The writer is using an informal style; in fact he is trying to establish a conversation with the reader through which he attempts to prove the relation between language and gender. Concepts are clearly defined like the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis to which the author provided a clear and simple definition which a beginner can easily comprehend: “we are not simply passive recorders of what we find around us in language; rather, we impose our ideas on our environment as a result of the language we have”. Then, after preparing his reader, he provides (presents) the official (?) definition by Whorf “we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages…” Here the book is both introducing the reader to new concepts in simple words and authenticating these concepts by referring to its origins making the reader completely familiar with the new terms and providing him with a resource if he wanted to read more about the matter. He does not stop here; having introduced the concept to the reader he goes even further and he provides examples to prove the validity of the concept. For example he provides some evidence to prove (support) the existence(plausibility) of the Sapir-Whorf linguistics system (hypothesis) using the example of the color metaphors as they differ from one country to another which means form one culture to another.bFor example the ‘blue jokes’ in English are ‘green jokes’ in Spanish, however they are ‘red jokes’ in Mexican Spanish. All that means that they are “arbitrary: if we have associations for a particular colour(be consistent, use one spelling and stick to it) term, it is more likely to be because we put them there than because they occurred somehow ‘naturally’. If it occurred naturally, then everyone would have the same system”.
COMMENT: This is very good and simple. Just try to avoid very long sentences, by using punctuations whenever you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment