Two thoughts from latest discussion on language.
Metaphors, Myths, Legends and the Truth?
Seems like so many of our discussions have winded their way back to a discussion as Curriculum as metaphor. Graham’s point, that for some concepts, curriculum being one of them, we are limited by the language which we are using to describe them.
I have plenty of experience discussing this concept in a variety of different contexts. I spent a few years studying Theology at Province College and Theological Seminary. Along with classes aimed to foster personal growth and development many of the courses offered focused on historical analysis of Biblical texts. The most interesting (and controversial for some) class was on Biblical stories as myth and metaphor which dealt with the stories, parables, and other books of the Bible in a non-literal fashion. For some, myself not included, this was a controversial if not blasphemous statement. For the rest of us this was a reaffirmation that true truth can, at times, be impossible to capture in language. There was a reason why parables were used to capture and discuss issues of the supernatural….the reason being because simple language is incapable of doing so.
My discussion here was not intended to stimulate a theological debate as to the literal or non literal interpretation of religious text. However, I did feel that this topic provides a great example of how metaphor and myth have been used for 1000’s of years to capture and describe concepts that push the limits of our language.
Different languages – can curriculum be found in translation?
My 4 years in Thailand provided plenty of opportunities to experiment and analyse the differences between the Thai and English languages. It didn’t take me long to notice that it took a Thai person twice as long to give directions in Thai as it would have in English. When I first moved there and needed directions in a taxi cab I would call a friend and have them talk to the taxi driver…it often took several minutes to give simple directions. As I learned more and more Thai I began to listen in when directions were being given and I realized that Thai is a very non-descript language. There are no tenses and none of the verbs are conjugated….instead they add markers or combine several different words to create the intended meaning. At times, they need to rephrase a concept several times to convey their intended meaning.
This got me thinking…..how does English measure on the power of description scale? I’ve heard that English is regarded as a very descriptive language but are we missing some words/concepts that other language have that might make it easier to define or describe curriculum? Just a thought?
Do any of you speak another language fluently enough to try to define curriculum using that language?
What would the results be?
I’d be interested to hear your take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Ryan, your question about English language reminded me of a conversation I had with a Dutch person who was learning English (and this conversation took place while we were both studying Spanish in Costa Rica. A complicated language time!) While our conversation was not specifically about curriculum, she explained to me that while the pronounciation of English was challenging, in some ways she found learning the language easy because there were "less words". As an example, other languages, such as Spanish, distinguish the verb "to be" into: to be permanently (such as to be male), or to be temporarily (such as to be feeling happy). While having "less words" might have made English easier to learn, I would imagine it would result in a less specific description because words have a broader scope of meaning.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I speak Spanish well enough to define curriculum well. I think I could do a decent job at describing something concrete or mundane, like a table. However, for something as complicated as curriculum, I think it would be quite a bit more challenging - especially if you throw trying to translate metaphors into the mix.
I liked your comment that "true truth can, at times, be impossible to capture in language". I think the same could be said of true beauty. I know I am often hesitant to take a picture of something I think is beautiful, like a sunset (I know, so cliche), because I know that the photograph won't be able to accurately capture its beauty, or how I felt when I saw it. Whether it be truth, or beauty, there seems to be a general inclination to try and capture the essence of something pure using an imperfect medium, like language or photographs. I wonder if things being undefined (or undefinable), much like silences in conversations, creates feelings of discomfort which people feel they need to compensate for.
Six years ago I taught English-immersion to a group of young adults from Quebec for a summer. Your comment "that English is regarded as a very descriptive language but are we missing some words/concepts that other language have" was stated often by my French students. The French language seems to some rich descriptive words that English is lacking. My students would ask for translations of French to English words and oftentimes there wasn't an appropriate translation that had the same impact. The English equivalent seemed to pale in comparison to the power of the French verion. As well, the French students seemed to have a much wider vocaublary in French than most English students would have using English. Maybe that's a result of varying curriculuar goals between the provinces, or a greater cultural appreciation of their language.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it the language that is used, by also how it is used. French seems to be not only spoken by felt. I know when I spearench with others it is hard not to gesticulate more than in English and feel somewhat moved by what you're saying because of how it feels as you say. I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm not sure if Spanish would feel the same way.
I love your quote Chelsea: "I wonder if things being undefined (or undefinable), much like silences in conversations, creates feelings of discomfort which people feel they need to compensate for." I feel like our langauge is emphasizes gnostic(knowledge) ways of knowing rather than pathic(feeling) ways of knowing. As a result, there may be a disconnect between the intended curriculum and the curriculum potential. It can be intimidating to take students on an journey that reachers beyond the mind and into the soul. I think our students need more learning opportunities that capture their souls and move them in meaningful ways. The majority of people I've met in my life who seem to epitomize "life" success, have not been the ones who scored high marks in high school, but have endured emotional battles or sought soul-enriching experiences. When talking to these people, they don't need to describe what they've done or how they did it because you can feel it emanate off of them. (Sorry that sounds so cheesey)
The only other language I know is ASL, and I definitely think curriculum would be a difficult thing to thing to describe in that language, because it is so limited. But if we were describing curriculum in terms of metaphors, ASL would most likely be very useful because it not only describes with words, but it shows you as well. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteRyan, I liked your point about the use of metaphors to fill gaps in our language even back when the Bible was written. I think it is just amazing! Just like we try to define curriculum (for example) using metaphors, parables were also used to try and define an abstract idea - something that people might have had difficulty grasping otherwise. We keep discussing metaphor as something that "fills the gaps" in our language, but perhaps, after all this time, metaphor is not "filling the gaps in our language" - it IS our language. This method of taking us from the known to the unknown in a way we can understand is beautiful! I guess what I'm trying to say is that while some may view the use of metaphors as proof that the English language is lacking in so many ways, I am beginning to get the idea that metaphor is not necessarily just an AID to our language - it IS our language...and so perhaps our language is not lacking as much as we thought?
Excellent point Ryan...got people thinking
ReplyDelete