No, not like road s
igns or signs on a storefront. I'm talking in general about signs--or something that stands for something else. There's a special branch of Communication (or linguistics) called semiotics that is devoted to the study of signs. There are actually departments of semiotics at some universities.
igns or signs on a storefront. I'm talking in general about signs--or something that stands for something else. There's a special branch of Communication (or linguistics) called semiotics that is devoted to the study of signs. There are actually departments of semiotics at some universities. A fever might be a sign that a person is ill. A puff of smoke rising over a forest might be a sign that there is a fire below. A group of geese flying overhead might be a sign of changing seasons. There are many signs, but the primary feature of a sign is that it points to something else. It refers to something else. Many signs (such as the three I just listed) are natural signs. Some signs, however, are created signs or--as semioticians say--arbitrary. That is, somebody makes up a particular sign to stand for something else. We call these arbitrary signs--symbols.
The most common symbols involve l
anguage. That is, a letter is a symbol (and, thus, a sign). Both its sound and its written form are symbolic. A word is a sign. Think about it. For example, the letters--D-O-G--have no actual meaning in themselves--nor do their sounds when you pronounce them. It's only because other language users recognize these letters (and sounds) grouped together as meaning that furry little creature with four legs that barks that the letters D-O-G have any meaning.
anguage. That is, a letter is a symbol (and, thus, a sign). Both its sound and its written form are symbolic. A word is a sign. Think about it. For example, the letters--D-O-G--have no actual meaning in themselves--nor do their sounds when you pronounce them. It's only because other language users recognize these letters (and sounds) grouped together as meaning that furry little creature with four legs that barks that the letters D-O-G have any meaning. It's people--language users--who give meaning to the symbols of language. We language users could just as well have chosen different letters and sounds for dog (maybe flum or chotz) but we settled on dog. If we want to communicate a message regarding a dog we'd better use the collection of symbols that other language users (at least English language users) recognize--or we'll be out of luck in getting our message across.
People have taken this understanding about the symbolic nature of language and used it to argue a variety of educational theories. One common argument is that since language is arbitrary, it is not important to teach students how to use language "correctly" because there is no correct language. My response to this foolhardy notion is this: Yes, language is arbitrary, and language changes, such that what is incorrect one day becomes acceptable the next, and vice versa. However, to throw students to the wolves and force them to decide what is and isn't correct on their own places far too much responsibility on them. I say teach students the correct use of language; inform them that there are other ways of using language, and show them that the true test is the ability to determine which form of language to use in which situation.
What do you say? How does our understanding of the arbitrary symbolic nature of language influence educational policy? Should students be forced to learn correct language?
.jpg)
1 comments:
They should. Communication is a skill to be learned if we want students to express themselves properly.
Post a Comment