Hristijan Stojkovic 09/19/2018 

Author: Guy Deutscher​ ​Date: 08/26/2010

Does your language shape how you think? - Published by New York Times magazine

In this text, Deutscher aims to convince the reader that when we learn our mother tongue, we do
after all acquire certain habits of thought that shape our experience in significant and often
astonishing ways. He also argues that the human brain is capable of learning and understanding
foreign words that does not necessarily have a direct translation in their mother tongue. He
compares two languages such as Chinese and English to depict this assertion. For instance,
Chinese language does not specify a timeframe when describing an action, whereas English does
oblige its speakers to indicate the time of their action. Notwithstanding, majority of Chinese
speakers are able to understand the concepts of past, present and future tenses. In the text, I
personally believe that Pinker does a great job of exploring and supporting with concrete
examples his assertion, which essentially claims that language shapes our mind. Nevertheless, I
think that Deutscher’s text consists of a certain limitations, which can be reflected upon the fact
that counter arguments of his assertion are not being elaborated to a satisfactory extent.

Discussion Question(s):​If
our thoughts are merely shaped by our mother
tongue, how do we acquire meaning and cases when a foreign word is being
used? Why learning a new language can broaden our ability for perceiving
nature and our surroundings?

Chapter three of rewriting by Joseph Harris discusses countering in arguments.

Harris illustrates a conversation with his professor who inquired why Harris would

spend his time analyzing pieces written by authors that did not meet his

expectations of narration. This has changed Harris’ approach to his writing as well

as the way he perceives art of argumentation. He argues that using key terms and

phrases that have been already narrated by another author can be very convenient

when intending to critically approach a certain part of text that was previously
considered. I would deeply agree with Harris’ point of view, who claims that

countering should not merely be disagreement but also push forward in order to

say something new. The limitation of the chapter 3 can be reflected upon the fact

that Harris has chosen very well rounded examples to strengthen his thesis,

however, majority of his counter arguments are not equally convincing, and thus,

making the argumentation seem as bias approach.

Discussing questions: