Catherine Vo-Nguyen Journal Assignment #6

In Ehlrich, it was mentioned that Chomsky, a U.S linguist born in the 1920s, developed an idea of universal grammar and that basically sentences are not simple linear strings or words but rather consist of underlying hierarchical structures of phrases grouped into even bigger phrases. Syntax allows us to group our words, and therefore our thoughts, into meaningful sentences and ways to communicate to those around us coherently. This is crucial for the human language obviously. Words on its own would be meaningless if we say them out in a willy-nilly random order with no structure in mine on how those words put together could make sense. Communication from person to person would not even be possible if it werent for structures and syntax. But because there are so many words out there and especially so many specific words for one thing, we simplify all the information and group them into broader categories. For example in the Farb article he explained how we would group the concept furniture into categories such as couches, sofas, chairs, ect. And within each of those categories, there are sub-categories. Like for chair, there are many different kinds of chairs; arm chair, rocking chair. And then we break it down further and think of what components it requires for a chair to be a chair; legs, a seat, a back, ect. Farb also stated that everyone, whether he realizes it or not, classifies the items in his environment. If we dont create a structure in terms of groupings for all the information out there, our brains would explode from receiving too much material to think about. This definitely reminds me of Zerubavels concept of humans drawing lines and separating things with the lines. Syntax is essential for the human language and in reading the Farb article I learned that due

to the differences in syntax of different languages from different countries, meanings and overall entire concepts of an idea could be lost in translation. Just as demonstrated with Mark Twains attempt to translate his story from English to French and then the literal French translation back into English, the meaning of the story has completely changed. Onto symbolism. Our vocabulary is viewed as a form of symbolism for relationships to the real world as I read and quoted in Ehrlich somewhere. The way we put symbolism into our language is what differentiates our ways of communication from animals. The vast complexity in underlying meanings from our words and language is what makes the human language unique. A form of symbolism is metaphors. The Lakoff article explained how metaphors are used in our eveyrday life not just in language, but in our thoughts and actions too. And basically what I got from this article is the importance in the semantics of our vocabulary. Because it doesnt just affect our language but in our thought and our every action, even the minor little things we do daily that we dont notice. Our ordinary conceptual system with how we think and act is metaphorical in nature, states the Farb article. Using the idea of having an conceptual metaphor that argument is war, I was able to understand how metaphors and semantics plays a huge part in human language. Figurativey we talk about having an argument is like being in war with someone. An argument is structured and can be understood in terms of a war, and therefore the language itself. This way of explaining how symbolism is demonstrated in language was extremely helpful to my understanding. They also made a point in explaining that since we use the metaphorical concept of argument as war so naturally and ordinary without being very conscious of the overall idea, I understood that symbolism is not only essential to the human language, but in our thoughts as well. Human thought processes then, can be very metaphorical with my understanding of this.