(insert professor’s name)
(insert course)
In everyday knowledge and communication, the average person’s perception of the world surprisingly deals with the organization of symbols, both in objections and words. According to the author of “Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life”, a person’s understanding of the world is based on small, implicit classifications of words’ attributes, such as familiarity and gender in French and German (41). This is interesting because the classification of a word being feminine changes the impression of that word to one that is possibly less intimidating than a masculine word. Additionally, by using familiar words, an outside listener of a conversation could determine the relationship between the two people. This system of classification is puzzling when applied to the identification of symbols, which can be both objective and subjective based on the comprehension of the listener and the culture (36). Based on a person’s cultural understanding, some signs which seem objective to someone else are not objective to someone else. Therefore, they would not interpret the same message as another outside observer. Ultimately, it seems that every symbol or element of communication is subjective.
“The Nexus of Language, Communication, and Culture” Response
Similarly, the article “The Nexus of Language, Communication, and Culture” by Mary Fong, offers some interesting points on how groups of people understand the world. Interestingly, the entire understanding of a person’s health and wellness can be based on the wording of their condition, such as the Chinese understanding of sickness (Fong 215). This interpretation affects not only the feeling of being sick but also how one becomes sick. Then, when someone else is learning the language also learns this thought process. This becomes puzzling when one thinks about the debate of whether language determines reality or reality determines language is puzzling (Fong 217). Essentially both situations are valid as the language determines how the world is understood. Yet without observing the world there is no way to come up with the language to express. Both these understanding seem to devolve to a chicken and egg scenario which may never be solved.
Both these articles prove that the understanding of reality is truly subjective based on one’s culture and the way they learned to communicate. There are so many small, nitpicky rules in language and communication that only someone born into that culture can learn. As mentioned before, these rules define how a person understands the world around them. Additionally, there are many variations on rules of interaction that exist even in one culture. They can be defined by a person’s experiences and how they were taught as a child. These bits of knowledge can ultimately affect the understanding of a range of supposedly objective symbols, making the person understand or misunderstand reactions with their fellow man. These earlier experiences and culture could ultimately determine the way a person interacts with the world.
