Reading Response 3

Name: Farhan Ishrak Fahim

ID: 2325215
Mobile: +8801689253654
I think that R. A. Hudson has tried to discuss the relation between language and society in
“Chapter 3” of Sociolinguistics. For example, how different concepts have different meanings
depending on culture, semantic relativity and several hypotheses.

First, I want to start the discussion with semantic relativity. I am still not completely clear about
this concept. However, as I have understood, it has tried to clarify that there are varieties of
concepts in different cultures. For example, brown cannot be translated into French. What it has
tried to say is that culture influences the meaning of varieties of concept and perception of a
particular community.

For example, English people use time E.G. past, present and future. However, some languages
do not have concepts related to time. As a result, they may have a different understanding of
time.

Another example is snow. The inuit speakers have different meanings of snow E.G. dry snow,
fallen snow, etc. On the other hand, some Bangladeshi people do not even know the definition of
snow. It seems to represent a variety of concepts in different cultures.

The same concept has different words in different situations. For example, when we write
answers to a question in an exam paper, we use “answer”. Although it has synonyms such as
reply, it is not always appropriate in formal settings.

I think this theory has some limitations. For example, it only tries to separate vocabularies. It
only has tried to discuss that word formation sometimes influences perception. It has not focused
in terms of syntax.

Now, I want to discuss the assumption of Eleanor Rosch. She thinks that we form our
surroundings through our language. What words we use to refer to a concept. For example, we
refer to a creature as a bird because it has wings and it can fly.

The concept may originate from its root, hierarchically. For instance, if we say that we have
bought some clothes, it is not clear what I have bought. On the other hand, if we say that we have
bought some shirts, then it becomes more specific.

What I am trying to say is that first we define a word for a general concept. Then, we go more
specific. It goes hierarchically.

First, it starts from its root. Then, it is divided into several categories.
It has another perspective. When someone does not know the name of any particular object or
creature, then he uses the general term. For instance, if someone does not know the
characteristics of a dog but an animal, then he may refer to it as an animal.

There is a debate that language may define a concept or reflex it. I think both are fine. If we want
to refer to any concrete object, we name it with some words. For example, if a vehicle has four
tires, we identify it as a car. Then, future generations learn it from the old generation and use it in
their daily life.

On the other hand, we cannot define abstract ideas. We can never define happiness or love. We
can only identify it by its characteristics. However, we cannot say that if any behavior contains x
number of characteristics, it may be called love. Rather, we randomly refer to a behavior as love
or happiness.

Sometimes, we show our happiness through tears. Does it mean that he is sad? No, he is so
happy that his eyes are dropping tears. He is not sad. But, when people become sad, then also his
eyes tear water and we refer to the person as sad.

So, we cannot definitely define happiness or sadness with some definite behavior. It varies in
culture and situation.

I think that some concepts have been repeated in different packages. I have already tried to
discuss semantic relativity. Again, it has been discussed in The Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis.
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) has tried to say that linguistics determinism and relativity defines our
view of our society. The language determinism tries to confine it to the boundary of language.
On the other hand, language relativity has tried to broaden it.
I want to conclude the discussion with language discrimination. Language can discriminate
between genders. It does not mean language does it rather people do it. But, language is a
product of the population. So, the discrimination also exists in language.

For example, regardless if a man is married or not, we use Mr. in English. On the other hand, we
use miss or misses for a female depending if she is married or not.

When we try to talk about any profession, we often refer to male. For example, if we refer to a
teacher, we mean male teachers. If we really want to refer to women, we use female teachers. In
contrast, we do not use male teachers for male version.

In conclusion, I want to say that the author has tried to show a relation between language and
society. He has used many terms such as semantic relativity, Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis and many
more.