Dialogue, language, learning
Dear LO'ers,
This community is multilingual and multicultural. Some of us have English
as their mothertongue, lots of us don't, although we all communicate in
English (at least we think so :-)).
We could see language as the most important carrier of thoughts and
knowledge from one person to another. In this picture language is like the
train to fascilitate the transport from one place to another, or like the
enzyme, catalysator, midwife or 'umlomo'. Language could only play this
role optimally, if the sending and receiving persons are on the same
'wavelength'. Language should have the same value for both of them. Only
then, the flow meets less resistance, without barriers. In this case, the
source of miscommunication lies mainly in the contents ("What do you mean
with......?")
There is another picture possible. Language is the "visualisation' or
'audiosation' of thoughts. In this case language forms an integral part of
thinking and thoughts and communication is carried out by electromagnetic
waves. The intimicy of language and thinking is so intense that for
optimal communication the language patterns of sender and receiver should
be simmilar and also the senses for sending and receiving the
electromagnetic waves should be 'tuned'. Miscommunication could now be due
to both, content AND form ("Speak louder, please", or "Please, write with
another font or character set").
In any of both cases, language plays a crucial role in thinking and in the
transfer of thoughts (and thus with learning). The barriers that different
languages cause or create in a learning environment (with different
persons) could be so high, that vast parts of knowledge and ideas of a
person or even whole nations or tribes will never reach people with
another language.
In our very LO-list we dialogue in English, which is not for all of us our
mothertongue. We are somewhat flexible, we could often deal with
misspellings, tipo's or accepted variations in spelling (organisation vs.
organization); we use the same characterset (although it seems that Andrew
has sometimes difficulties to tight himself in this straitjacket:-)). But
we cannot hear our voices, tones and variations in speed, rhythm and
pitch. There are thus some serious barriers present in our dialogues,
transfer of thoughts and ideas and in our understanding of thinking.
Possibly (I am not sure if language is the cause) the discussion on TRUTH,
truth, THE truth, a TRUTH, my truth, your truth, our truth(S), their one
and only thruth, etc, etc. could be a sign of these barriers. Similar
difficulties will be in multinational companies as well. It seems to me a
very important topic.
In a small satellite-group of this list (how much of these satellite
spirals accompany our joint hurricane?), the issue of language and
learning started recently. Before this will generate its own tornado, I
think it will be wise to share and invite the whole LO-list in this
dialogue.
At the moment, there are two main streams in this small group dialogue:
1. How to deal/overcome with language barriers in a learning environment?
2. History shows the fact that different countries/cultures/languages have
generated famous people with different 'specialisations'. For instance,
the old Greeks are famous in philosophy and abstract thinking, among the
Romans there is a complete lack of these. Japanese are masters in copying
and improving. Italians are masters in design and art. The English are
great humorists and engineers; Germans produced great physicists; France
is famous of its mathematecians; the Dutch are known of a strange mixture
of chemists, phycisits and astronomers.
Sustains one language creative thinking more than another language??
Obvious differences between the English and German languages are for
instance the separation vs. merging of words. An example:
German - Instrumentalmusikbeurteiler; English - reviewer/critic of
instrumental music.
Is this difference an explanation for the engineering capacities of
English scientists (separating a complex thing in different parts)?
How sensitive is one in the English speaking world e.g. on cause and
effect, where the German make use of the nomative, genitive, dative, etc.?
The Latin languages with their feminine and masculine words, using LEM,
whereas in German the middle is honored with neutral words.
And how sloppy are some languages?
German - Unterseeboot (should be Untermeerboot?); English - submarine
(should be something like submarinable, like in) French - submersible .
German and Dutch are extremely rich in small, untranslatable words, but
they are essential for the subtle meaning of a sentence. (for the Dutch
speakers: 'Luister toch eens", of "Zo is het toevallig ook nog eens een
keer").
Maybe a third element could be added:
3. Language has a spoken and a written side. Some languages are more
'musical' than others, in some languages (Chinese) the pitch is even
important for the meaning of the word. But does the type of characters of
the written language plays a role too? Is that why Japanese and Chinese
think different from the 'western' world. Has the Arabic world something
different in their thinking because of their special smooth, fluent and
unhooky writings and reading from right to left?
There are too many questions in this very complex matter. But since the
bond between language and thinking/learning is so strong, it is worth to
spend some dialogue on this issue. Could we as a multilingual community
lift a small tip of the veil?
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.