SCHOOL: ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT: SOCIAL STUDIES

COURSE CODE: CPR 2103

COURSE TITLE: COMMUNICATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

LECTURER:

FRANCIS WAINAINA NDUNGU AB03/SR/MN/13116/2020

JOSHUA MUSEMBI AB03/SR/MN/13101/2020

EVANS OCHIENG AB03/SR/MN/13139/2020

CHARITY KAMAU AB03/SR/MN/13093/2020

JOB MUSOBO AB03/SR/MN/13108/2020

DERRICK OMONDI AB03/SR/MN/13138/2020

JOHN KIMANZI AB03/SR/MN/13100/2020

DENNIS MUTHUI AB03/SR/MN/12085/2020

MARY KAGUNYA AB03/SR/MN/13090/2020

WALLACE KAMAU AB03/SR/MN/13088/2020

TASK:
Background

Current thought about linguistic relativity has its roots in debates that began in late-eighteenth
and nineteenth-century Germany, particularly in the work of Johann Georg Hamann (1730-88),
Johann Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), and especially Gottfried Herder (1744-1803).
That work was part of the Romantic reaction to various Enlightenment ideas.

We can view the debates as staking out positions along a continuum between two poles,
betwixt two ideal types. At one end of the spectrum, we find the views of Leibniz, Hume,
Voltaire, Cadillac and other Enlightenment figures who believed in the constancy of human
nature or, more to the point here, the constancy of the basic mechanisms and concepts of
human thought. True, they allowed that there might be interesting differences between various
languages like English and Hebrew). But these differences were seen as a patina over shared
basic concepts and modes of thought, and with intellectual care and ingenuity they could be
peeled off to reveal the cognitive uniformities underneath.

Many later thinkers, particularly anthropologists, took a more empirical route to a similar
destination, often taking a cue from the German anthropologist Adolf Bastian’s (1826-1905)
postulate of the psychic unity of mankind. And far more sophisticated variations on these ideas
have been popular in recent decades among proponents of substantive linguistic and cognitive
universals (linguistic and cognitive features that are the biological endowment of all normal
human beings).

At the other end of the spectrum, we have various versions of the linguistic relativity
hypothesis. From this perspective there are striking differences among some (not necessarily
all) languages, and at least some of these differences lead to non-trivial differences in how their
users perceive and think about the world.

Many of the early champions of this view, including the Romantics, were exceptionally erudite,
with a command of an array of diverse languages. Later champions of linguistic relativity based
their claims on more direct empirical contact with the users of different languages rather than
just the texts they left behind.

Few thinkers occupy either extreme of the spectrum, but many are much closer to one end than
the other. Roughly speaking, the relativists dominated the Western intellectual climate in the
first half of the twentieth century and their opponents dominated the second half.
 INTRODUCTION

The two related questions if and how language affects the mind go back to the dawn of
contemplative thought. Since thought and language are intimately connected, some form of
close relationship between the two has often been assumed. The recurrent debate, with
oscillating tendencies, has been whether it is mostly thought that influences language, or vice
versa (Zlatev,2008a). The thesis that language has a non-negligible effect on thinking,
combined with the claim that languages are non-trivially different, has been generally known as
“the Sapir–Whorl hypothesis.”

Language does not completely determine our thoughts—our thoughts are far too flexible for
that—but habitual uses of language can influence our habit of thought and action. For instance,
some linguistic practice seems to be associated even with cultural values and social institution.
Pronoun drop is the case in point. Pronouns such as “I” and “you” are used to represent the
speaker and listener of a speech in English. In an English sentence, these pronouns cannot be
dropped if they are used as the subject of a sentence. So, for instance, “I went to the movie last
night” is fine, but “Went to the movie last night” is not in standard English. However, in other
languages such as Japanese, pronouns can be, and in fact often are, dropped from sentences. It
turned out that people living in those countries where pronoun drop languages are spoken tend
to have more collectivistic values (e.g., employees having greater loyalty toward their
employers) than those who use non–pronoun drop languages such as English (Kashima &
Kashima, 1998). It was argued that the explicit reference to “you” and “I” may remind speakers
the distinction between the self and other, and the differentiation between individuals. Such a
linguistic practice may.

Thought has a long history in a variety of fields. There are two bodies of thought forming
around this debate. One body of thought stems from linguistics and is known as the Sapir–
Whorf hypothesis. There is a strong and a weak version of the hypothesis which argue for more
or less influence of language on thought. The strong version, linguistic determinism, argues
that without language there is and can be no thought while the weak version, linguistic
relativity, supports the idea that there are some influences from language on thought. And on
the opposing side, there are ‘language of thought’ theories (LOTH) which believe that public
language is inessential to private thought (though the possibility remains that private thought
when infused with inessential language diverges in predilection, emphasis, tone, or subsequent
recollection). LOTH theories address the debate of whether thought is possible without
language which is related to the question of whether language evolved for thought. These ideas
are difficult to study because it proves challenging to parse the effects of culture versus thought
versus language in all academic fields.

The main use of language is to transfer thoughts from one mind, to another mind. The bits of
linguistic information that enter into one person’s mind, from another, cause people to entertain
a new thought with profound effects on his world knowledge, inferencing, and subsequent
behavior. Language neither creates nor distorts conceptual life. [dubious – discuss] [citation
needed] Thought comes first, while language is an expression. There are certain limitations
among language, and humans cannot express all that they think.

Language of thought

Language of thought theories rely on the belief that mental representation has linguistic
structure. Thoughts are “sentences in the head”, meaning they take place within a mental
language. Two theories work in support of the language of thought theory. Causal syntactic
theory of mental practices hypothesizes that mental processes are causal processes defined over
the syntax of mental representations. Representational theory of mind hypothesizes that
propositional attitudes are relations between subjects and mental representations. In tandem,
these theories explain how the brain can produce rational thought and behavior. All three of
these theories were inspired by the development of modern logical inference. They were also
inspired by Alan Turing’s work on causal processes that require formal procedures within
physical machines.

LOTH hinges on the belief that the mind works like a computer, always in computational
processes. The theory believes that mental representation has both a combinatorial syntax and
compositional semantics. The claim is that mental representations possess combinatorial syntax
and compositional semantic—that is, mental representations are sentences in a mental
language. Alan Turing’s work on physical machines implementation of causal processes that
require formal procedures was modeled after these beliefs.

Another prominent linguist, Stephen Pinker, developed this idea of a mental language in his
book The Language Instinct (1994). Pinker refers to this mental language as mentalese. In the
glossary of his book, Pinker defines mentalese as a hypothetical language used specifically for
thought. This hypothetical language houses mental representations of concepts such as the
meaning of words and sentences.

Thought Language might influence many different aspects of thought. Most empirical work has
focused, appropriately enough, on those aspects of cognition that are easiest to assess without
relying on language. This is important because we otherwise risk finding influences of one
aspect of language on some related aspect of language, rather than on some aspect of thought.
Commonly studied cognitive variables include perceptual discrimination, availability in
memory, and classification. But we also need to ask whether features of one’s native language
influence one’s judgement and decision making, problem solving, inductive inference, or
various aspects of social cognition, e.g., classifying people in terms of various traits, or
explaining behavior more by citing traits or situations.

Differences in language might also affect more general styles of thought (cf. e.g., Nisbett,
Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2008). Again, several recent theorists have proposed dual-process
accounts of cognition. Different writers develop this distinction in different ways, but the basic
idea is that human beings have two quite different cognitive subsystems (or two types of
subsystems). There is an "explicit" subsystem that is largely conscious, symbolic, verbal, rule-
governed, serial, flexible and capable of reflection. But there is also an "implicit" subsystem
that is largely nonconscious, associative, impulsive, affective and that reacts automatically to
stimuli (e.g., Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Sloman, 1996). Aspects of language might well influence
one system more than the other or influence the two systems in different ways.

We already know that cultural differences (which are entangled with language) can affect
social cognition (e.g., Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett, 2002). As we employ more tools and
techniques and approaches, we may also encounter some quite unexpected things. For example,
it now appears that the effects of linguistic relativity are stronger in the right visual field than in
the left (Aubrey, Gilberta, Regierd, Kaye, & Ivrya, 2008), something no one would have even
considered several decades ago.

Example of Influence By way of example, certain features of syntax or of the lexicon might
exert a causal influence on certain aspects of visual perception (e.g., on which colors we can
discriminate), classification (e.g., on how we sort things by color), or long-term memory (e.g.,
on which differences among colors we remember most accurately) in clearly specifiable ways.
If there is such an influence, we would also like to know what mechanisms mediate it, but until
we have a better idea whether such difference exist, we are not well positioned to answer
deeper questions like this.

REFERENCE

Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., & Pandey J. (1996). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:
volume 1, theory and method, 2nd Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cassirer, E. (1923/1955). Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Berlin: Bruno

Cassirer, vol. 1; trans. R. Manheim, The philosophy of symbolic forms, volume 1: Language,
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.

Chiang, W. & Wynn, K. (2000). Infants’ tracking of objects and collections. Cognition, 77,
169-195.

Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

D’Andrade, R.G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
 2: WHEN A PERSON AS LEARNED THE VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR AND
PRONOUNCIATION OF ANOTHER LANGUAGE, HAS HE LEARNED THE
LANGUGE? EXPLAIN

The following are the principles for learning a new language;

1. Learning is developmental. Based on the physical development of the brain, there is a logical
progression to how people develop skills and learning habits.
2. Individuals learn differently. People learn at their own pace, with different methods and
strategies for acquiring and processing information
3. People learn what is personally important to them. Motivation increases when people can
see how new knowledge and skills can be applied to their personal life and work
4. New knowledge is built on current knowledge. Accurate prior knowledge provides a strong
foundation for learning; however, inaccurate or insufficient prior knowledge can make learning
more difficult. People learn by connecting newly acquired information with prior knowledge. If
those connections are well organized, knowledge can be retrieved and applied more readily.
5. Learning occurs through social interactions. When learning offers opportunities for active
response and exchange among peers and experts, it is more effective than passive listening,
reading, or watching media in isolation.
6. People learn when they accept challenging but achievable goals. Within this zone of
proximal development, learners are often able to exceed the limitations of their prior
knowledge and skill levels through collaborative work with more knowledgeable peers and
experts.
7. Learners master basic and component skills through practice. The skills necessary to
accomplish a more complex tasks are mastered when practice is routine and applied in various
contexts. Timely and accurate feedback is essential to this process.
8. Acquiring and applying habits of the mind improves learning performance. Habits of
mind can be taught. These habits include routine practices such as assessing the nature and
difficulty of a task, evaluating personal strengths and weaknesses in light of the task, planning
how to solve related problems, applying valid problem-solving strategies and self-monitoring
success with those strategies
9. Learning is stronger and more permanent in a positive emotional climate. when students
feel safe, connected to their peers and leaders and in touch with goals, they are in supportive
emotional climate.
10. Learning is influenced by the total environment. Air quality, light, room color, furnishings
all of these things affect learners. They are also affected by their interaction with others,
psychological need, the nature of their personal goals and the organizational goals set by
schools and employers. Each learning environment, classes, schools, nations influence learners’
perspectives about their lives and hopes

In conclusion, language is a system of symbols used by humans to communicate or express ideas

and thoughts to others. The language used is influenced or affected the culture and vice versa.
Therefore, it can be said that the language and culture have a very close relationship. Through the
language of the person, his interlocutor can usually tell the background of the speaker. That's there
is parable says that language indicate the nation.
REFERENCES

Cahyono, Bambang Yudi. 1995. Kristal-Kristal Ilmu Bahasa. Surabaya: Airlangga

University

Press.

Chaer, Abdul. 2003. Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Chaer, Abdul dan Agustina, Leoni. 1995. Sosiolinguistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka
Cipta.

Gee, James P. An Introduction to Human Language: Fundamental Concepts in Linguistics.

New

Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1993. Gorys, Keraf.1997. Komposisi. Ende-Flores: Nusa Indah
Koentjaraningrat. 1974. Pengantar Antropologi I. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Kroeber dan Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture, a critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.
Chicago: Universit of Chicago Press.

Kramsch, Claire. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kushartanti, Untung Yuwono dan Multamia RMT Lauder. 2005. Pesona Bahasa: Langkah

Awal Memahami Lingustik. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Mulyana, Deddy. 2007. Ilmu Komunikasi; Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: PT. Remaja
Rosdakarya.

Mulyana, Deddy dan Rahmat Jalaluddin. 2006. Komunikasi Antarbudaya. Panduan

Berkomunikasi dengan Orang-Orang Berbeda Budaya. Bandung: PT. Remaja

Rosdakarya.