Entrance Slip 19/10

I read Braiding Sweetgrass over the summer on canoe trips I was guiding, and I remember reading this chapter around a fire with a group of teenagers on a trip I was guiding. The language we use is instrumental in shaping the way we see the world, and in  Dr. Kimmerer is right that scientific language often teaches us to break things down into their component parts without looking at how they interact with each other to form a living being. I also agree with her observation that scientific language only describes the things we understand, stopping short of describing processes we cannot explain. However, I don't think that this is a shortcoming of scientific language. Its purpose is to describe what we understand and to break living things down into components whose function we can accurately explain.

Scientific language can be limiting in its inability to describe processes beyond human understanding, but I think that this limitation is necessary. Much of scientific language is very systematic, and it's impossible to be systematic in creating words for things you don't understand. The systematic nature of scientific language makes it easier to understand once you've grown accustomed to using it, but I do see how its lack of similarity with colloquial language can be a barrier that stops some people from pursuing science. For this reason, I think it's sometimes important to use non-scientific terms to describe scientific processes when you're teaching someone, but it is also important that they eventually learn the scientific terminology for what you are teaching them. Scientific terminology aims to be precise and unambiguous, and while this is not always achieved, its relative lack of ambiguity compared to most of the English language makes it an important tool when communicating with others about scientific concepts, which is why it is important to learn scientific language.

I did find the discussion about who is extended the grammar of animacy to be very interesting. When you use the same language for animals as you do for people, they seem to require a greater level of respect that when you use inanimate language to describe them. In this regard, I think that the English language could stand to be more like most Indigenous languages that afford the same language that we use when talking about humans to the rest of the living world. I think that as a teacher, it's important to be aware of how your language influences the value you place on your perspective versus your students' perspectives. It can be very easy to use dismissive language when referring to students, but this only contributes further to a lack of respect for them and the view that they have no useful perspectives to contribute to your classroom. If you can learn to speak about your students the same way you speak about your colleagues and other adults in your life, you may find that it's easier to afford them the same respect that you give to the adults around you.