…before I forget…
What level of divergent definitions do communities of language now diverge?
For example. “Communism” is probably understood by english speakers in similar ways, making us a community of language. However, we may had different interpretations to some degree, e.g. is communism a good or bad thing. Does that more subtle difference make us a different community of language? Is there a concept of a “sub-community of language”?
Moreover, do communites of language exist around a single word or a large subset of words? Are the non-native english speakers in our class who have a smaller set of undestanding of the english language a different community? Or do we instead have a common community around the word “dog” but not around “baloney”?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 8, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Jenny Hertel
Interesting questions. And, once again, I have “Everything is Round” going through my head! (See my post above your’s for an explanation.)
In my CMC class today, we discussed an article called “Culture and Online Education” from 2003 by Gunewardena & Nolla. It listed several factors that influence cognitive processing in culture, and language was one. It cited the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: “. . . language shapes our thinking, beliefs, and attitudes. . . the grammar of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for people’s mental activity, for their analysis of impressions . . .”
With that in mind, I would disagree that a common understanding of a word creates a “community,” especially if we take the structuralist approach and say that the word is really just a signifier of an idea. I would think that if there is a community, it exist around what is being signified by the words, but not by the words themselves.
October 9, 2008 at 1:41 am
Rajasee
word, Jenny!
October 9, 2008 at 11:28 pm
jeffreybardzell
Jenny, your argument seems to me to reject the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, because it suggests we all share concepts prior to sharing the words. I am not saying you are wrong to hold this position, but it is quite different from a structuralist notion, which would hold that our consciousness itself is organized, enabled, and constrained by our language.
October 9, 2008 at 11:30 pm
jeffreybardzell
To answer Eugene’s question, no one understands any word in isolation. Words only make sense at all by participating in networks of other signifiers. “Communism” is no exception. It has no meaning whatsoever unless you put it with other signifiers. To have a community, you need a language. And a language is a repertoire of signifiers, combined with rules of combination (syntax), and practical contexts in which they are used.