It also makes me think of the whole Pluto renaming. Articles on this:
You Call That a Planet? (prior to Pluto being reclassified)
Articles on Pluto (including some that discuss Pluto’s 2006 reclassification as a “dwarf planet” and how the voting on the definition of planet could have also created new planets, rather than demoted existing ones).

Of course, this “definition debate” clearly illustrates an example of “invented knowledge” within the natural sciences. Pluto hasn’t actually changed – the labels we have use to describe celestial objects and their definition is what has changed. Clearly, we invent such names – as we invent words generally.

See how is it is to find real (rather than hypothetical) examples for your essays? All you need to do is keep your eyes and ears open and follow the current news!

Autopsies of War Dead

Language and Gender Stereotypes: Two Slate writers discuss Obama’s use of a “gendered code word” in his search for a Supreme Court nominee (Note: he just nominated Sonia Sotomayor). Such words, they argue, “will only hurt women in the long run”.

Another update from today: California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban
This ruling raises a number of interesting issues – given that same-sex marriage is now definitely banned in California but that the couples who married during the time period when it was allowed last year will legally stay married. This double-ruling obviously creates some sort of ‘no man’s land’ for 18,000 gay people – they have certain rights that other gay people do not. I have no doubt that this situation will eventually change, but for the moment it is (intriguingly?) paradoxical. That said, some of the arguments posited by NYT reader commenters are debatable and sometimes fallacious. One reader (No. 4) states that “[i]t’s incomprehensible to me how a simple majority of voters can change the constitution. This should require a two-thirds majority of the votes, together with minimum-turnout requirement.” If we take this line of reasoning, I would imagine many civil-right victories would take many years more to happen. Indeed, aren’t such victories often decided by a handful of votes/voices of lonesome pioneers and only over time establishing themselves as the majority position? Isn’t this exactly what democracy is about (and not about it giving you always what you want?)? I am not saying the democratic process is perfect, but this is how it is supposed to work.
Do peruse the article and comments, and comment yourself!

An interesting tidbit: Obama (first African-American US president) was elected on the day that Proposition 8 was confirmed (banning gay marriage). Obama announced his Supreme Court Nominee (only the third woman on the US Supreme Court and the first Hispanic) today, same day as Proposition 8 was reconfirmed (upholding the ban). It’s a contrast of more diversity versus less diversity. What does this mean? I have no idea – perhaps that humans are a complicated species? Again, do ponder.

1) What are the stereotypical male/female traits? Identify and write them down.

2) Do the textbooks examined in the study reflect any of these stereotypical traits?

3) Does your biology textbook (whether from IB Biology or from lower grades) reflect any of these stereotypical traits?

4) What does this parallel suggest about language? What does it suggest about Biology, and, possibly, the other Natural Sciences?

5) In what ways does this reflection of stereotypes have implications (according to the article)?

6) How do the arguments presented in the article support the idea that ‘language shapes our perception’? What kind of implications might this have?

7) In what ways is this kind of discussion significant (regardless of how you personally feel about it)?

How does this discussion fit into the realm of “politically correct language”?

9) What do you personally think about all this? What might your opinion be influenced by?

You may want to read about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in relation to this article.

Some other, related articles:

Language as Context
Scientists show that language shapes perception

Bonus reflection question: How do you feel about this latter article (on colour perception)? Do you feel the same way about this article as on the “Egg and Sperm” one? Why or why not?

The Stem Cell War

There is also The IVF Battlefield.

Still involving children (though not in their embryonic form) and somewhat less controversial, there is also the heated discussion on whether forward phasing strollers might impede a child’s language learning. Yes, I know, that’s one issue you probably had never thought about before!

Slate asks Who should pay for in vitro fertilization?, a question that has arisen as part of the recent octuplets controversy. Also related to some of the presentation topics (e.g. “Synthetic Biology”) we have seen in class is another Slate article, which considers the the bad uses of good technology.

I would also like to recommend a film. As you may or may not know, I rather adore movies, particularly non-mainstream ones. I have seen most of those independent features available at my local video store, but the store manager pointed out one I had missed: Så som i Himmelen (As It Is in Heaven), a Swedish film from 2004. Why it is of interest to us? Although the film deals with a variety of noteworthy and complex issues (human relationships, moral responsibility of the individual in a community that has a long-established and unwritten agreement of ’silence’ and ‘looking away’), central to it is the power of music. Some of the most pivotal scenes in Så som i Himmelen communicate their message through this different form of language. As I watched the film, I was moved by the power of this – of a song that contained words, but, sung in Swedish, being only partially comprehensible to me (“Gabriellas sång”) as well as (SPOILER ALERT!) of the wordless sounds of the final scene. Of course, both these clips will make much more sense to you if you watch all of Så som i Himmelen!

“Women and Children First”

‘War on Terror’ Catchphrase Fading

We could commence with the swearing-in itself, the different names Obama was referred to with (”Barack Obama”, “Barack Hussein Obama”, “President Obama”), all of which carry more meaning than ‘the first black US president’ (yes, and the different words used for Obama’s racial classification are yet another language issue).

We’ve also got Obama’s inauguration speech (Jan 20, 2009), which you should read, and should mark words or phrases that you are think would be interesting to talk about.

Some analyses of the speech are available on the internet, including:

An Analysis of the Prose Style in Obama’s Inauguration Speech – by Stanley Fish, who is a professor of law. Why would a law professor analyse a text like this? It might be surprising, but really is not. In fact, it reminds me of an assertion I read in a book over the winter holidays (”Performing without a Stage: The Art of Literary Translation”), in which the author, Robert Wechsler, argues that “there is no better way to prepare to become a literary translator than to go to law school and practice law” (14). The explanation Wechsler provides is convincing enough for me, though those future-lawyers among you who don’t enjoy analysing literature and thought you were wasting your time, might not have considered this yet:

[B]eing a laywer requires [...] appreciating the value of words not just as little wads of meaning or feeling, but as missiles that can have huge ramifications if you can’t tell the difference betwen short-range and long-range, between nuclear and chemical warheads. For lawyers, multimillion-dollar deals can succeed or fail (for one side or the other) based on the level of ambiguity or precision of a certain word or phrase, in a certain context, for a certain purpose. Every word a lawyer uses is a commitmet, witha goal, an interest, and a risk that is – or at least should be – understood. Therefore, the lawyer is concerned with the finest distinctions between words, not only in meaning but also in tone and level of clarity. (14)

 
Do read people’s comments on the speech as well as on Prof. Fish’s analysis. Quite some individuals discuss single words and what they mean to them, something that allows us to realise that what we do in class is something that concerns people in real life.

More insightful comments:

Slate’s Annotations of the Inaugural Speech

And another link:

The Language of Inaugural Addresses – kind of neat… you can click on the heads of former presidents and see the most common words in their inauguration speeches. I feel like they read like some sort of abstract poem of a specific moment in time…..

And, to conclude, a new word I learned this week: POTUS (= President of the United States).

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The question is “Is it a crime or just politics?”. Of course, the issue is more than just a matter of language (in fact, that might be the more indirect question here). The “Where is the line drawn” is a of course a perfectly ToKish concern…

Here’s one opinion article from the NY Times, discussing a single word and its implications: Terrorists.

I read another article related to Rod Blagojevich and language the other day… but I can’t find it anymore! If I do, I will post it later. All I remember was that it was discussing where to draw the line between calling an act “criminal” and “immoral” – i.e. which word really best fit the whole Blago-scandal.

Anyhow, particularly those of you who wrote in your blog entries that language is just a way to communicate should read my language-related entries. Language is never neutral…

What do you believe? Can a machine think?
And, do you agree or disagree with the second article that the computer mouse will die out? (Personally I do… I rarely use a mouse. And although ‘mouse potato’ – in lieu of ‘couch potato’ – was one of the new words of 2006, I don’t think it’s anywhere near as catchy as the original word, nor as permanent).

PEACE
by Stanley Moss

The trade of war is over, there are no more battles,
but simple murder is still in.
The No God, Time, creeps his way,
universe after universe, like a great snapping turtle
opening its mouth wagging its tongue
to look like a worm or leech
so deceived hungry fish, every living thing
swims in to feed. Quarks long for dark holes,
atoms butter up molecules, protons do unto neutrons
what they would have neutrons do unto them.
The trade of war has been over so long,
the meaning of war in the O.E.D. is now “nonsense.”
In the Russian Efron Encyclopedia,
war, voina, means “dog shit”;
in the Littré, guerre is “a verse form, obsolete”;
in Germany, Krieg has become “a whipped-cream pastry”;
Sea of Words, the Chinese dictionary,
has war, zhan zheng, as “making love in public,”
while war in Arabic and Hebrew, with the same
Semitic throat, harb and milchamah, is defined
as “anything our distant grandfathers ate
we no longer find tempting—like the eyes of sheep.”
And lions eat grass.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

“When the Deity Knows You’re Dead”: The question raised is, how do different religions define death? How do we know when someone is dead? (Opposite the usual “When does life begin question” – though it does relate back to the entry I posted on Organ Harvesting, except that here we are talking children and adults alike.) Of course, we may also ponder how then does science define death? What about atheists and agnostics? What can we say about all this being a linguistic issue? Do ponder. Deeply.

Moreover, the Dot Earth Blog at the New York Times published this article today, providing “earthly advice for Obama”. Look at the suggestions made by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, two prize-winning ecologists from Stanford University, as some of them could easily be considered radical and allow for plenty of discussion!

Swastika on Wikipedia- The section on what the symbol signifies in different religions is particularly interesting.
“The Origin of the Swastika”

I thought today’s column was of interest for us in ToK, as it concerns LANGUAGE and cultural specific usages of it.

External Link

Copy of advice column:

MOM’S PROBLEM WITH MANNERS MAY BE MISPLACED PRIORITIES

DEAR ABBY: May I point out something to “Mannerly Mom in Cumberland” (July 23)? She’s the woman who, after thanking someone, becomes offended when she hears, “No problem,” rather than, “You’re welcome.”
In many languages, the literal response to “Thank you” translates to, “It was nothing.” So a reply of “No problem” is not entirely inappropriate. In fact, it makes more sense to me than, “You’re welcome,” which I don’t understand at all. I am welcome to what?

If “Mannerly Mom” is really worried about teaching her children proper manners, shouldn’t she be more concerned that they DO respond in acknowledgement rather than insist that they use the proper words? To me, that would be a much more valuable lesson. — DENNIS IN ROCHESTER, N.Y.

DEAR DENNIS: According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “You’re welcome” means, “You’re under no obligation for the favor given.” But allow me to share with you that the topic of whether it’s appropriate to respond to a “Thank you” with “No problem” is one that energized more than a few of my older readers to say they find it offensive. Read on:

DEAR ABBY: I never realized how often “No problem” was used until last year, when a speaker at our customer service seminar drew our attention to the issue. Since then, our company has set national standards against the use of “No problem,” which has become a standard response to “Thank you.”

story continues below
advertisement
I would like to suggest an alternative: “My pleasure,” which conveys a completely different feeling. Saying this to customers makes them feel as though you were happy to be of service to them. — JUST A NOTE FROM KANSAS
DEAR ABBY: I agree with you that language is evolving, but one reason is that so many cultures are present — and becoming more prevalent — in the U.S. In Spanish, the literal translation of “de nada” is “It’s nothing.” Surprisingly, in England, “You’re welcome” is not commonly used. I’m married to a Brit and found it strange that my flawlessly mannered mother-in-law would just smile and nod. My husband has taken to saying, “No worries,” which is quite Australian. — APRIL IN MAPLE GROVE, MINN.

DEAR ABBY: Here in the South, the common response to a thank you (especially with younger service-industry people) is “Uh-huh.” Oh, how I long to hear “No problem.” If I take the time to thank people for service, please make some effort to acknowledge my thanks. “Uh-huh” sounds absentminded, as though the speaker has already mentally moved on. — PREFERS “NO PROBLEM”

DEAR ABBY: It has been my experience that young people use the phrase indiscriminately for every statement or question put to them. “No problem” — like some four-letter words — betrays a lack of vocabulary or unwillingness (born of laziness) to use more precise language. In addition, this response implies that the other party might have thought there was a possible problem when that implication was not intended. — DANIEL IN KISSIMME, FLA.

DEAR ABBY: Your readers might be interested in the way “Thank you” is responded to in other countries. In England, there is no response. The service has been rendered, the server thanked, the transaction is complete. In French- or Spanish-speaking countries, the proper response is, “It’s nothing.” In Arabic-speaking countries it’s, “No thanks for doing my duty,” and in China it’s, “No thanks are necessary.” My favorite: When I said “Thank you” in my best Korean to a young Korean woman, she replied, “No problem!” — INDIANA LINGUIST

Undead Babies: The Retreating Boundaries of Organ Harvesting