Ko tekōpiringa o taku reo te kōrarahi o tōku ao. — Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922).
He waka kawe mātauranga te reo, ā, ko te mātauranga he whaiaro i ō tātau mārama ki ngā wheako ka taka mai i te wā. Ko ngā wheako nei, he akiaki kia āta mārama ai tātau ki te ao nui nei, he whakawhenua hoki i ō tātau uara, ā, kia whakakotahitia tātau e mana ai tō tātau tuakiritanga, ahureatanga.
Mēnā rānei tātau ka whakaarohia te tuku mātauranga nei, i te nuinga o te wā ka hokihoki tātau ki te mana whakatautanga kua pūmau i te kupu tuhituhi i ngā whakapuakitanga tau tānui, i ngā mahi toi hoki. Koia rā te whakarewanga matua hei taiapatia ngā whakawhitiwhitinga ā kupu me ōna āhuatanga maha, arā ko ngā whakaputanga ā tuhituhi me te hunga pāpāho hoki, ka noho ēnei hei mātāpuna matua o te tika. I ēnei rā, kua whīwhiwhia ngā aho kōrero i te āhua o ā rātau kawe nāna anō i whakatūrehurehu ai i tō tātau tirohanga atu ki te ao, tō tātau tuakiritanga, mauri hoki.
Heoi, ka pēhea mēnā rānei kāore e kitea ngā tohu o te reo e kawea nei i ngā ahunga, āhuatanga motuhake rānei o ahurea kē? Ka pēhea anō te kaha o te reo tuhituhi, ka ngāro rā i a tātau taua kaha ki te tahutahu ērā atu whakamahinga a pūnaha puakitanga tau tānui, ā, ki te pupuri iho ki tōna tūmatuatanga? Waihoki, ka pēhea mēnā rā te pūnaha nei, ka hanumi tō tātau motuhaketanga me te uekaha ā roherohenga nei?
He waka kawe mātauranga te reo, ā, ko te mātauranga he whaiaro i ō tātau mārama ki ngā wheako ka taka mai i te wā. Ko ngā wheako nei, he akiaki kia āta mārama ai tātau ki te ao nui nei, he whakawhenua hoki i ō tātau uara, ā, kia whakakotahitia tātau e mana ai tō tātau tuakiritanga, ahureatanga.
Mēnā rānei tātau ka whakaarohia te tuku mātauranga nei, i te nuinga o te wā ka hokihoki tātau ki te mana whakatautanga kua pūmau i te kupu tuhituhi i ngā whakapuakitanga tau tānui, i ngā mahi toi hoki. Koia rā te whakarewanga matua hei taiapatia ngā whakawhitiwhitinga ā kupu me ōna āhuatanga maha, arā ko ngā whakaputanga ā tuhituhi me te hunga pāpāho hoki, ka noho ēnei hei mātāpuna matua o te tika. I ēnei rā, kua whīwhiwhia ngā aho kōrero i te āhua o ā rātau kawe nāna anō i whakatūrehurehu ai i tō tātau tirohanga atu ki te ao, tō tātau tuakiritanga, mauri hoki.
Heoi, ka pēhea mēnā rānei kāore e kitea ngā tohu o te reo e kawea nei i ngā ahunga, āhuatanga motuhake rānei o ahurea kē? Ka pēhea anō te kaha o te reo tuhituhi, ka ngāro rā i a tātau taua kaha ki te tahutahu ērā atu whakamahinga a pūnaha puakitanga tau tānui, ā, ki te pupuri iho ki tōna tūmatuatanga? Waihoki, ka pēhea mēnā rā te pūnaha nei, ka hanumi tō tātau motuhaketanga me te uekaha ā roherohenga nei?
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. — Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922).
Language carries knowledge, and knowledge represents our understanding and lived experience through time. Our experiences help us to rationalise the world around us, define our values, and build our collective identity, our culture.
But when we think about the transmission of knowledge, we often default to the implied authority established and perpetuated within the written word above other modes of expression, including the arts. As a formalised composition of signs developed to structure communication, words and their various formats, including publications and media, have become a principal source of systemised truth. Today, they have a binding influence in the way we communicate and legitimise our worldview, our identity and therefore our essence.
But what if language has insufficient signs to carry the dimensionality and nuances of one culture or another? What if, in our societal emphasis on the written word, we lose our ability to activate other modes of communication to express and retain our humanity? Moreover, what if this systemised mode of communication further homogenises our uniqueness and dynamism as distinct communities?
Language carries knowledge, and knowledge represents our understanding and lived experience through time. Our experiences help us to rationalise the world around us, define our values, and build our collective identity, our culture.
But when we think about the transmission of knowledge, we often default to the implied authority established and perpetuated within the written word above other modes of expression, including the arts. As a formalised composition of signs developed to structure communication, words and their various formats, including publications and media, have become a principal source of systemised truth. Today, they have a binding influence in the way we communicate and legitimise our worldview, our identity and therefore our essence.
But what if language has insufficient signs to carry the dimensionality and nuances of one culture or another? What if, in our societal emphasis on the written word, we lose our ability to activate other modes of communication to express and retain our humanity? Moreover, what if this systemised mode of communication further homogenises our uniqueness and dynamism as distinct communities?
