English as a universal language

[Heta]

But thats the way I do work, it's such a dilema

[Sharkith]

Shame by its nature is a negative aspect, it can be a factor like any other emotion or feeling.
But to be perfectly honest i find this whole concept of a 'code of shame' to be ludicrious and your argument is biased by your own opinion.

Sorry, call me uneducated or ignorant if you want but even after reading that multiple times i cant understand what you are trying to say.
Ive always been one to speak bluntly and find that using 5 sentences to describe things that a few words would have explained just confuses the issue and leaves more up to personal interpretation.
Could you translate it into english for me please? <grin>

Your first sentence doesn't actually make any sense Aran which is ironic don't you think?

As for the bit you highlighted sorry your right it doesn't make much sense in plain English ]it would not exist without them. [/B]The principal advantage of this theory is that we do not have to see people as being imprisoned in society and either party ot completely determined by it. Rather they exist and have a life outside of society. When they meet to communicate amongst themselves they generate systematic ways of communicating and that is when society emerges - fleeting but nonetheless there. Society organises those communications and enables human to express meaning to each other. It enables the co-ordination of expectations about each other.

Its counter intuitive I know and maybe even very difficult to see thats because it runs against the tradition that many of us follow (especially in the UK) that somehow society is composed of aggregates of individuals. I hope that is in plain English - and apologies for not being clear earlier.

p.s. Ankh and Xest the stats look confusing - but the resounding one is the one indicating the spread of English accross countries I think?

[<ankh>]

But thats the way I do work, it's such a dilema

Attention seeker.

/Ankh

[Xest]

p.s. Ankh and Xest the stats look confusing - but the resounding one is the one indicating the spread of English accross countries I think?

They are confusing As I say the ones I posted in the first link and that Ankh posted seem completely inaccurate when it states there only being 320million native English speakers when the US has a population of 295million and the UK a population of 60million alone. Canada has a population of 32million on top although there's the Quebec bunch and the Inuit tribes so probably only about 25mill native English speakers there - either way those 3 countries alone blow that site's stats right out the water even if you factor in immigrants in those countries who don't speak English. Those stats become even more unrealistic when you factor in the other English speaking countries.

[Ovi]

think he means latin-american?

I always wondered why it was called "Latin"-America, since it was discovered well after the demise of the Roman empire?

As to the stats, whenever I have seen them they tied up pretty much with what Ankh posted. Spanish being 2nd in terms of the number of native speakers, but when you include non-native languages English usually come into second. All the time behind Chinese because of the population of China being so much greater than anywhere else.

On the society issue I am with Aran, I can't see how society can be the communication. As I understand it the definitions of society all relate to it being a group of people. Whilst communication is a vital part of a group helping to hold the society together it is more like the glue holding it together than the building blocks that it is created on.

[Ovi]

They are confusing As I say the ones I posted in the first link and that Ankh posted seem completely inaccurate when it states there only being 320million native English speakers when the US has a population of 295million and the UK a population of 60million alone. Canada has a population of 32million on top although there's the Quebec bunch and the Inuit tribes so probably only about 25mill native English speakers there - either way those 3 countries alone blow that site's stats right out the water even if you factor in immigrants in those countries who don't speak English. Those stats become even more unrealistic when you factor in the other English speaking countries.

You can't count 295 million American's though, there is a substantial American population with Spanish as their native language. I do agree though that 320 million sounds a little low.

[Kallima]

Kallima,

all good points that I would not disagree with. Just two things. I would consider shame to be one side of a two sided distinction. What is on the other side could be almost anything depending on how it was used. Therefore shame in this two sided form would most likely not always be negative. Like the historical example I gave earlier if oppressed people can use the term to get attention from their oppressors, like the peace movement in Northern Ireland by calling the actions of the violent men shameful, perhaps it is a good thing and opens up communication where there was only violence?

Like I said it would depend on looking to see how it has been used - don't assume though that it is only negative in fact there could be many historical examples of where it was part of a positive two sided form.Sharkith

Shame when applied to past actions is a two sided distinction, but it usually boils down to you were wrong in the past therefore I am right to demand you feel guilty and do what I want now. Dealing with something current by peaceful protest is different to perpetuating old bitterness.

Finally, by saying that society is composed of only communications I feel very strongly that in fact we free people up to be what they will. There are no longer the determinst debates that society determines you and you have no free will. All we have are co-evolving systems mutually stimulating each other an a very lively historical and ever more complex process of co-evolution.

You've lost me here. You are choosing to limit your view of society to make it easier to study, and therefore redefining what society is to fit that. It might be more honest to use a term other than sociologist for what you are if you are not studying the true complexity of society. I do not see it is in any way freeing people. What a sub group of sociologists call society does not change what it is, and what it is like for people to live in. It does not give free will. It does not free slaves, allow women to vote, or people to own property. I suppose you could describe war as co-evolving systems mutually stimulating each other in a lively manner, but it dehumanises things and ignores human suffering. It actually moves things in the dangerous direction of saying people may not count, especially oppressed people whose voice is not heard in those communications. Historically we have seen where that leads.

You've posted again while I was writing this but I can't be bothered to write any more. As someone has said its getting long and pointless. We will not reach the same viewpoint. You are studying an anthill, I am an ant worrying about the feelings of fellow ants. Time to draw a line.

[Xest]

You can't count 295 million American's though, there is a substantial American population with Spanish as their native language. I do agree though that 320 million sounds a little low.

That's why I mentioned non-English speaking immigrants, I guess some maybe born in the US and learn Spanish off their parents so aren't technically immigrants though The point is you could knock Englands entire population off that stat (60mill) and just use the English speaking Canadian population plus the US population and still reach the 320mill figure, I'm not convinced the US really has 60mill immigrants/children of immigrants who don't speak English although I could be wrong.

[Sharkith]

Kallima,

of course we won't agree - who says we have to?

One of the biggest misconceptions about sociology as a discipline is that sociologists are supposed to help people. That view better suits social work (although some would of course debate that). Sociology does not free people, it had very little to do with women getting the vote, or with the ownership of property. Society did that all by itself. Thankfully sociologists are not that important for society (and yes that is deeply ironic).

It has been stated several times in this thread that - people are essential to society without them it would not exist. Where did I say they were not important?

Anyway your right theres a limit to every interaction and we should have ended this one some time ago I think. At least we can see there is some life in the forum as yet and hopefully we can have other discussions if I haven't sickened you all with these ramblings

[Aran_Thule]

Shame by its nature is a negative aspect, it can be a factor like any other emotion or feeling.

Your first sentence doesn't actually make any sense Aran which is ironic don't you think?

Not really, it makes perfect sense to me, you comment on it being two sided, same can be said for almost anything which makes it a very vague argument.
If was also a differant stance then you had previously posted which is effectively moving the goalposts in the discussion.