Shakespeare in the Bush

            Laura Bohannan attempts to prove that there is a universal understanding among individuals through the hamlet experience. The author was telling the story about Hamlet to the TIV people because she expected them to hold similar reactions to that held by Americans. In these actions, the author was in attempting to approve universality of the literature created by Shakespeare (Bohannan, 1966). However, the activity was proved wrong because the TIV individuals remade the same story thus making suggestions that cultural beliefs and values affect literature interpretation.  It is thus clear that language and cultural hindrances amid two distinct parties lead to a completely different of the famous plays written in English as the audiences were left with a great puzzle over the incapability of the western individuals in illustrating how perception is shaped by perspective and understanding literature (Bohannan, 1966).

            In the attempt to prove her argument Laura was interrupted frequently by the audiences as they questioned the story’s theme, plot, the developed motives as well as the acting of the portrayed characters (Bohannan, 1966).  At the end of the attempt, the author was criticized for not telling the actual truth and thus proved that Shakespeare’s literature was not universal.  For instance, the elders failed to understand why a village chief would only be responsible to a single wife, not hold any knowledge about the practices of witchcraft as well as disapproving taxation.  This, therefore, proved that the nature of human differences due to cultural as well as religious backgrounds and not racial superiority (Bohannan, 1966).

            Fighting for Our Lives

            The author advocates that culture should try to win any argument through the utilization of analyzing, understanding, illuminating, connecting, exploration as well as integration (Tannen, 1999).  She argues that individuals are expected to attempt and change the manner in which they argue as well as communicate with each other.  Arguments should not be worn through distortion, mocking as well as emotional mocking because that is basically destruction (Tannen, 1999).

            The doctor was mocked because of his honesty and the argument that he tried to raise. This, therefore, shows that cultural critique results in negative effects because it destroys the physical and emotional nature of those that are affected. Based on the article the western cultural characteristics that are still present include the superiority assumption as well as exploration (Tannen, 1999). This is mainly because an individual tries their best to destroy others in order to conquer every argument.

            How Language Shapes Thought

            I agree with the article by Lera Boroditsky in the regard of the shaping of thoughts by an individual’s language. This is mainly because one’s language holds the capability of altering their world’s perception. Resulting from the language that an individual speaks their capabilities as well as the basic skills is affected (Boroditsky, 2011). This is mainly because language is powerful in nature and it changes the way that a person views things. Boroditsky pointed out since there are many languages there are all characterized by distinct details and they additionally omit some information.  Therefore message transmission among the languages may prove to be a challenging situation.

            The example that interested me most is about message transmission between distinct languages.  She stated that if she wished to communicate the fact that she saw an uncle on a certain street in Guinea their language will be able to utilize the verbs to identify whether the occurrence took place recently or in the past (Boroditsky, 2011). However, the languages in Indonesia will not be able to analyze the verbs to understand whether the event existed or will exist (Boroditsky, 2011). It is therefore very clear that the power of language in shaping the capabilities of individuals cannot be denied.

 

 

 

            Reference

Bohannan, L. (1966). Shakespeare in the Bush. Natural History. Pick From the Past. Pdf

            Boroditsky, L. (2011). How Language Shapes Are Thought. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/sci-am-2011.pdf

            Tannen, D. (1999). The argument culture, Fight for our lives. Retrieved from https://www.odec.umd.edu/we/about/facilitator/argumentculture.pdf