Loss of Language-Why does it matter

The loss of language can have great consequences but also free you from the barriers of its self. When Dr. Jill Taylor told her story of her stroke she identified how everything around us becomes free to our interpretation instead of the set ideas that we have made of them. She describes how she couldn’t determine the difference between things, including her own body. She tells us about here euphoric sensation when she lost language and how she could be or do anything when she was in it. To me it is a scary thought, losing language she brings up at the end what would you choose, and to me I would have to keep my language out of the fear that I would go insane without it. While in “Meditation in Linguistics”, Roberts Hass talks about how when you add to an idea or add descriptiveness you, “that each particular erases the luminous clarity of a general idea”. Which I can understand, we all come across situations in which something is way over complicated, but I believe being as descriptive as possible can help create a more understandable picture of whatever you are describing. By understanding these ideas we can know how to better use language, by adding this sentence do I lower the quality of the overall idea? Or Maybe thinking with a less ridged thought process to see what we usually do not.

A Loss of Words

Sometimes a loss of words can be our key to happiness. Dr. Jill Taylor talks about her stroke and how her hemorrhage caused her brain to go completely silent. In her speech she talks about how she felt peacefulness, and euphoria when her mind was silent. She lost her way to talk, think, and just plain out function as a human being. She was in what she called “La La Land” and couldn’t think of anything but how extraordinary everything really was. She was at peace in that moment. She said, “I felt like a genie just liberated from her bottle,” like she had just been released from everything stressful, or harmful and was just let free. She used this comparison to show us how she felt, like she was just let go in a world of silent beauty. She couldn’t speak or think words but was overflowing with happiness in that moment. Just as Dr. Jill Taylor, Robert Hass made up the silence of words into this little place of happiness. In “Meditation at Lagunitas,” Hass says, “There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing,” telling us about how amazing the body is and how being in the presence of your own body is better than what you could put into words. He tells us how he enjoyed things that were wordless and how he saw pure beauty in that silence. Overall, Taylor and Hass are showing us how beautiful things can be without words and how life doesn’t always revolve around thinking or talking. Life can be amazing when you soak in its silence as beauty.

So what? To when language fails.

Bliss at the expense of language failing is important because of what it exposes us to. Dr. Jill Taylor expresses this in sharing her experience of having a stroke and the left hemisphere of her brain becoming silent. She emphasizes the difference in the brain hemispheres by “personalities.” In being so, the right hemisphere is the “we” personality, while the left is the “I”. The right hemisphere of her brain basically became the center of her consciousness when She had lost all speech, logic and motor skills. Surprisingly, this brought her to be thoroughly at peace. She stresses how the silence her right hemisphere brought her was the key to Nirvana. The loss of language was important because it created a euphoric sense of peace that should be experienced by all beings. If everyone had a chance to live this phenomenon of complete silence provided by only the right hemisphere, we would ultimately become one. In saying so, as human beings, we would be able to unite and altogether cooperate. To Dr. Jill Taylor, this vast and utter silence is the key to world peace, to world happiness and everything that could possibly come in between. In the poem, “Mediation at Lagunitas,” the loss of language is made up for in physical expression, in emotion and feeling. Robert Hass writes, “There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing.”  It is important for language to be lost sometimes because words cannot always express what needs to be “said.” Ultimately, it can be determined that bliss can only be found in an absence of words.

comparing claims

In my opinion I feel like Anzaldua did a better job providing her claim, because America is known for its diversity and denying a language can be considered equivalent to denying a culture itself. For example, she says that she would get disciplined at recess for talking Spanish. That can put shame on someone and make them hesitant to freely speak the language they want. I feel like it is not right for foreigners to feel pressured in only speaking their language in secret. Part of having living in such a diverse country is being able to proudly express yourself. I also speak a different language so I can sort of feel where she is coming from. In addition my brothers and I mix Swahili and English together to make one language like she stated that she does with “Spanglish”. On the contrary, McWhorter says “Languages itself does not correspond to the particulars of a culture”, however I believe language is a big part of culture because it distinguishes you from any other group. I also agree that language splits into two groups like saying “diss-kussting” or “dizz-gusting” over time that can form different types of dialect as well as another culture being born. All in all I believe that it goes against the first amendment (freedom of speech) whenever a language is denied to any one person or a group of people.

Cultures and Free Speech

I believe Anzaldua did a better job proving her claim than McWhorter because in my opinion, living in America as a Hispanic gives better proof on how Spanish speakers feel about being ridiculed in to blending your culture with another. I believe and agree that denying a group's language is against the first amendment because it restricts a citizen's way of life and how they want to talk. Foreigners who move to America shouldn't feel that they have to change their culture or language, if they did they might start to feel unhappy and homesick. Anzaldua explains that having certain food, smells, and hearing familiar sounds make her more comfortable and at home. If everyone spoke English yes, it could be a lot more convenient for the world to communicate to each other but, it would erase the beauty of other cultures around the world. McWhorter says that when people grow up with indigenous languages and migrate to a place with a more globally dominant language they tend to not speak their indigenous language any more which leads to language death. People should be welcomed to live the way they want to live. If people feel that they need to change the way they talk then people's cultural identities diminish. Anzaldua lived through people telling her that she can't speak the way she wants to, such as her experiences in school but she stood up what she believed in and showed that you should be proud of where you are from and recognize who you are.

Coming together

From the reading, I believe Anzaldua does a better job in her claims about having to deny their culture and upbringings to fit in with those around her. This country fought hard to gain their freedom and believes that everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions and that includes practicing their culture. She describes that being Mexican is a state out soul, not one of mind”.  Regarding to John McWhorter, yes languages come together and become one so another culture arises but where is the originality? One's culture should be able to prevail for many years and once this happens that culture gets lost if it merges and becomes a new one. No one should feel that their culture is suppressed to look good in front of others. His main point is that when new cultures collide so do languages and that causes languages to be lost along the way. Part of having your own culture helps others appreciate and respect so that it stays alive. Anzaldua had pride in her roots and kept in mind that there were both great cultures. She did not let other bring her ideas down she instead appreciated it and spoke up she knew she had the right to do so since this country’s goal is to be open to everyone’s ideas. Both these people wanted their cultures to be recognized and discussed how cultures are constantly changing. Anyone can fight for what they believe is right not just these two individuals, we live in a nation that protects everyone’s right regardless of what background they have.

Power of Thought

I think the thoughts in my head are very helpful. If the voices in my head were to shut off, I would be very desperate for encouragement. For example, when I do any physical activities such as sports or working out, I continue to encourage myself throughout the entire process to keep going and not give up. I believe that the thoughts in my head keep me going, they let me believe that I’m unstoppable. Also thoughts flowing through minds would be very detrimental if ceased. Thoughts of how to do everything in your life. She couldn’t do anything when the voices in her head went away. All of her memory was lost, she couldn’t even remember where she was before the seizure occurred. If the thoughts in my brain went away, I couldn’t even write this blog entry. Like they said, “Language is an ongoing information processing,” we need our mind to process these changing times and to keep us going. Also in this world, people are influenced very easily. Imagine if the voice in your head wasn’t there letting you know what is a good and bad decision. The voice in my head does many things, lets me know what’s right and wrong, my own support system, and even without it I would just be lost. I wouldn’t get those late night scares of “Did I have homework due tomorrow?” Everyone has a voice in their head because that’s the essence of living, everywhere we go and everything we do the voice in our head tells us to.

Option 1

The name of different things can change the way that you see them. For example, if grass was called water, how would you see it? I feel as if different names come with different connotations. Once I receive a name for a concept that I could not name before, the whole meaning to that concept changed for me. The word Iktsuarpok means to go outside or to check if anybody is coming. I never really could describe this action in just a word until now. This shortcut as you can tell just opens up the mind to see things differently. For instance, this word makes it feel like this particular action is so much more complicated than it really is. In this way, our language is changed, for the better? That is up to you to decide if that is so. Concepts are meant to be explained with many words. Having just one word to describe something that would take a sentence is the point of language. To expand our vocabulary and how we use it. What we say, the way we say it should mean more than just the words themselves, it should mean what it means to you and others should get that feeling from those words also. These different words are meant for people to use different language to explain something. Whether you like just explaining something very quickly, or just really going into great deal of detail. This brings meaning to me in a way that no other simple phrase could do justice for. I think that the reason that language is always changing is because society is constantly changing. Therefore the language the society speaks must be morphed to fit the current times. Overall, concepts that are explained in just one word can change the way you see that concept.

Inner voice

I've always had that little voice in my head so it is very difficult to think of a life where I am free from it. This voice is very helpful but it does cause a lot of problems for me so I think that it would actually be pretty great to not have it there anymore. Without a constant inner monologue you would be given the opportunity to focus on so many more things then before. You could become a better listener and really be able to connect with people on a deeper level then most are used to because of the lack of distractions in your head. This would also help being less distracted while doing tedious or mundane things that require concentration like homework, reading, falling asleep, or paying attention during a particularly boring lecture because your mind wouldn't be able to wander. Another reason why I think getting rid of the little voice would be good is something that I have learned to call the chatter in your head. This is any negative or discouraging thoughts in your head telling you that you’re going to fail, not good enough, or things like why bother trying when we all know nothing is going to go right or as planned. I usually don't let it happen but sometimes I do let these negative thoughts get to me and stop me from what I was trying to accomplish. If I didn't have this chatter filling my head with negative thoughts and telling me I'm destined for failure then  life would be so much more easy and simple. 

Brunch

If these two narrator’s sat down to have a discussion over brunch I would believe that they will have similar views about life and how they could possibly work together to help guide the world in a much more humble way. Each one seems to have faced an experience in their lives that made them much wiser. They both are trying to test the individuals the interacted with to live life as it comes and learn from it no matter how hard it may get. I believe that these two would teach others to seek the positive e things that life has to offer and if they are faced either negativity to embrace it and learn from it. In the articles, the narrator’s don’t intend to show off what they did in their life to be better, instead explain that without struggle they would have not progressed and become the people that they now are. They don’t want attention but they are well respected by those who are around them. Their experiences are what any of us face and looking at the bright side of them is what helps the individual succeed in this hectic world. They do not try to tell you how to live your life, instead how to look at it and embrace it. 

Compare and Contrast

In these two stories there is one difference that sticks out the most to me, in “Toni Morrison’s Noble Lecture”, Morrison uses the story of the wise blind old women to teach a lesson to two children that she is wary of. While in “This is Water”, although it starts off with a story of fish swimming it quickly changes the focus to everyday life for a tired hardworking man. While they both reveal valid points in their own way the points are very different. In “This is Water” Wallace claims that knowledge is useless unless the educated knows what to think about, that some college classes even teach you what to think about. While “Toni Morrison’s Noble Lecture” claims that censorship “thwarts the intellect, stalls conscience, and suppresses human potential.” I think these two statement have a difference in views, while Wallace sees these classes as a way to keep people “alive” and happy, I think Morrison would see this as a type of censorship to keep peoples thought suppressed from being free ranged. Although Wallace does repeat many times that he does not want to influence people’s decisions and they should believe in what they want, only requesting they listen to what he has to say.

Compare

In the two speeches “This Is Water” by David Foster Wallace and the “Nobel Lecture” by Toni Morrison you can find many similarities and differences. For example in “This is Water,” Wallace explains the importance of understanding that you’re not the only one in this world. You may be taught that you are the “center of the universe.” He says in his speech that we all are born with a “default-setting,” which is that we are all pretty much self-centered. If you think about it, he is right. Now in the “Nobel Lecture,” the story has a lot to do more with responsibility that a person has. In the story of the wise blind woman the children ask her if the bird in their hands is dead or alive. She replies to them like this “If it is dead, you have either found it that was or you have killed it. If it is alive, you can kill it. Whether it is to stay alive is your decision. Whatever the case, it is your responsibility.” Basically you have responsibility over everything you do in life. Now the similarity of the two speeches is that you are the main control of how your life is shaped. You have choices and responsibilities to uphold. You can choose to look at everything negatively, or positively. You can be responsible for the good or the bad, and it is as simple as that. You’re the only one who can choose your life reputation and path.

Compare and Contrast

These speeches both speak of how perception can change a situation. “This is Water” speaks of the more pessimistic view. This difference in how people see everyday life and use language to describe what their day is like can prove to be helpful in trying to figure out how language is manipulated. The Nobel lecture shows that language can be shown in a positive way to see life as a beautiful place. On the other hand, “This is Water” shows how language can prove life to be absolutely terrible. These different perceptions of life can change as life proceeds. The perception that a person has about different situations can improve or make their day worse. The Nobel Lecture also shows that the absence of language can prove to be more powerful than saying too much in frustration. When the woman is asked a question just because the kids wanted to be disrespectful, she did not answer because she knew their intentions. Instead she thought about what she was going to say. Something we all need to learn how to do. Overall, both of these speeches represent an idea that language can help people see life differently in a good way.