkeys as "cheeky" or "imitative", hence "monkey see monkey do", or "silly", hence "monkey business". The word "monkey" when used to describe a person, usually does not compare the physical traits of the monkey with that of the target, but rather the playfulness and cheekiness man has come to associate the monkey with over time. Of course, the word "monkey" originally only denoted a reference to the animal, and thus, we can see that, in the long run, any language is bound to acquire connotations of words through human observation, be it English or Newspeak, and I feel that Newspeak will therefore not work in curbing unwanted views in the long run.
3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania
Newspeak's efficacy hinges primarily on the assumption that Ingsoc is able to eradicate all other forms of communication in Oceania. However, verbal and written communication are not the only means of interaction between human beings, body language being a very important part of this as well. Body language is an innate means of communication which humans often, if not always, inadvertently lapse into, and is still not fully comprehended by scientists even today. Before a written or verbal language was developed, more human beings had to communicate via more primitive means, and gesticulating was by no means ineffective. Even today, people easily understand hand gestures such as an open palm to signify "stop", raised hands to signify "surrender" or "absence of aggresive intentions", or even the raising of a particular finger to signify "anger". Other than these intentional expressions through body language, the bodies of human beings can also betray their innermost thoughts, such as affection for someone being (usually unintentionally) expressed through mirroring of gestures or the tilting of the head. Scientists are still conducting research into the possible implications of even the subtlest of gestures such as the scratching of the nose or head in different situations, which serves to show that even now, body language eludes complete understanding, and remains a realm of communication untainted by the restrictions of Newspeak. Some scientists even estimate nonverbal communication to account for up to 80% of all interaction and understanding between parties, and the restriction of verbal and written language through Newspeak is not even able to curb language entirely, let alone thought.
Apart from body language, there are also a number of chemical changes in our body when a certain emotion is felt, which are innate to human beings regardless of any suppression of outward expressions. Hormones such as epinephrine released into our blood stream are an example of the human body's natural fight-or-flight response system, inherent in every human being, and these chemical changes lead to several observable changes in the body as well, such as increased heart rate or hair standing on end. Even without words to express oneself when one, for example, feels anger at a particular action of Ingsoc, inadvertent chemical reactions in the body, coupled with intentional and unintentional body language, human beings are not limited in expression by Newspeak, and therefore certainly not limited in thought.
In conclusion, I feel that Newspeak will not work in curbing unwanted views. =D
Newspeak, as a restriction of language so as to prevent any outward expression of an alternative viewpoint contrary to that of Ingsoc, may only work in curbing unwanted views if the following hold true: 1) Thought is independent of language; 2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations, and 3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania.
1) Thought is independent of language
As explained by the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the way the world is perceived is limited by one's own language. I personally feel that the apparent untranslatability, or at least difficulty in translation, of certain words, such as "saudade" or "mamihlapinatapai" (here's hoping that's the correct spelling), demonstrates that one's expression of thoughts is restricted by one's language, at least in part. With there being no direct English equivalent, even when focusing only on denotation, we can see the limitations language can pose on our expression. While some people can use "mamihlapinatapai" to easily describe a situation, native English speakers have to resort to the rather convoluted "a look shared by two people with each wishing that the other will initiate something that both desire but which neither one wants to start" (Source: en.wikipedia.org).
However, does limitation of expression necessarily result in limitation of thought? With regard to this, I personally beg to differ. Although a speaker of English may not be able to adequately describe "saudade", he is still able to feel the intense longing for something that he had previously loved but is now unable to do so for one reason or another which has created a empty void within him, or whatever else saudade may denote or connote. There is a reason for proverbs such as "非笔墨所能形容" (something which cannot be described with pen or ink), and this is, I feel, that outward expression is not, and may never be, able to showcase our innermost and strongest feelings and thoughts. As such, we can thus see that although language may restrict expression, expression most certainly does not restrict thought and feeling.
Secondly, language in its spoken and written form has constantly changed over time, be it the branching out into different dialects or languages, or even within a particular language itself. The word "toilet", for example, originally meaning "a dressing table", "the cleansing of a body area as part of a surgical or medical procedure", "dress or attire", or "the act or process of dressing or grooming oneself", has gradually fitted into its present definition so snugly that the phrase "I toilet myself" will most certainly trigger a bout of incomprehension, not to mention sniggers. With an alternative definition as "a room in which one defecates and urinates", how willing would one be to proudly proclaim, "I toilet myself"? And so "toilet" shed its original definitions in favour of the new, with the thoughts of humans influencing the new meaning. This shows that language is by no means innate to humans, and has gone through significant development and refining, shaped by the thoughts of humans, as in the case of "toilet". Now, think about cavemen. I'm pretty sure they didn't have a word for "defecation", nor any other means to express a desire to relieve themselves. Did that mean, since they could not express this desire, that they never had the desire to do so? As far as I know, defecation is a natural process that takes place irregardless of whatever passes through the digestive system, be it chicken, leaves, or woolly mammoth. Thus, I feel that, just as defecation is independent of food eaten, thought is indeed independent of language.
2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations
In restricting vocabulary, Newspeak certainly has restricted the number of denotations which can be derived from words, however, it neglects to, or may be simply unable to, restrict the connotations which may derive from these words. For example, while the word "brat" originally and still denotes the same meaning as the word "child", it has come to acquire a negative connotation. This can be further emphasised through the usage of numerous rhetorical devices such as metaphors and simile, whereby different objects or actions are juxtaposed with each other, bringing about a comparison between the characteristics, or more importantly, the connotations of the two objects or actions represented by the words.
Connotations are largely determined only after a significant progression of time, whereby man has gradually come to associate certain attitudes or characteristics with the object or action represented by a particular word. Throughout constant observations of nature, man has, for example, come to see monkeys as "cheeky" or "imitative", hence "monkey see monkey do", or "silly", hence "monkey business". The word "monkey" when used to describe a person, usually does not compare the physical traits of the monkey with that of the target, but rather the playfulness and cheekiness man has come to associate the monkey with over time. Of course, the word "monkey" originally only denoted a reference to the animal, and thus, we can see that, in the long run, any language is bound to acquire connotations of words through human observation, be it English or Newspeak, and I feel that Newspeak will therefore not work in curbing unwanted views in the long run.
3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania
Newspeak's efficacy hinges primarily on the assumption that Ingsoc is able to eradicate all other forms of communication in Oceania. However, verbal and written communication are not the only means of interaction between human beings, body language being a very important part of this as well. Body language is an innate means of communication which humans often, if not always, inadvertently lapse into, and is still not fully comprehended by scientists even today. Before a written or verbal language was developed, more human beings had to communicate via more primitive means, and gesticulating was by no means ineffective. Even today, people easily understand hand gestures such as an open palm to signify "stop", raised hands to signify "surrender" or "absence of aggresive intentions", or even the raising of a particular finger to signify "anger". Other than these intentional expressions through body language, the bodies of human beings can also betray their innermost thoughts, such as affection for someone being (usually unintentionally) expressed through mirroring of gestures or the tilting of the head. Scientists are still conducting research into the possible implications of even the subtlest of gestures such as the scratching of the nose or head in different situations, which serves to show that even now, body language eludes complete understanding, and remains a realm of communication untainted by the restrictions of Newspeak. Some scientists even estimate nonverbal communication to account for up to 80% of all interaction and understanding between parties, and the restriction of verbal and written language through Newspeak is not even able to curb language entirely, let alone thought.
Apart from body language, there are also a number of chemical changes in our body when a certain emotion is felt, which are innate to human beings regardless of any suppression of outward expressions. Hormones such as epinephrine released into our blood stream are an example of the human body's natural fight-or-flight response system, inherent in every human being, and these chemical changes lead to several observable changes in the body as well, such as increased heart rate or hair standing on end. Even without words to express oneself when one, for example, feels anger at a particular action of Ingsoc, inadvertent chemical reactions in the body, coupled with intentional and unintentional body language, human beings are not limited in expression by Newspeak, and therefore certainly not limited in thought.
In conclusion, I feel that Newspeak will not work in curbing unwanted views. =D
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)