The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know.

Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.

Vocabulary is key to our communication of knowledge with others. Possessing a wide vocabulary has its benefits for a person such as effortless communication of ones thoughts and ideas; it also allows him/her to build a solid foundation and framework for concepts of reality. Without vocabulary for one to use for defining, knowledge may be restricted. Despite certain flaws in language such as ambiguity, both knowledge and thought can be based solely on ones knowledge of vocabulary as shown by the SapirWhorf hypothesis. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language determines thought.

Vocabulary are the words one uses to convey messages, thoughts, and knowledge. Without a decent range of vocabulary, concepts and ideas cannot be communicated across. However, even if one is perfect with the constructs of vocabulary, many messages still cannot be communicated between two different people. Thus, I will be evaluating the claim that vocabulary does more than communicate our knowledge; that it can shape what one knows.

By taking into account the areas of knowledge that are relevant to the topic being discussed (humanities, languages, natural sciences, maths, and the arts), there are certain implications of language on knowledge that will largely differ. The natural sciences share their own characteristic universal language. In each of the sciences, Biology, Physics, Chemistry unique symbols are used to represent and replace the common language 1. For example formulas in Physics; the periodic table of elements in Chemistry; and a combination of symbols, diagrams, and simple equations. These can be understood by any scientist, of any three of the mentioned fields. A perfect language is constructed.
1 Languages used to communicate, such as English, Chinese, French, Japanese, etc.

However, this perfect language of the sciences cannot exist on its own without the common language, it is useless. The common language provides a framework on which the scientific language can rely heavily upon with unambiguity and unbiasedness. The names and labels used in science are of a unique nature thus eliminating the need to use the common language to describe it. It is simply a word part of the vocabulary of sciences, used to associate a thing, with an image or idea of what it is in our minds. This name-thing association is universal, no matter how it is translated, every language has its own word for it. A barrier of misinterpretation is penetrated. Such incident can be clearly shown when I want to describe a complicated Biology experiment an investigation of the effects of humidity and temperature on transpiration in monocotyledonous plants to my best friend David. Appropriate terminology, and variables can either be a.) described using the common language, or b.) described using correct terminology i.e. Scientific language. Taking a.) into account first, describing a piece of equipment or procedure using the common language can only be used to the extent of which the naked eye can observe. This will form misinterpretations as ones perception of an object and how one describes that object using language will be different, always. However, in b.) correct terminology understood by both parties would result in a significant decrease in misunderstandings as one scientific term is only ever associated with one scientific thing.

A similar discussion with mathematics will indubitably show that language is not a necessary component for maths, let alone the world of all sciences. The signs and formulas of mathematics make up the mathematical language. To an alien visiting the Earth might view the symbols . that this mathematical language is universal. The signs and symbols that define the functions of mathematics are undeniably unambiguous and does not leave any room for alternative interpretations. Thus making the language of mathematics, one of the only perfect languages. But in order to use this language, one

must be able to master it completely. An anecdote of mathematics being a universal language is how I, a native English speaker, returned to Japan to study at a local school. Everything was taught in Japanese, and to me, it was almost a completely new language. I did not suffer in all of my classes, especially mathematics. On the contrary, I excelled in it. The obvious communicating language barrier was evident, however in the language of mathematics, the signs and symbols of a logic based science surpassed all other barriers.

Humanities can also be effected by language, in fact, history is based solely on language. There is no terminology that can be used to identify key ideas or things in History. It is purely founded upon the observation and the description of events using language. The fact that history can only be preserved through observation and telling through language is inevitable because there is no other way to keep records of such past events. However, due to this inevitability, history told and retold is often biased. This applies especially true for the events that occurred when Japan invaded China during World War II. To this day, China and Japan still tell different stories about what happened during the war. China, being the victim, heavily exaggerates the events that transpired. Whereas Japan, being the guilty, would leave out certain more shameful parts. On a psychological level, this seems fair, however the bias that is passed down through generations is evident. A clear piece of evidence supporting the claim. The vocabulary used in the language has shaped what we are taught about the events. It is now near impossible to truly distinguish between what is fact, and what is fiction. With humanitarian subjects it seems, language certainly does shape what a person can know.

Differently, the areas of knowledge related to the arts also have a lot of vocabulary. However, the arts have two aspects: performance and theory. The theoretical side of the arts may seem inferior to the sciences as it does not require a strong logical and reasoning

set of skills; the performance aspect is not shaped by language. But the arts are more important than they seem, it takes skill to be able to communicate creativity to others. The sheer complexity and ambiguity encompassed by creative arts calls for specific terminology for efficient communication. This shows how language can affect what we know. Over the past 12 years, I have learned a lot of arts-specific terminology, mainly for music. Music requires a lot of new vocabulary drawn from a variety of different languages. Without musical terminology, there would be no way to compare impressions of music. Whereas with the proper words, it is possible to describe a piece as this cantata accelerandos at the beginning from a tempo of Andante to Vivace before a decelerando to an allegretto pace and be universally understood.

Of all the areas of knowing, it seems as if the humanities are least shaped by ones knowledge of vocabulary. Whereas mathematics, the natural sciences, and the arts all require separate vocabularies. However, there are many counter-claims that will refute all of these claims.

First, take music, there are many traditions of folk music originating in Africa and India that were never recorded and never described using specific terminology. The music has survived through oral tradition, which shows the importance of language in preserving knowledge.

According to zoologists, monkeys, dolphins, and other select mammals are capable of higher level thinking2; they are able to make intelligent decisions. Some languages are more complex than others, but that does not necessarily mean that the people with a difficult language are smarter than people with a simpler language. Even if one had a vast

2 Higher level thinking: the ability to make conscious mature decisions; decisions that require a certain level of IQ.

vocabulary, they may not know to use it. For example, many Chinese English learners have studied a significant amount of vocabulary, however they are unable to utilize it. Their speaking of the English language is still stuttered and difficult to understand. But when a person is asked: How do you know how to utilize the vocabulary in your head and form a string of sentences with it? and people become stumped. Because people dont know how they do it, it has become something innate, that vocabulary has started to shape what we know.

Finally, the strongest of counter-claims is when language cannot express what one feels no matter how vast their vocabulary. It is undeniable that every human being has at one point felt as if a message could not be conveyed. In these instances, it is language that has let us down and limited us to expressing our feelings. In this instance, we may not have the appropriate language for expressing what we would like to. This simply goes to show that language has not shaped what we can know, but instead, language is only being used to convey what we know. And that undoubtedly, there are many areas of knowing that we cannot use language to portray.

Ultimately, I believe that knowledge is not shaped by our language and vocabulary. Our thought processes and knowledge is liable go beyond what is portrayable through language. Therefore, ones knowledge on vocabulary does shape what one can know.

Bibliography:

Harmon, J. M., & Wood, K. D. (2008). Research Summary: Vocabulary teaching and learning across disciplines. Retrieved [21/Nov/2011] from http://www.amle.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/VocabularyTeaching/tabid/1728/Defau lt.aspx Joshua Hartshorne. (August 18 2009). Does Language Shape What We Think? Retrieved [21/Nov/2011] from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-languageshape-what