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
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 22, 2007
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
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
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
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
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
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
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
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
Thursday, October 4, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 1, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
