Effects of Living in a Bilingual Environment During Early Childhood on General Language Acquisition Ability

Early bilinguals and their capacities for acquiring languages have been studied in depth over the past 70 years. However, research about the benefits and costs of an early childhood spent in a bilingual environment remains scattered and often divergent. This paper intends to examine and delineate these effects of an early childhood in a bilingual household. Particularly, it aims to answer questions as to whether or not people from these bilingual backgrounds have a broader range of language ability and if this broader range causes a reduced understanding of each language compared to the levels of comprehension attained by similar monolingual speakers. There is a notably slim amount of research as to a third question regarding if an early childhood in a bilingual environment perhaps leads to a heightened capacity for acquiring a third language. After approaching the first two questions, this paper investigates the third with theoretical analysis and then proposes a possible study to test its claims.

Effects Upon Range of Language Abilities

Growing up in a bilingual environment would seem to expand one’s range of language trivially, since it would seem to broaden one’s accessible language systems simply through the introduction of a second language. However, children raised in bilingual households do not always learn both languages. De Houwer (2007) found that among 1,899 bilingual families polled in Flanders, in nearly one quarter, none of the family’s children spoke a language aside from Dutch, the majority language of the region. She emphasizes the importance of parental language use and parental language inputs to raising a bilingual child. Other studies (e.g. Pearson 2007) suggest other factors such as literacy, language status, and community support, including schooling in the development of these children’s bilingualism. There are therefore two cases in discussing how growing up in a bilingual environment will affect a child’s range of language ability. In case 1, the child becomes effectively bilingual while in case 2, despite living in a bilingual household, the child does not.

In case 1, for the approximately ¾ of the children who do become bilingual, their breadth of language abilities is clearly augmented by the presence of a second language, simply because they therefore know an additional language structure in comparison to monolinguals who only know one. As for case 2 and the nearly ¼ of these children who do not learn a second language, these children also develop broader language abilities than monolinguals due to spending their early childhoods in bilingual environments. Particularly, even though they fail to learn a second language structurally, they nonetheless have the ability to phonetically process it, an ability which children from monolingual would not possess. Research has shown that at 6-8 months of age, infants respond uniformly to speech regardless of language. But by 10-12 months of age, infants begin to display language-specific perception (Yoshida, Werker et al 2007). However, infants in monolingual households realign their perception of phonology to be single language specific while infants living in bilingual environments begin to effectively discriminate between their family’s two languages. Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (2001) claim that Spanish-Catalan bilingual infants to distinguish between their two languages by a mere 135 to 139 days of age. These results suggest that even at very young age, infants from bilingual households are equipped to process two languages phonetically, while infants from monolingual households are only equipped for one. Essentially, through the examination of these two cases, regardless of whether or not a child learns a second language, simply the exposure to this second language during early childhood expands the range of his or her language abilities compared to that of children from monolingual backgrounds. The rest of this paper will deal exclusively with case 1, where children from bilingual environments become bilingual themselves.

Strength in Each Language Compared to Monolingual Speakers

In considering the ability of children from bilingual environments to proficiently use each language, there are two issues that must be addressed. First is their short-term ability to acquire both languages in a similar fashion as monolingual speakers and second is their long-term ability to use both languages adeptly. As for the first issue, Hulk & Müller (2000) suggest that crosslinguistic influences in bilingual language acquisition are both predictable and systematic. They also suggest the criteria for crosslinguistic influences to occur: “(1) There is an interface between two modules of grammar (such as pragmatics and syntax), and (2) the two languages overlap in structure at the surface level” (Zwanziger, Allen, & Genesee 2005: 895). However, these criteria have been tested with divergent and often inconclusive results. Hacohen & Schaeffer (2007) corroborate Hulk & Müller’s clam by studying a child, “EK,” in the process of acquiring Hebrew and English simultaneously from birth. They then compared her progress to five Hebrew monolingual controls. EK’s appropriate and inappropriate handling of subjects and verbs matches Hulk & Müller’s criteria. Namely, “influence from English is restricted to phenomena that involve the syntax/pragmatics interface” (Hacohen & Schaeffer 2007: Abstract). Conversely, Zwanziger, Allen, & Genesee (2005) provide diverging evidence in their study of English-Inuktitut simultaneous bilingual children. Although Inuktitut and English satisfy Hulk & Müller’s criteria, there is no noticeable crosslinguistic influence between the languages among the subjects of the study. These results indicate that Hulk & Müller’s criteria are not universal. Regardless of these minor crosslinguistic influences, and more research is required to clarify these effects if they are even significant, a body of work has shown that bilingual children fundamentally systematize both languages at about the same rate as monolingual children (Genesee 2003). Thus, there is no known significant qualitative difference between a bilingual’s and monolingual’s process of acquiring of a native language.
As to the issue of long-term development of language skills, Cummins (1984) shows using a large body of research that there is no evidence that bilingualism negatively affects children’s academic growth. Often times, when educators see a floundering bilingual student, they immediately attribute the student’s shortcomings to their bilingual background, which is in fact unrelated. These sorts of hasty assessments merely compound students’ academic problems as their real academic issues go unaddressed and unresolved. Thus, in reality bilingual students’ academic failures are often due to misconceptions and rashness by their education systems and they are not directly related to the students’ bilingualism itself, which does not compromise their academic development, including in the majority language. Research has also shown that bilinguals also acquire the phonology of their two languages to the same extent that monolingual speakers do (Yoshida, Werker et al 2007). The presence of additional languages does not hinder the development of phonetic recognition and familiarity in any way. So despite general beliefs to the contrary, growing up in a bilingual environment does not limit or impair children’s abilities to speak their two languages at the same skill level as monolingual speakers.

Capacity for Acquiring Further Languages

Hypothetically, maintaining multiple language systems at a young age would heighten infants’ abilities to learn more languages in the future. However, Volterra & Taeschner (1978) propose a universal language system (ULS) hypothesis in which they posit that children exposed to two languages during their infancy go through a period in which they do not distinguish between the two. Instead, by the ULS hypothesis, during this stage, a child living in a bilingual environment considers words from both languages to be part of the same lexical system. Essentially, they argue that bilingual children go through a fundamentally monolingual stage in which they possess only one language system before they become truly bilingual. Most of this theory’s evidence comes from young children’s tendency to frequently code-mix. Volterra and Taeschner suggest that this ULS stage lasts until children are about three years old. This claim would predict that prior three years of age, while the children are still in their ULS stage, they would indiscriminately mix their two languages, since they do not recognize any distinctions between them. They wouldn’t be able to distinguish any language context, because during this stage, they perceive both languages to actually be parts of the same unitary system. Yet, this claim is not supported by recent research and evidence. In a study conducted on English-French bilingual children (Genesee et al 1995), researchers observed that children between 22-26 months in “1 parent, 1 language” households use the appropriate language for each of their parents, indicating that the children perceive their parents as representative of 2 different language contexts. Because the children might be simply associating certain words with a certain parent, they may not truly be differentiating their two languages. So the same researchers conducted the same experiment using monolingual strangers as the interlocutors to test the children’s sensitivity to language context. In this scenario, the children, generally in the 1-2 word stage of utterances, predominantly used the appropriate language, again suggesting that at about 22-26 months of age, well before the 3 year threshold of Volterra and Taeschner, children already have control over differentiated language systems. After studying a Spanish-English bilingual child, Deuchar & Quay (2005) suggest that this distinction occurs even earlier, around 20 months of age and that by this age, children possess differentiated syntactic, lexical, and phonological systems.

Time and time again, research has demonstrated that people are most able to learn language-based skills at young ages. The younger people are, the more able they are to learn these skills and abilities. Also, exposure to multiple languages during early childhood engenders in children the ability to retain multiple language systems. This skill is crucial for and central to learning any additional language at any time. So, by obtaining this integral skill in early childhood, children from bilingual households are ingraining it and learning it better than they would at a later stage. They would therefore be better equipped to learn a third language than monolingual speakers are to learn a second one. Also, by knowing multiple language systems, when approaching a new one, children from bilingual backgrounds would have more reference points than monolingual speakers would. They would be able to see more lexical, syntactic, and phonetic similarities between the new language and the familiar languages that they already know simply because they have a broader range of familiar languages than monolingual speakers. So again, bilingual speakers would be better prepared to learn new languages than monolingual speakers.

Unfortunately, little research exists comparing bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ ability to learn nonnative languages. A study could be conducted in the following fashion to address this issue. The purpose of this study would be to investigate the question of how students from bilingual and monolingual backgrounds differ and are similar in the developmental stages of acquiring new unfamiliar languages, both in terms of speed and proficiency. Due to the above theoretical analysis, a significant pattern of bilinguals outperforming monolinguals would be predicted.

Method

Design
High-school language classes would be effective pools to draw from or this study since in them bilinguals and monolinguals receive the same instruction and education. Ideally, to get truly comprehensive results, researchers would observe various foreign language classes over extended periods of time and note the development and approaches of monolinguals and bilinguals. However, this form of a study would be incredibly time and labor intensive, and therefore would be infeasible for all practical purposes. So instead, to test the predictions above and to investigate the questions posed, participants will be tested in the new language after consistent intervals of instruction. They will then be given a survey at a later date asking them about the easiest and most difficult lexical, syntactic, and phonetic aspects of learning the new language.

Participants
The participants used in this study will be high school students in introductory foreign language classes. They will be selected from various high schools that cross socio-economic demographics so as to eliminate the potentially confounding variable of class. No participant will have had any previous exposure or instruction in the language being taught, as this prior experience would compromise the data, as the study should only focus on bilinguals and monolinguals learning a new language in parallel. A relatively equal number of females and males will be used so as to eliminate the variable of gender.

Materials
The tests and surveys will be conducted using a standardized set of instructions. Prior to the test, a standardized questionnaire will be used to determine whether or not the subject spent their early childhood in a bilingual environment and if so, whether or not he or she became bilingual. The questionnaire will also determine if the subject is bilingual by some other means. The test will be entirely in the foreign language, without using the majority language in the instructions or questions at all so as to insure that only foreign language aptitude is being tested. It will have 3 sections, each with a different focus: a lexical part, a syntactic part, and a phonetic part.

Procedure
The tests and surveys will be conducted in quiet rooms within the students’ high schools that are not the classrooms used for foreign language instruction. The tests will be given without any prior notice, so as to test the participants’ current language skills and not their abilities to study for examinations. The test and the survey will all be given on separate dates so that they don’t influence one another, which could compromise the integrity of the results. The test will be given within a lenient but standardized and enforced time limit, such that all participants are tested equally. The participants will not be able to talk during the examinations. During the tests, they will not be able to ask questions, but during the survey, they will be able to ask the proctor questions for clarification.

The results of these surveys and tests will be stratified into four different groups: monolingual students from monolingual backgrounds (m-m students), bilingual students from monolingual backgrounds (b-m students), bilingual students from bilingual backgrounds (b-b students), and monolingual students from bilingual backgrounds (m-b students). The results will also be stratified by school so that students are compared only to other students within their class at school to eliminate the confounding variable of instruction methodology and quality.

Discussion

Through the theoretical analyses above and by previous research, the basic hypotheses driving this study is that children from bilingual environments are better equipped than children with monolingual backgrounds to learn a new language. According hypothesis (a), it would be predicted that students with bilingual backgrounds would outperform students with monolingual backgrounds, regardless of whether or not they are currently monolingual or bilingual. In other words, b-b and m-b students would both outperform m-m and b-m students. However, the differences between the performance of these different categories of students on the test should be fairly nuanced.

First, b-b students should outperform all other categories because they reap all of the benefits of bilingualism: they have a broader range of lexical, syntactic, and phonetic reference points and they have the experience of maintaining two language systems at a young age. Conversely, m-m students share none of these benefits. However, m-b and b-m students have an intriguing mix of them which should reflect on their tests. The m-b students lack the breadth of lexical and syntactic reference points of b-b students simply because they are monolingual and have a firm grasp over only one language system. Yet they still have a wide range of phonetic reference points because the phonetic distinctions of a language are ingrained at a young age simply by exposure, regardless of whether or not the child become bilingual, and these m-b students lived in bilingual environments during their early childhood. The issue of having the experience of maintaining two language systems at a young age is an uncertain one for m-b students since some children raised in bilingual environments learn parts of the minority language structure and never become fully proficient while others simply never pick it up. The b-m students would have a very different set of such skills due to their bilingual capacity but monolingual background. They would have a broadened set of lexical and syntactic reference points because of their bilingualism. But they would not have quite as far-reaching phonetic comparisons since they were exposed to a monolingual environment during the most formative time period for phonetic differentiation. The same holds true for their experience with simultaneously retaining two language systems. So, by the predictions of the hypothesis and this paper’s lines of reasoning, m-b students should outperform b-m students on the phonetic parts of the test while the results from the other two sections are uncertain and obscured.

It could be argued that the method of this study is biased against bilinguals since classroom instruction tends to be geared towards monolinguals and may not adequately address the learning styles of bilinguals. However, the question at hand does not relate to how monolinguals and bilinguals learn new languages in a vacuum, but rather how they learn languages in modern society. For better or for worse, modern society includes these potentially impartial methods of instruction, and so this study should not attempt to correct for these biases.

Overall, exposure to bilingualism during early childhood seems to have only beneficial effects on children’s language skills. It broadens the range of children’s language systems without sacrificing understanding of these systems and it even perhaps heightens the children’s ability to acquire third languages with speed and ease.

Hacohen, Aviya, Jeanette C. Schaeffer. "Subject realization in early Hebrew/English bilingual acquisition: The role of crosslinguistic influence." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (2007): 333-344.

De Houwer, Annick. "Parental language input patterns and children's bilingual use." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 411-424.

Pearson, Barbara Zurer. "Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 399-410.

Yoshida, Katherine A., Janet F. Werker, Tracey C. Burns, Karen Hill. "The development of phonetic representation in bilingual and monolingual infants." Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2007): 455-474.

Henderson, Mara. "Margaret Deuchar & Suzanne Quay, Bilingual acquisition: Theoretical implications of a case study." Language in Society 34 (2005): 141-145.

Zwanziger, Elizabeth E., Shanley E. M. Allen, Fred Genesee. "Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: subject omission in learners of Inuktitut and English." Journal of Child Language 32 (2005): 893-909.

Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Alex Housen, & Li Wei (Ed.). (2003). Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingualism Matters.

Blog 18 - The Great Yellowhammer State

The state of Alabama currently offers its driver’s license exam in 14 languages. Sounds progressive, great, and really inclusive, right? Well, now in the heat of this political cycle with impending elections, Senator Beason from Alabama has suggested that the exam now be restricted to English. This proposal would make Alabama one of only 6 states which offer the language only in English. I think this is a terrible idea. There’s really no reason whatsoever for this proposal.

Beason claims that his proposal is based upon safety concerns. He suggests that if people don’t know English then they won’t be able to read road signs, which would cause all sorts of problems. However, he fails to realize that nearly all road signs are universal and so English is hardly a prerequisite for understanding them. The question of safety isn’t really what’s at the heart of this issue. The Anniston Star is exactly right: “It’s obvious that this proposal is not about forcing those who speak German or Japanese to take driver’s license exams in English; it’s a one-language, one-sided issue directed at Spanish-speaking legal immigrants caught up in this election’s unfair litmus test of patriotism.” This is just another politician’s misguided attempt to address the hot-button topic of immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Beason is simply trying to make normalcy even more difficult for immigrants so as to benefit himself politically, by attacking the polarizing issue of illegal immigration.

There are two ways to address the issue of immigration: Either a) we militantly object to immigrants and try to make their lives as hard as possible or b) we accept immigrants and help them assimilate. This proposal would do the former. A driver’s license is tremendously important for assimilation as a form of identification and just driving is key to many lines of work. So by restricting access to driver’s licenses to English speakers, the state of Alabama would be restricting many jobs and opportunities to English speakers.

And this proposal wouldn’t just harm immigrants. It would hurt the state of Alabama as well. Alabama has recently been building a reputation of recruiting international industries. They therefore depend upon businessmen who often have a native tongue other than English. So, by introducing measures like this one which would alienate people with native tongues other than English, Alabama is basically shooting itself in its foot.




On a side note, Beason’s proposal wouldn’t even hinder illegal immigrants as he wants. Undocumented immigrants already can’t get driver’s licenses. So, it really doesn’t have any practical purpose whatsoever. I think it’s pretty ridiculous.

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-editorials-1205-0-7l04s4608.htm
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/OPINION01/712050316/1006
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=7451095&nav=0hBE
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/119676015549670.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

Blog 17 - To Answer Some Questions...

I was reading through the comments on some of previous posts, and saw that they addressed some really interesting issues. So, I decided to blatantly steal the format used by others and try to address some of them, starting with the most recent ones.

Blog 15:
Janessa: You bring up a good point. We always say that English is influencing other languages, and we tend to view this influence as being almost malicious. But, as you point out, many languages clearly have influenced English significantly over time. I think there is a difference, however. When other languages influence English, they either only slightly alter our words, we use their words very infrequently. With Welsh, my impression from reading that article was that people are using English words almost very sentence. There’s more to it though than just the degree of foreign languages being used. I guess here I’m specifically about American English, but because the United States is such a melting pot of ethnicities, American English is influenced by a broad spectrum of languages. However, Wales has far less diverse demographics ethnically, and so Welsh is influenced by far fewer languages. In fact, I think it’s influenced pretty exclusively by English. So I think that’s the main difference between English’s influence on Welsh and Welsh’s influence on English.


Blog 14:
Travis: I think that there’s no doubt that we definitely make subconscious distinctions which aren’t related to appearances, status, or culture when we choose how we speak. For instance, situations shift the sort of language that we use all the time. In a formal situation, we’re much more likely not to use colloquialisms or slip into our local accents. But this doesn’t always happen consciously. In fact, I’d claim that it rarely happens consciously. I’m sure there are many, many other reasons why we subconsciously change the way that we speak. I think the problem is that a lot of the time, some people aren’t good at distinguishing when some kinds of language are more appropriate than others and the introduction of all of the colloquialisms of net-lingo are making this distinction even harder.

Steve: This I a good point. I would assume the Chinese net-lingo is different from English net-lingo. Most English net-lingo is based upon English acronyms, and I don’t see much reason why Chinese speakers would use these acronyms. As to the issue of this leading to confusion in Internet profiles, I think it would cause the same amount of confusion that is caused by the fact that Americans and Chinese people already speak two different languages. I don’t think it should cause any more confusion.

Autumn: That really is a good ad :)


Blog 13:
Travis: To be entirely honest, I’m not sure what defines language. I think there are many different conflicting possibilities. So, I think that’d make a great paper topic. If you want to, then go for it!

Steve: That’s definitely a great point. I actually hadn’t thought about that at all. As for testing the hypothesis, until we get a better understanding of DNA and the innate language mechanism. Until then, I’m afraid that we’d probably need a time machine and maybe even an island or two.

Blog 16 - Foreign Languages in the Classroom

I was just reading an article about how most American schools don’t offer foreign languages to young students. By young students, the article was referring to elementary and middle school students, who would generally be between ages 5 and 14. While some schools do have foreign language classes, the teachers tend to be sub par and these programs are few and far between. This dearth of foreign language classes seems surprising from a rational standpoint since languages are best taught to children at younger ages, but it’s altogether too familiar from my personal experience. Back in Boston, I went to a K-12 public school, which was one of the best in the area. However, we weren’t introduced to foreign languages at all until 6th grade. Even then, the classes’ quality was suspect at best. I remember that they were instituting a Chinese program my 6th grade year. Under this program I took a whole year’s worth of Chinese lessons, but I only know one word of Chinese. The only thing that I remember from that class was coloring in dragons and I’m pretty sure that didn’t help me learn Chinese. These articles seem to suggest that similarly shoddy language programs are prevalent across public elementary and middle schools across the country, which would be a truly unfortunate statement about our public education system.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, only 18% of Americans speak a language other than English, which is a depressingly low statistic. Because languages are the keys to cultures in so many cases, by not knowing other languages, Americans are effectively shutting themselves off from other cultures and peoples. In an ever-globalizing world, this inability to have effective cross-cultural understanding is unacceptable and could lead to devastating results.

I think that improving foreign language education for younger students is one of the easiest and most effective ways by which Americans can become more comfortable with other languages, and therefore other cultures. Time and time again, “research has shown that the earlier children learn a foreign language, they better the chance they become fluent.” The problem is, how do we improve these language classes? There are a couple issues.

First is the issue of a lack of qualified teachers, which is a really tough problem to address. Nonetheless it’s a crucial issue. Without qualified teachers, you can’t provide a quality education. I actually can’t think of any ways to ameliorate the situation other than to use money to attract more people towards teaching foreign languages, and thereby attracting better qualified teachers. Unfortunately, that leads to the second problem: the problem of money. Schools tend to be chronically under-funded. There is always something that needs more money and school systems have not been putting foreign language classes on high priority. As a result, schools have often been cutting language programs, preferring to keep physical education, art, and music programs. Schools need to see what they think is more important and allocate resources accordingly. Physical education, art, and music are certainly important to the overall growth of students, but are they more important than foreign languages? I think that’s a legitimate question and one that schools will have to think long and hard about. There’s no easy answer, but it’s an important question.




http://blog.mlive.com/cihttp://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/dec/04/ith_dec3/
tpat/2007/12/most_schools_dont_offer_foreig.html

Blog 15 - Mixing in English: Deal or No Deal?

Bilingual speakers often mix the two languages that they know, as we have discussed extensively in class. This phenomenon has been noticed by Welsh speakers who often times slip English into their speech. Language purists claim that this mixture of Welsh and English is “watering down” the Welsh language and Welsh speakers who talk in Welglish (which is an entirely made up word) sometimes feel guilty for diluting their native language. This belief that mixing languages weakens them seems to be fairly common among language purists across cultures. I remember having an analogous conversation about Spanglish earlier in this quarter. However, in Wales, many language campaigners and academics believe that by slipping English into their speech, people are actually helping sustain the Welsh language and are in fact sustaining it. They maintain that the usage of English words in Welsh is merely a natural change in the language and “the fact that a language was constantly changing proved it was alive.”

I thought that this perspective has some really interesting consequences and raises some really intriguing questions. What about languages which haven’t changed in centuries, like Icelandic? Are they still alive? Do the language purists have any merit in opposing mixing languages? Is this mixing of languages just another example of the hegemony of the English language? And then at the root of this issue, is it actually beneficial to have English slowly seeping into Welsh, or any other language for that matter?

The first question posed above challenges the claim that live languages must be dynamic and adaptive to the times. In other words, they must change to be alive. The most immediate counterexample that I could think of was the Icelandic language, which I wrote about nearly a month and a half ago. Not a single word from the oldest preserved Icelandic texts written around 1100 CE has changed. Nonetheless people continue to speak Icelandic and it’s the primary language of Iceland and so it’s almost definitely alive. However, although it seems to be a static language, I think it is changing and evolving. Although the words from 1100 CE are all the same and grammatical constructions are the same, today there are some new words in Icelandic to describe new languages. The government either uses old words or coins new words based upon Icelandic roots to describe new concepts, like the Internet or a telephone. They just don’t use other languages whatsoever. So, although Icelandic entirely resists foreign influence, it slowly adds new words and concepts. Similarly, I think that all live languages must change by necessity simply because people and societies and cultures change. By our nature, we create and innovate, and these creations and innovations often cannot be described by current constructions and vocabulary. So, languages must develop new constructions. Otherwise, the language will become obsolete, which is basically a polite way of saying that it will die. Therefore, I think that mutability is a legitimate criterion for deeming a language alive.

What about the language purists? I think because of our recognition of the importance of diversity, we tend to instinctively scoff at language purists who try to protect languages from outside influences (at least I know I do). However, they do have some valid points and concerns. Languages are an integral part of their cultures and the use of English threatens to slowly erode languages, and thereby erode their cultures. Although the use of English seems innocuous and this destructive process may be a long and gradual, it still poses a threat. Although diversity is great and commendable, it shouldn’t come at the cost of severely crippling a culture. So, the language purists have some justification in their attempts to protect their native language from foreign languages and particularly from English. After all, English has regularly been a hegemonic influence in the past because of colonial history and its widespread use.

So, the question remains, is this hegemonic influence a good thing? It certainly has benefits and costs. But do the benefits outweigh the costs? By hegemonic influence, I mean that English seeps into other languages and sometimes replaces them entirely. As for benefits, by having elements of English in a wider group of people, or just by having a wider group of people speaking English, international and intercultural communication becomes that much easier, which is tremendously important in our ever-globalizing world. Also, many would argue that this process of incorporating foreign languages is a natural one. I don’t think that this is necessarily a benefit as it’s a fallacy of logic (Argumentum ad naturam) to claim that something is good simply because it’s natural. As for costs, we have the language purists’ concerns that the introduction of English into another language diminishes that language’s integrity. By diluting the language, the introduction of English effectively dilutes the native culture as well. So I think this is the trade-off that the Welsh face by mixing English and their native language: Increased intercultural communication in exchange for giving up some amount of cultural identity.

However, I think that they can control just how much of their cultural identity they will lose by using English. As long as they are prudent about maintaining the usage of Welsh, they will retain the important parts of their Welsh identity. They just need to be careful that English doesn’t overrun their native language. If the Welsh act accordingly, as I think they will, I’m fairly sure that they will reap the benefits of using English without giving up anything significant. So, although the language purists may still not be enthralled, I think that the academics and language campaigners referenced in this article are on the right track. After all, languages do change and the world doesn’t fall apart every time that they do.



http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/24/how-a-few-english-words-can-help-to-keep-our-welsh-language-alive-91466-20153846/

Blog 14 - BKA (Better Known As)...

In the new computer age, young people are beginning to develop and cultivate a new form of language: so called “net-lingo.” To all the e-mailers and IMers reading this, you all know the meanings of various abbreviations like lol, btw, and rofl among many, many others. These shorthand methods using abbreviations seem to have risen out of a desire to be more efficient at the computer and spend less time typing to convey a message. These abbreviations and the choppy language seem to leaking into more formal writing. Even in schools, some people have begun to notice “more of these abbreviations creeping into students’ answer sheets” and into formal writing. However, people who aren’t acquainted with this “net-lingo” seem perturbed by this unconscious and instinctive use of casual abbreviation. As with everything, there is a time and place for “net-lingo” and there’s also a time and place for more formal language and constructions.

Which leads to the interesting fact that people talk differently when they talk to different people. I find myself doing this often. When I talk to friends from within the city of Boston, I relax my language immensely and let the beast of my Boston accent out of its cage. However, when I talk to friends of mine from the suburbs, I retighten my language, and speak without a discernable accent (I think/hope). This shift is entirely subconscious and instinctive. I’m not trying to speak differently; I just do. I notice my mom doing similar things. My mother knows more than 5 languages, 3 of which are Indian languages and Hindi is her native tongue. When she speaks English to Americans she speaks without almost any accent, only occasionally using British-English intonations and pronunciations (for example, she says Aah-loo-min-ium instead of Ah-loo-min-um). But, when she talks to other Indians, she speaks English with a massive Indian accent, which you might expect Apu to use on the Simpsons. I asked her about that shift once, and she was actually unaware of it. People do the same thing by switching between languages automatically. When I talk to my parents in Hindi, I don’t do so consciously. I think several people in class have mentioned encountering this phenomenon in their own experiences. But I guess a lot of people haven’t yet developed the skills or instinct to use more formal language when it’s appropriate. Instead, because some people are so accustomed to typing without capital letters or with crazy abbreviations, they type accordingly in all messages that they write on the computer, whether they’re writing an email to their friends or to their teachers.

I think another interesting aspect to this new “net-lingo” is that in some ways, people are reshaping English by their use of the Internet. There are even dictionaries for all of the abbreviations used in emails and messages (including one’s which I’ve never heard of and would never use, like GSYJDWYMH, which apparently means Good Seeing You, Just Don’t Wear Your Monkey Hat; I don’t get it either). There’s currently a fairly standardized set of abbreviations and abbreviating techniques, but on the Internet the youth is revolutionizing these techniques and processes. Fortunately, as the Hindu article notes, “The language [of English] is unlikely to ‘lose’ anything by the new changes, though. ‘The resilience and adaptability of English is its strength.”




http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111150890200.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm

Blog 13 - Whale Songs

In keeping with the discussion of non-human species that use forms of language, I thought it would be interesting to check out an article about the methods that whales use to communicate. Researchers from the University of Queensland’s Humpback Whale Research Collaboration (HARC) project claim that they have discovered at least 34 different types of whale calls. The researchers recorded the whales’ sounds by attaching underwater microphones to buoys about 1 kilometer off of the coast of Queensland. Because sight and smell are relatively limited underwater, the scientists postulate that marine animals depend upon sounds far more than land-based relatives. They expected to find about 10 different vocalizations. However, because the whales’ calls apparently vary both in length and in sound, they have a fairly larger repertoire. Their calls range from less than a second to over 10 seconds. The whales also produced high-pitched squeaks, shrieks, cries, purrs, groans, low yaps, and wops. Although only male humpback whales are famed for their “whale songs,” females and calves also communicate through these sorts of sounds.

Interestingly, the researchers think that they have been able to decode some of the whales’ communication. For instance, low purring by males seems to be an attempt to woo desirable females. High frequency screams seem to be associated with disagreements, especially as males try to escort females during migration. The wop sounds seem to be used by mothers and calves to identify their locations to one another. Although Dr. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the main researchers tied to the project, “stopped short of defining the whale communication as language,” she still noted that their communication shared some commonalities with human conversation. Which leads to the question of how long ago was the concept of communication in the form of some primitive set of verbal symbols developed in the brain? Also, the researchers’ investigation into the whales’ communicative abilities opens up the question of whether or not the skills of communication and language are evolved.

Scientists currently believe that whales’ and humans’ share common ancestors from 50-60 million years ago. I can then think of two possible reasons why whales and humans share some communicative abilities. Either a) mental constructs existed in our ancestors’ minds 50-60 million years ago or b) whales’ and humans’ ancestors developed these constructs independently. This second theory seems rather far fetched, because the random generation through evolution of two complicated and similar mental constructs seems fairly unlikely. So again, some species other than humans seem to share our capacity for communication. Nonetheless, it still seems to be an issue of degree. The researchers for HARC seemed amazed by the whales’ “vocabulary” of 34 vocalizations, but humans easily accumulate vocabularies of over tens of thousands of words. So perhaps the only thing separating our communication from the whales’ is the complexity of our language. But if it’s a question of degree, where do we draw the line? Where does animalistic communication end and human language start?

Pranav


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD59010
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa15.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22714366-2,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

Blog 12 - Who Needs Government? Belgium Doesn't...

Belgium is currently entrenched in its worst political crisis in its 177-year existence. Due to spats between Francophone and Dutch-Speaking politicians, the winners of the spring election have been unable to form a governmental coalition. So essentially, for the past 149 days, the nation of Belgium has been operating without a government. The dispute arises from longstanding tensions within the country caused by its linguistic “fault-lines.” The country was split into three linguistically based federated regions in the 1980s: the richer Dutch speaking northern region of Flanders, the poorer Francophone southern region of Wallonia, and the officially bilingual but mostly Francophone capital of Brussels. About 60% of the country speaks Dutch and about the remaining 40% speak French.

Within the two monolingual regions, people who speak the non-preferred languages often feel like “second class citizens,” particularly in Flanders where the Flemish have become increasing assertive about the use of Dutch language. For instance, in Flanders, Francophone associations don’t receive subsidies, and they cannot hold meetings on the premises of the city council. The government has even banned the use of French on playgrounds in local school. Particularly in Flanders, civil servants only speak the official language. The linguistic tensions between the northern and southern region has caused Flemish politicians to demand more freedom for self-rule, now beginning to suggest splitting Belgium into two countries with Brussels as a sort of independent “‘European’ capital.” Yet people in Wallonia would suffer from this separation, because of the regions high unemployment, post-industrial decay, and weak regional identity. As a Flemish engineer said, “The differences are too big now. The two sides will never get along. The future is two countries.” So, at this crucial juncture in Belgian history, the nation is in a state of crisis

One suggestion by a mayor of a small town in Flanders is simply that Francophones in Belgium ought to learn Dutch. He says, “If I moved to Paris, I would find it normal to learn French.” He raises a fairly basic question: When moving to a foreign country, must you learn the dominant language in this country? This question has come up a couple times in class, and it’s definitely a tough one to tackle. Learning the dominant language of a country that you’re coming to certainly has its perks, but people don’t HAVE to learn it. It’s a choice with positives and negatives. The government can be oriented towards one language over another, but restricting certain basic rights, such as the right to assembly on public property, is simply excessive. By infringing upon these rights, the government doesn’t achieve anything and it unnecessarily and unfairly limits freedoms.

However, I think this story has to do with an even more fundamental question: Can an officially bilingual state exist? The case of Belgium seems to suggest that eventually such states devolve and disputes arise that cannot be resolved. In the end, the effort required to keep a bilingual state intact is simply not worth it. According to a Belgium graphic designer, “If we all spoke both languages [which is unfeasible in a large nation] Belgium would have a future for sure, but we don’t.” I don’t think this line of reasoning is entirely valid. A bilingual state definitely poses challenges, but I think it is a possibility, as long as the government is scrupulous in offering opportunities and services in both languages. Problems will almost certainly occur but they can be solved and crises can be averted (See Canada for an example). Now is it beneficial to have a bilingual state? If a nation has significant population of two societies with different languages, then I think it certainly is beneficial because languages are synonymous with cultures and by promoting both languages, both cultures are preserved and enhanced. So I hope that Belgium remains intact and solves this crisis. The people of Flanders and Wallonia will both be better off for it.



A-a



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2NPCKSNCA3QYFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/08/05/wbelgium105.xml
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/273175
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/04/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Government-Talks.php
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJEtuppvEPtbl1GhR98F_zZKbp0A
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wbelg106.xml

Blog 11 - How Special are We?

I’m afraid that in today’s blog, I’m essentially writing an obituary of sorts. On Tuesday night, Washoe, a chimpanzee, died of natural causes at age 42. Through her life, Washoe was no ordinary chimp. Born and captured in West Africa, Washoe was originally used for research done by the US Air Force. She was soon adopted by psychologists Beatrix and R. Allen Gardner, who treated her like a deaf human child. Washoe started learning American Sign Language that year. According to many scientists, she was the first non-human primate to learn sign language.

This event of teaching a non-human a human language challenged some of the fundamental theories of language, especially the basic assertion that language is core to the human experience. However, if other species can learn language as well, what makes us so special? Is it a question of degree and that we can learn and use language far better than any other species? Or perhaps then language simply isn’t central to our humanity. To resolve these questions and protect their theories, scientists began to question the scientific validity of the Washoe’s acquisition of ASL.

On first glance, Washoe seemed to clearly have a grasp of language. She could reliably use 132 signs. For Washoe, reliability meant that a sign had to be used appropriately and seen by 3 observers on 3 spontaneous instances. It then had to be seen 15 days in a row. So, her vocabulary was fairly extensive. Also, Washoe could combine signs meaningfully. According to Wikipedia (so this might be a little dubious, but it seemed pretty cool anyway), although scientists termed toilets and refrigerators “Potty Chairs” and “Cold Boxes” respectively, Washoe called them “Dirty Goods” and “Open Food Drinks.” So she also showed the capacity to manipulate signs to generate meaning. She apparently also signed “Water Bird” spontaneously after seeing a swan, although this claim seems to be fairly unsubstantiated. According to one of the researchers, Washoe was even able to teach a fellow chimp, Loulis, some ASL without human guidance, and these two chimps could apparently converse at a basic level.

Despite all of these seemingly clear examples of the usage of language, many scientists doubt that Washoe was truly using language. Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have suggested that Washoe was merely imitating her human handlers and that she wasn’t independently using language. Several other researchers have attempted to teach chimpanzees language in more scientific settings, most notably Herbert Terrace, who tried to teach a chimp named Nim Chimpsky (incidentally, I think this is the best name of all time) ASL. Terrace found that Nim Chimpsky couldn’t spontaneously sign. Rather, he learned an elaborate system to beg for food and rewards.

So the question remains: Exactly how much “language” did Washoe learn? Or did she learn language at all? If she did learn language, and if other chimps are also therefore capable of acquiring language, then we’ll either have to revise the definition of “language” or we’ll have to accept that something beyond simply language and communication defines our humanity. And this statement then begs the question, what does define humanity? What makes us so special?

I think that this question is so central and core to our lives that I almost certainly can’t do it justice. But I can still try, right? I think it is a matter of degree. Yes, Washoe could learn 132 signs. But the average person has tens of thousands of words in his or her vocabulary. We also have such ingrained and complex understandings of grammar which no other species has ever exhibited to our knowledge. All of this allows us to communicate our thoughts articulately and extensively. Concurrently, because of the precision of a symbolic system like language, I think that we can think more precisely and deeply than any other species. I think therein lies the core of our human-ness.



I don’t think my rambling is complete by any means, but I think it’s indicative of how intriguing that little chimp Washoe was.


Pdot N

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/rip-washoe-chim.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003986892_washoe01m.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53815/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/science/01chimp.html?ex=1351569600&en=2395249fcfe98fa3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Blog 10 - The Reality of a Bilingual America

Affinity Spanish, a Spanish language services company has recently begun bilingual employees recruiting services. Basically, they gather data on bilinguals searching for jobs and refer them to US companies which need bilingual English-Spanish speaking employees. Apparently Affinity Spanish’s services are in fairly high demand because the need for bilingual English-Spanish speaking employees has grown significantly during the past years, for a couple of reasons. First, American companies are trading ever more with Latin American counterparts, and these bilingual employees can help easily and gently bridge cultural and language related divides. Second, and I think more importantly, the ascendance and growing economic importance of the Spanish speaking population in the United States demands that companies cater towards this population’s needs. This ever-growing importance suggests that in some ways the US is becoming a bilingual nation.

As is, the United States is home to the 5th largest Spanish speaking population in the world, and it’s only growing. Over 600,000 immigrants come to the United States every year from Spanish speaking countries. According to a Berkley professor, “the state [of California] predicts that the school population will be majority Latino by 2008” and most of these students will be Spanish speakers (although I’m not sure if I should believe him since he’s from Kal). More and more, the Spanish language is becoming a prominent feature of the American landscape. However, several American groups seem unable or unwilling to accept this reality.

Although English Only groups have existed in the United States for decades, they now have more power and influence than ever before. Essentially, these groups hope to designate English as the nation’s official language and to deny people the right to have government services provided in any language other than English. This policy seems to only have detrimental consequences. Like it or not, the reality of the situation is that there are people in this country who don’t know English. By ignoring them and by not providing them with basic services like health care, they won’t go away. They will only suffer.

These English Only proposals don’t help anybody. As Al Gore said, “Everyone knows English is the language of the United States. ‘English Only’ laws only seek to divide our nation.” Americans need to come to terms with the reality of foreign languages, particularly Spanish, within the United States and they need to accept the fact that the use of these languages will only grow. English-speakers should use the influx of foreign language and the increasing prominence of Spanish as an opportunity to broaden their cultural horizons. Rather than fighting against this trend in futility, Americans need to adapt and embrace it.

See you all tomorrow,

Prananda

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/25406/
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/28/143049.php
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Castro1.htm
http://spanish.about.com/library/weekly/aa070300a.htm
http://www.us-english.org/inc/about/
http://www.englishfirst.org/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/engonly.htm

Blog 9 - Foreign Languages in the United States: A Sad Story

The federal government of the United States recently put $333,333 behind a pilot program in Ohio, called the “Ohio Language Roadmap for the 21st Century,” which plans, among several other things, to teach Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish to children who are still in pre-school or kindergarten. The government is hoping that this program will help the state compete globally in the business world and that it will help strengthen state and national security by improving foreign relations and benefiting new immigrants. Beyond these pragmatic reasons for the program given by the government, it will also help foster an understanding of cultures around the world and a more global, something which the Americans seem to lack as a society.

Given all the reasons why people ought to learn foreign languages, I’m surprised that these sorts of programs have not been emphasized more in the United States. According to the US Census Bureau, a measly 18% of Americans spoke a language other than English, up from 13% in 1990. In EU however, 45% of the population can carry conversations in more than 1 language. So while the trend is going in the right direction in the US for foreign language speakers, their numbers are still miserably low.

Why does the United States’ population lag so far behind in its knowledge of foreign languages? Some may argue that from a geographical perspective, the United States is relatively isolated from the rest of the world, and therefore is separated from foreign languages. This argument fails to hold water however, because we are bordered immediately on the north by Canada, in which almost a quarter of the population speaks French natively, and on the south by Mexico, in which nearly all of the population speaks Spanish natively. Also, because of the tremendous flow of immigrants into the United States, foreign languages are always being introduced into the population. Rather, I think that reason behind Americans’ not knowing foreign language has to do with a cultural unawareness or apathy and a faulty system of language education in public schools.

Given that the United States acts as a dominant force of cultural hegemony, Americans often don’t see the necessity to learn about other cultures, because they come to reflect that of Americans. Because of this belief, Americans think that other people will learn English, and so because of their perception of English’s universality, they don’t have to learn any foreign languages themselves.

The system of language education in public school has significant flaws as well, which I think the “Ohio Language Roadmap for the 21st Century” may begin to fix. Most of foreign language study happens in Grades 9-12. However, students’ minds are not nearly as open to languages at this age as they are at younger ages. In the primary level, far fewer than 10% of Americans study a foreign language. If foreign languages were taught more broadly to younger students, I’m certain that the number of foreign language speakers in the United States would quickly grow. These reasons, among many others, contribute to the dearth of foreign language speakers in the US. Hopefully we’re on the right track and the percentage of people who speak languages other than English will continue to rise.

Pnanda

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS01/710230374
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/22/america/NA-GEN-US-Foreign-Languages.php
http://www.promotics.net/ticktack/survey/eustats.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/foreign.htm
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/AmSpks.html

Blog 8 - Medical Translators

I was recently reading an article about translation services at hospitals. Hospitals are beginning to use professional translators to address the needs of rapidly growing immigrant populations. These translators’ roles in the hospital extend well beyond simply translating doctors’ diagnoses and patients’ concerns. They also break down the cultural barriers that can isolate patients. I can only imagine coming into an American hospital not knowing English while doctors and nurses scurried around sticking IVs in me. Regardless of whether or not someone knows what is happening because of the translator, if they feel culturally alienated and as though they are in an entirely unfamiliar world, I think unease would be the mildest way to describe their emotions. Translators also act as cultural liaisons for patients, so that they don’t feel so cut off. Because of the immense benefits of translators in hospitals, Bill Clinton, when President, signed an executive order requiring all hospitals, clinics, and doctors accepting federal funds to have translation services. The state of New York recently extended this requirement to all hospitals, including private practices. Interestingly, there is no national certification for this job. Given the importance and subtleties of the profession, there most certainly should be one, complete with standards for medical translators.

The importance of translators and the concurrent usefulness of these actions by President Clinton and the state of New York seem obvious. Yet, not everyone agrees. Some argue that family translators are better than professionals because they “represent the family to the best degree they can.” However, there are several reasons why family translators cannot be depended to translate in a hospital situation. First, they often don’t know medical terminology in both languages, and they therefore cannot translate accurately. Second, because family translators are emotionally invested in the patient, they will sometimes withhold or change a doctor’s words to protect the patient from painful news. But this patient has a right to know what is happening to his or her body. Conflicts of interest and ethical issues can also arise with the use of family translators. For instance, an abusive husband might be called upon to translate for his battered wife. The use of professional translators solves all of these problems.

Some people also argue that the government should not interfere with the business of health care. Rather, if there is a monetary demand for translators, then hospitals will respond or else they will suffer financially. One article gives the example that “no federal bureaucrat ordered Coca-Cola distributors to start running ads in Spanish. There was no need.” There is a tremendous difference between the Coca-Cola retail industry and the health care field. Coca-Cola doesn’t address something so profoundly fundamental to people’s wellbeing as their health (in fact, it almost does the opposite). Health care is so central to people’s lives that it should not be solely motivated by financial reasons. That’s why health care is one of the most socialized industries, even in free-market economies. Also, financial motivation will not lead to an influx of medical translators. The people who reap the benefits of translators tend to be of lower socioeconomic classes. So despite arguments to the contrary, requiring all hospitals to have translation services is an excellent idea that will only improve the quality of health care for those who need it the most.


Nanders


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-interpret_bd21oct21,1,1529405.story
http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_5205723,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14838695/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Sep-03-Fri-2004/opinion/24671060.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/news/lack_of_translators_at_hospital_put_immigrant_s_lives_at_risk.htm

Blog 7 - Zounds

I’ve been reading a couple of blogs recently which address the issue of profanity and taboo words, so I figured that I’d chime in. I was recently reading an article about some research done by Yehuda Baruch. Baruch, a professor of management at the University of East Anglia, suggests that swearing in the workplace is actually beneficial for workers as a means to relieve stress and develop collegiality with their co-workers.

I am supremely suspicious of these findings. Baruch suggests that abusive and offensive swearing should be “stamped out.” However, for many people, swearing is inherently offensive, and by encouraging the use of profanity in certain circumstances, managers would be creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for several of their employees. Also, swearing could even be detrimental to a company’s productivity, as it leads to an atmosphere of informality, which is not conducive to work. If nothing else, swearing damages the employees own abilities to articulate themselves as much of their vocabulary gets crudely replaced by profanity. Whatever happened to weekend picnics and office parties? There are most certainly better ways for people to relieve stress and develop team spirit than to use offensive language.

But that statement actually begs the question of why is this language offensive? According to a New York Times article, swearing has been a constant through history. For instance, Shakespeare often used profanities of his time like “zounds” and “sblood,” which are respectively offensive contractions of “God’s wounds” and “His blood.” The article even suggests that the Bible itself uses what could be considered language. Researchers have found that simply hearing curses causes signs of instant arousal. For instance, the hairs on their arms rise, their pulse speeds up, and their breathing becomes shallow.

But where does the taboo that surrounds swear words come from? According to Dr. Deutscher, a linguist at the University of Leiden, in some cultures, swears come from sex and bodily functions while in others they derive from religion. The idea of a swear word comes from the immense importance accorded to swearing by the name of a god. In ancient Babylon, to break such an oath would be tantamount to bringing down god’s wrath. For example, even the term “Golly!” which may seem, as the article puts it, “comically wholesome,” was once a profanity as it’s a contraction for “God’s Body.” However, a lot of questions still exist about why swears evoke such strong and passionate reactions from people in a broad spectrum of cultures. By studying patients with Tourette’s, researchers are beginning to see the brain’s role in swearing and the emotional reactions that it induces.


Pran


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20curs.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&ei=5070&en=165110c8ec4d45c1&ex=1128225600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1192734106-6jcTMExIfl2dwkZrBAMZIw
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/10/17/swearing-works-89520-19963117/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/10/18/ftramsay118.xml

Blog 6 - The Language of Thought

Steven Pinker is coming out with a new book! I suppose I should be more excited than I really am, because, although I’ve heard his name thrown about a lot and I’ve heard good things about his writing, particularly The Blank Slate, sadly I’ve never read any of his books. So, when I saw 3 articles about his upcoming work The Stuff of Thought, I decided that I should take a peek.

When I started reading the article, I was struck by Pinker’s seemingly larger-than-life presence in academic circles. He’s described as “academia’s rock star” (to be entirely fair, this designation should have been no surprise, since after all he was an assistant professor at Stanford from 1981-1982). As I kept reading, however, I found myself more and more fascinated by the subject matter of his book.

Pinker claims, among many other things, that although we think using language, we are not, as Nietzsche termed it, trapped in “the prison house of language.” Pinker disagrees with Wittgenstein’s theory that “the limits of [his] language mean the limits of [his] world.” Instead, Pinker argues that although languages may be limited in some senses since they are human constructs, we can work beyond these limitations by co-opting language structures to do things aside from their original purpose. To use less technical and verbose jargon, we naturally do things such as thinking metaphorically. Pinker gives the example of how we often think of time in terms of space, thing along the lines of “We’ve come a long way together.” We thereby can put abstract concepts, such as time, in terms of concrete and familiar things, such as space and distance.

While the idea of using metaphors to expand our capacity for thought certainly grabbed my attention, I found the first part of Pinker’s claim even more intriguing. Namely, to what degree do people use language to think? Many seem to implicitly answer this question by saying that people always think in languages. For instance, the 2001 Swiss National Census form had a question “In which language do you think?” Today, I tried to think without using language a couple times. Despite my best efforts, I always lapsed back into thinking in English (except perhaps when I felt the deep pain of seeing my beloved Red Sox lose). I don’t think that I can formulate rational thoughts without words. Without verbally based language, my thoughts are merely vague notions. Because for as long as I can remember I have thought rationally in a language, I previously assumed that everyone has had a similar experience.

Yet, when I read a commenter on one of the articles, I realized that my experience with thought might not be universal. The commenter pointed out that there are “jungle kids” who don’t display any power of speech or language. Despite their unfamiliarity with speech and language, I think that these “jungle kids” must be able to think rationally, just like deaf and mute people who have never had any exposure to spoken language. In fact, an abstract for the scientific article “Thinking without Language. Psychological Implications of Deafness: By Hans G. Furth” indicates that there several “impressive clinical and experimental findings lend support to the hypothesis that ‘intellectual functioning cannot depend basically upon language.’”

After having read these articles, I think that people don’t all think using language. However, I think that people do tend to use symbolic structures to think about the world around them. According to that same abstract, “all thinking activity which is directly concerned with events not perceptually present employs symbols.” In other words, to think beyond the immediate present, we, as humans, all use symbols to some degree. I (and I think the majority of us) use a verbal language as the primary system of symbols with which we think. So, in studying these languages that we use as symbolic structures, we are studying the mechanism by which we think.

See you all tomorrow!

Pnav


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/science/article2645198.ece
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2651465.ece
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/science/article2637228.ece
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html
www.hyponoesis.org/download/Thinking_and_Language.pdf
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=paq.036.0617a

Blog 5 - Language Acquisition, a Linguist's Pandora's Box

A couple people have already mentioned the concept of “Universal Capacity” and “Language Acquisition” (For instance, Janessa). It’s an intriguing idea and topic for research, because it addresses the appearance of the uniquely human trait of language. My math professor today, Professor Leon Simon, actually said in class today that we’re essentially the same as chimps; only, we have the power of language. So, to research how we acquire language is akin to delving into the core of our human-ness.

Most research seems to indicate that children’s minds are most fertile and ready to learn languages prior to and at around 18 months of age.* By 22 months, children seem to exhibit a comfort specific to verbal language that did not exist at 14 months of age. They treat it as the dominant mode of communication, which suggests that by this age, children have already formulated a certain understanding of language.** They therefore have completed the first (and most challenging) step in learning language: they have discovered that spoken sounds tend to have meanings attached to them. However, because they have conceived notions about language, they are not quite as open to new languages as they once were.

Before 18 months, children shape their understanding of phonetic variation, in other words the distinctions in sound that they need to pay attention to. I guess that this period in which we differentiate sounds explains something that I’ve wondered about for a while. I’ve always been slightly confused why English-speakers cannot for their lives pronounce Hindi words or even tell the difference between certain Hindi sounds. No English speaker that I have met has ever been able to correctly pronounce my name, and yet every Hindi speaker I have met can say it with ease. I think that almost everyone whose family speaks a different language has had these experiences, and here’s the reason for them: English speakers’ ears simply aren’t accustomed to hearing the differences between foreign languages’ sounds in the same way that I can hardly (if at all) tell the difference between, say, the clicks in various African languages.

Although all of the research on language acquisition answers a lot of questions, I think it raises as many questions as it answers. What switch gets turned off in the brain around 18 months? Why are we so open and malleable to learning language before this age, and why is it so much harder afterwards? Also, what in our brains gives us the fundamental capacity for language that, according to Professor Simon, chimps lack? Another pressing question, in my mind, is what are the impacts of growing up in a bilingual household? Although a lot of research has been done on this topic, which for instance demonstrates the importance of caretakers’ attitudes towards the languages within a household, a lot of questions still exist about this topic.*** So, we can certainly explain away a lot about how we acquire language skills, but there’s a lot more to do.



On a side note, I found this quote while rummaging through the articles: “A community that cannot be identified by its language and culture is almost non-existent.”**** I think that this quote effectively sums up what I was trying to get at in my last post, namely the central role that language plays in communities. This inextricable link between language and culture exists in societies around the world, including the society in which we live. How we speak shapes and reveals a great deal of who we are.


See you all tomorrow!

Pnans


*http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/104/41/16027?rss=1
**http://content.apa.org/journals/dev/43/5/1111
***http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol14/pham.htm
****http://allafrica.com/stories/200710090043.html

Blog 4 - Come to Iceland! Our Language is Awesome!

I’ve been trying to figure out why we struggle so urgently to save dying languages. My sentimental gut reaction says that we should always try to maintain them simply for the sake of diversity and because, honestly, the idea of having uncommon distinctive languages seems pretty cool. But I wanted to figure out why this idea seems so appealing and why this quest to save languages seems so necessary. Sentiment and nostalgia alone fail to justify our consuming and often losing battles to preserve dying languages. There has to be a deeper reason why we try so hard, even with such little success.

So I was reading an article that talks about Iceland’s booming tourism sector.* Does that seem entirely irrelevant to our class? Yeah, I was really confused when I opened the article. At first I figured that somebody at Google News must have dropped the ball. Well, it turns out that the central part of the article’s sales pitch is the Icelandic language itself. Apparently one of the primary attractions in Iceland for tourists is its unique language. To convince people to visit their country, instead of waxing poetic about its stunning natural beauty, the authors talk about its ancient language.

The Icelandic people clearly have tremendous pride in this language. To them, it’s more than a language; it’s their history. The first people came to Iceland in 870 CE and used the Norwegian language. Ironically, although in Norway this language altered drastically, the Icelandic version remained virtually intact. The oldest preserved texts in Icelandic were written around 1100.** Apparently, not a single word has changed in Icelandic language since the writing of these texts (which generates questions and raises doubts about my theories about changing languages in my 2nd post). Because of Icelandic’s constancy, Icelanders today can read these ancient texts more easily and more directly than Americans can read Shakespeare.***

Language is so central to Icelanders’ heritage and history that to preserve their culture, they must preserve their language. So, the government has adopted a policy of language purism. Essentially, it has decided to avoid using foreign words at all. Instead, they will either coin new words or coin new meanings for obsolete words to describe new things. They can thereby ensure that Icelandic language (and therefore Icelandic culture) will remain entirely intact.

Therein lies an excellent reason to preserve dying languages at nearly any cost. Language is not merely a mode of communication; it’s a crucial element of any culture. Just ask the Icelandic people. To lose a language is to lose a culture. Each cultural tradition has lessons and truths to teach the world, and by allowing languages to pass away into obscurity, we allow these lessons and truths to disappear into the shadows of the unknown. We all lose something in our lives, particularly those left stranded without a cultural identity. This loss is tragic. So, the struggle to preserve dying languages doubles as a noble quest to protect the secrets, truths, and value in their corresponding cultures. Is anything not worth sacrificing in this pursuit?


With that, I’m going to bed. Hope you all had great weekends!

Panda


*http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28327&Itemid=9
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language
***http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0824866.html

Blog 3 - Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?

Why is the study of Linguistics important? What impact does it have on our daily lives? On one level, our histories and experiences with language certainly influence who we are and how we think, but these effects seem pretty theoretical and detached from my life as I interact with my fellow residents of Paloma (which is the best dorm, for all those who were wondering). I also haven’t studied, and may never study, enough Linguistics to paint a vivid picture of how my neighbor’s understanding of Arabic affects her personality or how her neighbor’s knowledge of Portuguese affects his.

At least, that’s how I thought before this class. I’m starting to see that even a relatively superficial understanding of a language (such as its approach to time markers) can influence people’s personalities. So, even this glossy understanding of language can help make cross-cultural social interactions more fruitful. I’m starting to also see more how being raised in a bilingual household has impacted my own life and my own identity. However, I think that sometimes we exaggerate the effects of language in our lives. I’m speaking particularly in reference to an article examining the differences between the way in which men and women converse.* This article takes on the “conventional wisdom” that men and women understand language in different ways.

On first glance, men and women do think differently in several fundamental ways, and so why shouldn’t language be one of these discrepancies? Interestingly, this thought process leads to some devastating conclusions. For instance, it can lead to rape victims being blamed implicitly for their situations. While that may seem like a leap, the article’s author actually presents a perfectly logical explanation. She cites the example of a Canadian university tribunal hearing in the 1990s when two women lodged complaints against the same male student. During the hearing, one of the tribunal members essentially suggested that the case boils down to a problem of miscommunication and that the defendant is primarily responsible for “getting signals mixed up.” Rather than blaming the defendant wholly for his transgressions, the tribunal instead shifted some blame onto the victims for their apparent failure to communicate competently. According to this theory, men have trouble understanding women, and so, the victim of a rape has a responsibility to overcome this obstacle of communication.

There’s something deeply wrong and slightly sickening about this line of logic, which stems from the idea that men and women inherently have difficulty communicating with each other. According to Mary Crawford’s book Talking Difference: On Gender and Language, there are 2 primary results of this “Miscommunication Model:” First, women must accept responsibility for rape prevention. Second, they are blamed for rapes that occur. Neither results are beneficial at all.**

Overall, in this case, applying a theory of language fails. So although we may often think that we can explain the world with our differences in language (and we often can I think), we should be careful. Sometimes, these crazy intellectual and theoretical explanations can have disturbing consequences.

Anyway, I think I’m done for now, and so I’m going to hit the sack. See you all tomorrow!

PN


*http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,2181805,00.html
** http://books.google.com/books?id=x6TH210UaZQC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=rape+miscommunication&source=web&ots=KBUOMCI9C9&sig=Aw77eCYvnTLgdYOSYnXCUggoYk8#PPA123,M1

Blog 2 - Word-Blending at its Finest

A couple months ago, my mom was driving Marty, a friend of mine, and myself from a track and field meet in New Hampshire. The two of us were raving about a phenomenal runner who broke several league records. In keeping with my typical vocabulary, I called him filthy. My mother was utterly bewildered. She couldn’t understand how a word like “filthy” could possibly mean exceptionally talented. When I first thought about it, I couldn’t either. Filthy and talented seem like entirely unrelated if not opposing words. For that matter, I also couldn’t grasp how “grimy” and “filthy,” nearly synonymous in traditional English, could essentially be antonyms in popular slang.

I suppose that words are always dynamic; they gradually morph and eventually stray from their original meanings. Although the word “filthy” has a precise definition that may not change significantly over time, perhaps its connotations slowly shifted for various almost arbitrary reasons. For instance, the phrase “filthy rich” stems from the phrase “filthy lucre” which arose from works written by 14th century authors such as Chaucer and John Wyclif.* The term “filthy lucre” transformed into “the filthy,” used as a slang reference to money. By the 1920’s “the filthy” turned into the now common phrase “filthy rich.”

However, this nearly 600 year long slow progression of meanings doesn’t fully explain my mom’s confusion or even why the International Herald Tribune thinks it needs to publish a translation of young adults’ slang for its readership.** Some forces must act far quicker on languages to change words’ meanings drastically between generations. I think that this influence can be attributed to adolescent creativity, which expresses itself mostly through a process of “word-blending,” which takes two words and blends them together. But this creativity is not restricted to our generation, which has produced such beautiful and profound words as “fauxhawk,” “butterface,” and “sexile.” Rather, it extends well into history and past generations. For instance, the word “electrocute” originated in 1889 as a mixture between electricity and execute.*** Some writers have proposed that even older words, such as bash, are also mixtures of multiple words.

So, I guess that some of the strange concoctions of words that we hurl around everyday in jest (I think sexile is an excellent example) will one day become parts of accepted language. We’re all part of a never-ending cycle: We creatively alter the traditional meanings of words and use them so persistently that their new meanings eventually become traditional again. Then the next generation will change this meaning yet again, and we’ll all need the International Herald Tribune to publish a mini-dictionary to clarify the meaning of the young people’s crazy new words.



On a side note, I read an article about Lucknow University trying to teach Persian language by dubbing Hindi movies.**** I have to applaud Lucknow University because this idea is simply brilliant. I know that my own Hindi has improved drastically simply by watching Bollywood films. What could inspire you to learn more than absolute melodrama, outbursts of dance, and thousands of costume changes? But actually, they really do work. By watching movies and simply listening to the actors and actresses speak, one quickly and almost subconsciously picks up syntax and vocabulary. The process is almost analogous to one of immersion. One caveat, however: I think that this methodology should only be used for people who already have some degree of understanding of the language that they are trying to learn. Otherwise the student can quickly tune out audio cues and only look to visual ones to follow the story. Once, I was visiting my cousin in Florida and she took me to school with her one day. In her Spanish class (I don’t know Spanish, quite unfortunately), they watched a dubbed version of Monsters, Inc. I could follow the story because Monster’s Inc. doesn’t exactly have the most complex story line, but I certainly didn’t learn a lick of Spanish (again, quite unfortunately). But otherwise, I think that the Lucknow University strategy will work very well.


Now that I’m done rambling, I think I’ll sign off. I’m looking forward to class tomorrow!

Pdot

*http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/filthy-rich.html
**http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php
***http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/blend.htm
****http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200709301445.htm

Blog 1 - An Introduction

Hey everybody! I'm Pranav Nanda and I was born in scenic Boston, Massachusetts. I've lived in or around the city my entire life and like most Bostonians, I've come to love it dearly. My first language was Hindi, which I knew better than English until I entered grade school. My parents speak in a melange of Hindi and English at home, and as a result, although I can now barely speak the language, I can still understand it quite clearly. Whenever we return to India, my relatives and I tend to have strange conversations in which they speak mostly in Hindi and I speak mostly in English. During high school, I studied French and Latin for 3 years each and so I'm fairly well acquainted with both of them as well. Finally, as I hope this blog demonstrates, I also know English, which is now my dominant language and the one with which I think.

I decided to apply for this IntroSem because I thought it would help me grow both intellectually and personally. On an intellectual level, although I only recently learned its formal name, the Whorfian question has intrigued me for a long time. Also, in an increasingly global community, an understanding of different cultural perspectives will only become more crucial to our lives. On a personal level, I've often wondered how my upbringing in a 2-language household has affected my own psychology and influenced my cultural identity. So, to use the language I've heard here in Northern California, I'm "hella stoked" for this seminar, in which I'm looking forward to learning from both Professor Boroditsky and my classmates, who, I'm sure, all have rich, textured, and varied backgrounds.

As for travel, my father works overseas frequently, and sometimes my mother and I have the pleasure of piggybacking with him. As a result, we've traveled around western Europe fairly extensively. As a family, we also try to go to India every 2 years to visit relatives and ground ourselves. I would love to go to South America, particularly Argentina, and hopefully I'll have the opportunity to do so sometime in near future.



create your own visited country map