Answer a total of three questions on the class blog: two can be short answer (one or two sentences) and one should be developed into a full paragraph (100-150 words). Additionally, respond to one of your classmate's comments.
I think she believes that the things we do when we are alive determine to which measure can be placed on life. Langauge is used to communicate and interact, and without it, our lives wouldn't measure as highly.
Perhaps Morrison is saying that the simple purpose in life is just to live. However, the type of life we live is measured by the language we use and our subsequent actions a result our words. We all come and go, but until we take of advantage of language's great power, we cannot truly "measure" our life and define ourselves as humans. Earlier in her speech she explains that “language is used as a device for grappling with meaning, providing guidance, or expressing love.” If we are successful in seizing these positive opportunities and if we never succumb to the oppressive language that is violence, then the “measure” of our life is quite spectacular.
She is saying that death is inevitable and even saying that the meaning of life is to die. But, she said the that way to measure what we've done in life is our language and what we've said.
I think that what she is saying in this sentence is that death is the one thing in life that is guaranteed. No matter what happens, the one thing that is known for sure is that we will die. However, we can look at the past and measure what we have done by language. We can always look at our past and look at the difference in language. It can be the unit we use to measure how far we have come.
She means that people could express their unique ideas by using a language, and in this way we could make a difference. People die, and that is the natural law. However, some one died with great contributions. One of the things that makes human beings different from other creatures that living on the earth is that we could think, speak, communicate and have the abilities to change the world.
I agree with the point that they way we measure of lives is to look at back and look at the difference in language. Since language changed and evolved a lot with the time goes by, our lives are recorded in it. It is a way that we see how our language and life came to be the ones of today.
She seems to split the responsibility between two groups of people, the older and the younger. She does a great job of not specifically degrading a certain generation, rather she deemed it everyones responsibility to preserve and not suppress language. She believes that the responsibility of the older generation is to make sure that they themselves speak the language they are used to, and be comfortable with it. She doesn't want them to feel the need to conform to the newer ways of speaking, rather she wants them to use the language they are most comfortable speaking with. The responsibility of the younger generation is quite similar, but she believes it is their responsibility to respect the languages that were before their time, and learn from them. If we don't, we will have a suppressed language.
The wise women thinks the younger generation should be responsible for development of language. She thinks language should be a living thing which means it should not be suppressed,limited and chained. Language contains a narrative power which allows ideas and thoughts to flow and exchange freely.
Her speech evokes a sense that all must take responsibility whether it is the older generation whose purpose is to fix what they have done wrong in the past or the younger generation who has the power to not make mistakes in the future.
The woman in the story believes that the younger generation is to blame for the misfortunes that will inevitably occur because its in their hands. In her eyes her generation has handed off the responsibility to the younger generation, she and her generation are no longer accountable. What occurs next is based on what the next generation decides to do.
Responsibility is a major issue when it comes to this. I think that the people she was talking about in this blurb is the older generation. They are responsible for keeping their language. They need to hold on to their way of speaking for as long as possible. The newer generation is ruining the English language as we know it.
The woman in the speech thinks that the young generation should be responsible for the languages they used, including how languages are changed and being understood. She also thinks that the old generation should preserve their languages to prevent its dying, because she believes that when language dies, all users and makers are accountable for its demise.
The responsibility she means is not to perserve the language, and keep it in a good form. Some of the languages die not only because of carelessness, absence of esteem. When a language could not convey new ideas, the language is basically died. Both the younger and the older generation are responsible for the loses, even though they played different roles. Children are long known with their innovations and rebellions. And it is the older generation’s fault not to regulates the changes and teaches them what is right and what is wrong.
The common interpretation of the story”tower of babel” is that the fall of the tower is misfortune, however, language can never be monolithic. Language is tolerance. Before humans reach heaven or achieve true peace, they need time to understand every aspects of language;they need to be tolerant to other points of view;they need to understand and appreciate other cultures that derive from different languages. So, if language is a medium of expressing trends of thoughts, then people can never stop it from flowing. Just like the story suggests, obedience to one single language or perspective is never possible. The world runs with conflicts between ideas so language should not be distorted and used as a tool to hide the true power of narrative.
She describes the people of the united group as "hasty" because they were too caught up in trying to reach the heavens that they were unwilling and unreceptive to accept new ideas, thoughts, and languages. She even suggests that if they concentrated on exploring these new things, then they may have found that "Paradise" was right there on Earth.
At the beginning of the story, Toni Morrison emphasized that the old woman was the daughter of slaves, black American. Therefore, she mentions the tower of Babel in order to express her willing which is not to segregate people by their languages.
I think she uses the Tower of Babel story to show how suppressed forms of language can be dangerous. "God" supposedly took away their universal language, which meant finishing the tower was difficult, which is a great metaphor.
The whole story with the old woman has the goal to make people understand that it is not only the younger ones job to preserve a language, but also the elder one's. But what readers can also take out of the story is that it is their free decicion, to decide wether they want to go on luving their culture or only remember it. And that remembering part is important, because wether you preserve culture and language or not, it shoul never be forgotten entirely, I think.
When I listened to Toni Morrison's speed, It reminded me of the article we read about the old indigenous language from Mexico that we red about. I remember being very angry about the two old men that were the last people speaking the language, but refused to talk to each other. I was thinking that, if they wouldn't want to do their part in preserving their language, why should the younger generation think it is worth the effort? But as Toni Morrison says in her speech, a lot of younger people are not at all as indifferent as lots of elderly people may think. They do want to learn about their origen, their culture, the identity of their people. And as the young ones blame the old blind woman in Morrison's tale, it is unfair if the old generation keeps all this as an exclusiveness.
This speech relates to lots of passages we read recently. The whole speech conveys us an idea that language keeps changing in a negative direction which relates to Orwell’s argument about political language. Also it relates to the debate between sticklers and their oppositions. It also talks about who should the responsibility of language declining which can relate to the project of endangered language .
This speech relates directly to several texts we've read this year. For example she talks about how language is evolving and how language now is used very politically which relates to the drones article and the Orwell piece we read. One paragraph in particular where she describes the way our language is received or used nowadays. Such as her sentence saying that our language condones and will continue to condone abuse, torture, and rape. She was right. She gave that speech in '93 and now 20 years later we have two cases of young men raping an underage girl and the news has spun it to make it seem like the guys are in the victims in this situation. All because the rules or the language we use does not explicitly ban or discourage rape, it discourages girls from dressing like a "slut" and "asking for it".
This speech is related to the text of sticklers and anti sticklers. In this speech, obviously, the woman is the stickler, insisting of using the original languages. Since she never replied to the young generations when being asked the question, she didn't want to be involved into their languages. However, the young people are quite developing their own languages. They are not just asking the woman whether there is a bird in hands, but feeling the magic of the language and trying to get older people care them more. If the old woman answered them, no matter what answer it is, they would be very happy because the power of their languages are being approved and accepted.
The 13 key questions are about the extinct languages and how to preserve them. Similarly, this woman in speech also talks about the dying of a language, claiming that everyone is responsible if one language die, no matter what reason it is.
It seems that in her culture, it is all about being worthy. Being worthy to be part of the community, or even to learn the language and culture. The angry bird appears to be a test for the woman, in the same time, the whole story seems a test for the "children" by the woman, to test if they are worthy of receiving the legacy of their people.
She is an African American women whose family is likely tied to slavery. Her culture of previous enslavement shapes her understanding that oppressive language must end because this type of language ultimately leads to oppressive actions.
I agree with the previous posts about this. I think that she was testing the kids to see if they spare worthy to be given this form of knowledge she holds. She wants to pass down the legacy and there is a question in who is worthy enough to have it.
What does she mean when she says, "We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives"?
ReplyDeleteI think she believes that the things we do when we are alive determine to which measure can be placed on life. Langauge is used to communicate and interact, and without it, our lives wouldn't measure as highly.
DeletePerhaps Morrison is saying that the simple purpose in life is just to live. However, the type of life we live is measured by the language we use and our subsequent actions a result our words. We all come and go, but until we take of advantage of language's great power, we cannot truly "measure" our life and define ourselves as humans. Earlier in her speech she explains that “language is used as a device for grappling with meaning, providing guidance, or expressing love.” If we are successful in seizing these positive opportunities and if we never succumb to the oppressive language that is violence, then the “measure” of our life is quite spectacular.
DeleteShe is saying that death is inevitable and even saying that the meaning of life is to die. But, she said the that way to measure what we've done in life is our language and what we've said.
DeleteI think that what she is saying in this sentence is that death is the one thing in life that is guaranteed. No matter what happens, the one thing that is known for sure is that we will die. However, we can look at the past and measure what we have done by language. We can always look at our past and look at the difference in language. It can be the unit we use to measure how far we have come.
DeleteShe means that people could express their unique ideas by using a language, and in this way we could make a difference. People die, and that is the natural law. However, some one died with great contributions. One of the things that makes human beings different from other creatures that living on the earth is that we could think, speak, communicate and have the abilities to change the world.
DeleteI agree with the point that they way we measure of lives is to look at back and look at the difference in language. Since language changed and evolved a lot with the time goes by, our lives are recorded in it. It is a way that we see how our language and life came to be the ones of today.
DeleteExplain what she means by responsibility. Who is responsible and for what?
ReplyDeleteShe seems to split the responsibility between two groups of people, the older and the younger. She does a great job of not specifically degrading a certain generation, rather she deemed it everyones responsibility to preserve and not suppress language. She believes that the responsibility of the older generation is to make sure that they themselves speak the language they are used to, and be comfortable with it. She doesn't want them to feel the need to conform to the newer ways of speaking, rather she wants them to use the language they are most comfortable speaking with. The responsibility of the younger generation is quite similar, but she believes it is their responsibility to respect the languages that were before their time, and learn from them. If we don't, we will have a suppressed language.
DeleteThe wise women thinks the younger generation should be responsible for development of language. She thinks language should be a living thing which means it should not be suppressed,limited and chained. Language contains a narrative power which allows ideas and thoughts to flow and exchange freely.
DeleteHer speech evokes a sense that all must take responsibility whether it is the older generation whose purpose is to fix what they have done wrong in the past or the younger generation who has the power to not make mistakes in the future.
DeleteThe woman in the story believes that the younger generation is to blame for the misfortunes that will inevitably occur because its in their hands. In her eyes her generation has handed off the responsibility to the younger generation, she and her generation are no longer accountable. What occurs next is based on what the next generation decides to do.
DeleteResponsibility is a major issue when it comes to this. I think that the people she was talking about in this blurb is the older generation. They are responsible for keeping their language. They need to hold on to their way of speaking for as long as possible. The newer generation is ruining the English language as we know it.
DeleteThe woman in the speech thinks that the young generation should be responsible for the languages they used, including how languages are changed and being understood. She also thinks that the old generation should preserve their languages to prevent its dying, because she believes that when language dies, all users and makers are accountable for its demise.
DeleteThe responsibility she means is not to perserve the language, and keep it in a good form. Some of the languages die not only because of carelessness, absence of esteem. When a language could not convey new ideas, the language is basically died. Both the younger and the older generation are responsible for the loses, even though they played different roles. Children are long known with their innovations and rebellions. And it is the older generation’s fault not to regulates the changes and teaches them what is right and what is wrong.
DeleteWhat is her reading of the story of the tower of Babel?
ReplyDeleteThe common interpretation of the story”tower of babel” is that the fall of the tower is misfortune, however, language can never be monolithic. Language is tolerance. Before humans reach heaven or achieve true peace, they need time to understand every aspects of language;they need to be tolerant to other points of view;they need to understand and appreciate other cultures that derive from different languages. So, if language is a medium of expressing trends of thoughts, then people can never stop it from flowing. Just like the story suggests, obedience to one single language or perspective is never possible. The world runs with conflicts between ideas so language should not be distorted and used as a tool to hide the true power of narrative.
DeleteShe describes the people of the united group as "hasty" because they were too caught up in trying to reach the heavens that they were unwilling and unreceptive to accept new ideas, thoughts, and languages. She even suggests that if they concentrated on exploring these new things, then they may have found that "Paradise" was right there on Earth.
DeleteAt the beginning of the story, Toni Morrison emphasized that the old woman was the daughter of slaves, black American. Therefore, she mentions the tower of Babel in order to express her willing which is not to segregate people by their languages.
DeleteWhy does she share this story as a part of her Nobel Lecture? How does it fit the goal or purpose of such a speech?
ReplyDeleteI think she uses the Tower of Babel story to show how suppressed forms of language can be dangerous. "God" supposedly took away their universal language, which meant finishing the tower was difficult, which is a great metaphor.
DeleteThe whole story with the old woman has the goal to make people understand that it is not only the younger ones job to preserve a language, but also the elder one's. But what readers can also take out of the story is that it is their free decicion, to decide wether they want to go on luving their culture or only remember it. And that remembering part is important, because wether you preserve culture and language or not, it shoul never be forgotten entirely, I think.
DeleteIn what ways does this speech relate to other texts we've read this semester?
ReplyDeleteWhen I listened to Toni Morrison's speed, It reminded me of the article we read about the old indigenous language from Mexico that we red about. I remember being very angry about the two old men that were the last people speaking the language, but refused to talk to each other. I was thinking that, if they wouldn't want to do their part in preserving their language, why should the younger generation think it is worth the effort? But as Toni Morrison says in her speech, a lot of younger people are not at all as indifferent as lots of elderly people may think. They do want to learn about their origen, their culture, the identity of their people. And as the young ones blame the old blind woman in Morrison's tale, it is unfair if the old generation keeps all this as an exclusiveness.
DeleteThis speech relates to lots of passages we read recently. The whole speech conveys us an idea that language keeps changing in a negative direction which relates to Orwell’s argument about political language. Also it relates to the debate between sticklers and their oppositions. It also talks about who should the responsibility of language declining which can relate to the project of endangered language .
DeleteThis speech relates directly to several texts we've read this year. For example she talks about how language is evolving and how language now is used very politically which relates to the drones article and the Orwell piece we read. One paragraph in particular where she describes the way our language is received or used nowadays. Such as her sentence saying that our language condones and will continue to condone abuse, torture, and rape. She was right. She gave that speech in '93 and now 20 years later we have two cases of young men raping an underage girl and the news has spun it to make it seem like the guys are in the victims in this situation. All because the rules or the language we use does not explicitly ban or discourage rape, it discourages girls from dressing like a "slut" and "asking for it".
DeleteThis speech is related to the text of sticklers and anti sticklers. In this speech, obviously, the woman is the stickler, insisting of using the original languages. Since she never replied to the young generations when being asked the question, she didn't want to be involved into their languages. However, the young people are quite developing their own languages. They are not just asking the woman whether there is a bird in hands, but feeling the magic of the language and trying to get older people care them more. If the old woman answered them, no matter what answer it is, they would be very happy because the power of their languages are being approved and accepted.
DeleteIn what ways does this text relate to the 13 key questions of this semester?
ReplyDeleteThe 13 key questions are about the extinct languages and how to preserve them. Similarly, this woman in speech also talks about the dying of a language, claiming that everyone is responsible if one language die, no matter what reason it is.
DeleteWhat - if anything - does this speech reflect about Morrison's culture?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in her culture, it is all about being worthy. Being worthy to be part of the community, or even to learn the language and culture. The angry bird appears to be a test for the woman, in the same time, the whole story seems a test for the "children" by the woman, to test if they are worthy of receiving the legacy of their people.
DeleteI agree that it was a test for the children. She wanted children to learn and respect the older generation, both the people and the language.
DeleteShe is an African American women whose family is likely tied to slavery. Her culture of previous enslavement shapes her understanding that oppressive language must end because this type of language ultimately leads to oppressive actions.
DeleteI agree with the previous posts about this. I think that she was testing the kids to see if they spare worthy to be given this form of knowledge she holds. She wants to pass down the legacy and there is a question in who is worthy enough to have it.
Delete