Final Paper

Effects of phonetic symbolism in language on perception of food
Introduction
References to the connection between language and its affects on perception dates back to Plato’s Cratylus dialog. Clearly, many more experiments have been conducted and empirical data collected concerning the topic since that time. This paper will explore the linguistic influences on one specific aspect of perception: food. That is, it will discuss how and if language, defined as the sound of the name of the food, can influence one’s perception of how desirable or flavorful the food is. Such effects can be separated into three categories: the semantic, phonetic, and associative influences of gastronomical words on the gustatory sense. Unlike other commercial products, food engages at least three of the five sense simultaneously. Thus, due to this interaction of at the very least, the visual, gustatory, and olfactory senses, the addition of the possible influences of the auditory sense greatly complicates research, thus making direct experiments of this simultaneous relationship few, and empirical data scarce. However, experimentally extrapolated evidence for each of the three categories (semantic, phonetic, and associative) on their effects on human perception, though not necessarily in the directly gastronomical arena are abundant. Therefore, we will discuss such information in respect to the food industry. Additionally, numerous resources have pointed to the significant effect of the phonetic effects of words on one’s perception, and thus, following a brief discussion of possible influences incurred by semantic and associative affects, this present study will discuss in detail the influence of phonetic effects by citing both previous and original research conducted in attempts to make a connection between phonetic symbolism and the desirability of different unfamiliar foods. Specifically, we will explore what effects the auditory sounds of the branding of certain foods has on the perception of appeal.
Semantic effects
The semantic effect of labels on food can be discussed with a particular emphasis on the framing effect, in which different but logically equivalent words or phrases causes individuals to alter their decisions (Druckman, 2001). In respect to the food industry, this can be very well seen in a recent empirical example. In the past decade, the food industry has been increasingly projecting a more youthful image. Thus, language has been manipulated to fit this projection, and especially in the prune industry, has wrought significant benefits. Due to the association of prunes with torpid senility, the population in general consciously avoids such personal associations, and thus for the last 10 years, prune sales have been continuously falling. Logically then, in June of 2000, the California Prune Board lobbied the FDA to change the official name describing the desiccated fruit from prune to dried plume, a name which consumers claim to evoke a positive image of the beneficial affects of the fruit. Such a seemingly inconsequential change in the nominal aspect of a food item yielded inspiring results for the industry. After the label makeover was complete, the now dried plum industry saw an increase of 5% in sales. Thus, this example shows that language can be manipulated to increase appeal, even though every aspect of the core of the product remained unchanged. The connotative associations made with each respective label played a significant role in determining gustatory appeal. Another example of framing effects in the food industry is the switch of the naming of the Chinese Gooseberry to the now internationally recognized Kiwifruit. In these cases, it is apparent that language, through its semantic properties, can significantly alter consumer’s preferences and decision-making.
Sound-based effects
The second category of food names under consideration is the phonetic aspect of the gastronomical cognomen. Specifically, we explore the phenomenal of phonetic symbolism, which is defined as the “nonarbitrary relation between sound and meaning.” The explanation of phonetic symbolism has been divided into several categories. The first, vowels and consonants, explores the different impacts certain vowels and consonants have on perception. Vowels are usually separated by a front versus back distinction, which describes how the vowel sound is produced by the tongue. An epitomic example of a front vowels is the [i] in mil, and of a back vowel the [a] in mal. One experiment using these two vowels is described by the following excerpt:
“In what appears to be one of the first controlled demonstration of this effect, Sapir (1929) gave participants nonsense (artificial) words in the form of consonant-vowel-consonant that differed only in the middle vowel (e.g., mil vs. mal). He then gave participants an arbitrary referent (“these are tables”) and asked them to
indicate which was large and which was small. The participants showed over 80% agreement across a large number of word pairs in their association of the back vowel sound (e.g., mal) with a large table and the front vowel sound (e.g., mil) with a small table.” (Shrum and Lowry, 2006)

Such results were not only observable in English speakers, but also in Chinese, Navajo, and a variety of other languages, regardless of subject age or level of education. This indicates a potential universality of phonetic symbolism. The implications of these results have been used in fields such as advertising, when producers are in the process of naming a product. Particularly in the advertisement segment of the food industry, the front versus back distinction have informed firms that ice cream names with the [o] sound in frost are perceived to be creamier, smoother, and heavier than those names with the [i] sound in fish. The study that discovered this entailed providing a group of participants with two fictitious ice cream brand names, Frish and Frosh, and asked the participants to select which brand of ice cream appeals to them more. Enough of the participants chose Frosh to indicate that participants (and consumers, as a result) make an implicit connection between the creamy, smooth, and heavy connotations of the [o] sound and the desirable traits in ice cream.
Similar findings have occurred with consonants, although instead of the front and back categorization, phonetic symbolism effects of consonants are separated into fricatives or stops. The former, fricatives (i.e. s, f, and z), point to the sounds formed when air flows through the lips, teeth, and tongue, which causes friction, while the latter, stops (i.e. p, k, t, b), indicate sounds formed by the complete closure of aforementioned articulators. Additionally, consonants can also be separated into voiced and voiceless sounds, the distinction made by whether the vocal cords vibrate during sound production. The implications these categories have on human perception of descriptions will be discussed in further detail in relation to the original experiment.
Although such a relationship between sound and perception has long been observed, cognitive reasons as to why sounds of words cue words’ meanings are still debatable. Some researchers attribute it to synesthesia, which refers to a cross-modal sensory association. In this case, the stimulation of the brain by an auditory effect causes a gustatory perception. The cognitive specifics of this condition are largely debatable, but several possible explanations that have arisen include the discussion of a disinhibition of feedback and an excess amount of anatomical connections. However, the nuances of the degrees to which one sense can trigger another are still undetermined.
Associative effects
A combination of the semantic and phonetic effects of language on perception is the associative effect. Most commonly seen in advertising, this effect describes the usage of particular words that evoke desirable memories and/or perceptions that are automatically connected to the product in question, even if all they share is an auditory similarity. Few experiments have been conducted to explore the relationship between associative affects of food perception, but in the field or advertising, researchers have found significant reasons to believe that associative effects (called the language contact phenomena) are conspicuously present in product perception and selection. In one study, the researcher found that when introducing several European languages to Japanese advertising, certain consistent characteristics often linked the language of the advertisement and the consumer’s perception of the product advertised. For example, products with English slogans or brand names usually evoked a sense of “international appreciation, reliability, high quality, confidence, practical use, [and] practical life style,” (Haarmann, 1989) This is not a singular occurrence, for when conducting similar research but in the American car name industry, researchers found that “French names were also employed to conjure up connotations of fashion, elegance, and femininity, while Spanish was associated with freedom, adventure, and masculinity” (Piller, 1990). In another study by Kelly-Holmes, the link between food perception and the associative effects of language was briefly discussed in the finding that internationally, the Italian language connotes the perception of “good food and a positive attitude toward life.” Thus, any label that phonetically resembles of these foreign languages will evoke impressions that links the product to the qualities of said language.
Even though the above studies have sufficiently proved the presence of a correlation between language and perception, little research has been conducted to explicitly explore such correlations between language and food perception. Unlike in the cases of product advertisement, food perception brings in a third sensory faculty to the table: gustation. Thus, the following study has been created and conducted to explore the weight language carries on food perception, and seeks to ask whether under equal and simultaneous circumstances, auditory or visual influences dominate in the judgment of food appeal.
Present study: Empirical questions and predictions
The following study aims to further explore the correlation between phonetic symbolism and its effects on perception of different foods. It asks if there is a relationship between how much euphonic (front vowels) and dysphonic (back vowels) vowel sounds (and to a marginal extent, consonants) affect how appealing a certain dish is to the participant, and whether the pleasantness of sounds affect whether the participants perceive the dish to be sweet or savory, heavy tasting or light tasting, and whether they envision it to be served hot or cold. My predictions are that to an extent, independent of the appeal the visual image provides, words containing euphonic sounds will subconsciously be considered when considering these questions, and will yield results that indicate dishes with these sound will be more appealing, and sweeter, lighter-tasting, and served cold. Dysphonic words will seem less appealing, and imagined to be saltier, heavier-tasting, and served hot. Such hypothesis is based on past data, which showed that vowel sounds made with the back of the tongue (i.e. [oo]) tend to convey large, dull/less appealing, and more cumbersome features, while sounds formed by the tip of the tongue (i.e. [i]) had a lighter, sharper, and more stimulating connotation.
Method
Design
With the aims of this experiment in mind, a within person study was chosen was chosen to show the possible disparity in influences between euphonic and dysphonic vowel and consonant sounds, although with a major emphasis on vowel sounds due to there being fewer of them, and thereby facilitating and expediting the process and interpretation of the experiment. A within person study was chosen instead of a between study because the former produces stronger results and eliminates or accounts for several variables. For example if a between study was chosen instead, in which half of the sample group was shown pictures with euphonic names and the other half with dysphonic names, then effects of variables like gender, ethnic background, individual preferences, etc, would have to be considered, making for a very inefficient study.
Participants
Due to the nature of this study, there was no particular requirement for participants. The sample group that was tested was composed of all Stanford undergraduates residing in Otero House in Wilbur Hall, ranging from first to third years. Although 60% of the participants were female, this does not significantly influence the results yielded. No distinction was given to different ethnic backgrounds, although the sample represented a fairly wide spectrum.
Materials
This study required minimal supplies. All supplies needed were incorporated in the design of the experiment. As the researcher, I created a six-page powerpoint slide show each with a picture of a foreign, unfamiliar plate of food. To minimize externalities, I ensured that the photos selected from online sources were of similar sizes, clarity, and lighting. Therefore, I tried to minimize any difference in perception that could have been caused by different presentations of food, brightness of photo, and dominant color. All photos chosen were only moderately distinguishable (either covered in a sauce or had no definite shape or form), just enough to be recognized as being edible, but not enough to create a strong associative effect. Photos represented foods from the entire taste spectrum, ranging from sweet to savory to spicy, etc. Six artificial words were used, half of which had the front vowel sound [ee], created by the tip of the tongue, and the other half composed of the back vowel sounds of [oo] and [ä]. Artificial words were chosen to avoid any cultural or semantic associations. The words were listed in the following order: Noofura, Minizie, Teebigee, Slopuga, Grawkaw, Limiera. The name assigned to each picture was decided by a random computer sequence generator program to avoid any structural bias. The order of the pictures remained constant throughout the experiment, but the names changed with each subject according to the pattern generated by the program. The only other supply required was six identical survey slips (for each of the slides) containing all the same questions for each participant.
Procedure
After indiscriminately selecting a participant, a quiet setting was chosen to conduct the experiment, one where no one else was present to influence the decision-making process. Participants were all tested at about the same time of the day to avoid extremities associated with disparities in hunger-levels. I introduced the study with a cover story that avoided imparting any preconceived biases or influence. The participant was told that he/she was about to be taught some gastronomical vocabulary in the language of a foreign tribe (specific name was deliberately omitted to eliminate associative effects), and that throughout the test, he would be answering questions pertaining to how appealing the food of the tribe was to him. The participant was then told that for each slide, he would see a picture of the food, listen to me pronounce the name aloud once, and repeat it out loud three times before he took the four-question survey for each picture (sequence of questions: appeal*, sweet or salty, heavy or light tasting, and served hot or cold). The time limit for each survey slip was 15 seconds. The questions the participant had to answer are as follows:
* a four-point rather than a five-point scale was chosen to avoid the impulse to chose the moderate, middle-of-the-road rating of three when deciding under time pressure.
Discussion
The general yield of this test can be seen as having inconclusive results. I observed several experimental errors that affected the outcome. First, one of the food items chosen too closely resembled a brownie, something most if not all the participants were familiar with and instantly associated it with a positive appeal. Therefore, the results for this item consistently showed that participants imagined that they would like it, that it was sweet in taste, and would be heavy-tasting, indicating the preconceived notions associated with a typical brownie. Another uncertainty that could have caused a significant error margin is that the words could have been constructed with a pattern in mind. Specifically, the division between the front and back vowel sound words could have only been marked by a single letter change in the word, instead of utilizing an entirely different set of consonants and construction pattern.
However, there are certain results that suggest a possible correlation between sounds and food perception. With the previous example, only the cold or hot question did not yield a predictable result. Because everyone’s experience with brownies in terms of the temperature they were served varied, the results had much more potential to be influenced by the sound of the word assigned than the other questions. For that specific visual, the results indicated that slightly more than half of those tested accorded with my initial hypothesis. When this food was named with a word with the back vowel sound, it was reported as being served hot, and when it was labeled with a front vowel sound, participants reported that it was served cold. In fact, generally speaking, this particular question yielded the most conclusive results. Half of the selection of six showed that phonetic symbolism could have played more potent of a role in perception decisions. 54% of the participants reported answers that accorded with my hypothesis: foods labeled with the [oo] and [ä] sounds were envisioned as being served hot, while those with the [ee] sound were seen to be cold.
Another test that yielded intriguing results is the test of “heaviness” of taste. Because previous tests in brand name products suggested the association of front vowel sounds with lighter impressions and back vowel sounds with heavier impressions, this test was conducted to see if such results would also occur with the perception of food. The results were surprisingly conclusive, for regardless of which picture was labeled with which category of names, 60% of participants associated pictures with back sounds to be “heavy-tasting” and front sounds to be “light-tasting.” The results for the temperature and heaviness of flavor lie in accordance with Klink’s experiment that showed that front vowels convey attributes coldness and lightness in commercial products and back vowels with hotness and heaviness.
There doesn’t seem to be a significant relationship between phonetic symbolism and the perception of sweet or salty judgments, with almost all of the participants rating foods as either sweet or salty based on the visual impact, regardless of euphonic or dysphonic sounds. The same result occurred with the test of appeal, with judgments as to whether the subject would enjoy the item or not based solely on the impact of the photo rather than the sound of the name.
In conclusion, though some less tangible categories of perceiving foreign food can be moderately influenced by phonetic symbolism, visual imagery, and thus the sense of sight seem to be more dominant in the final decision. While running the experiment, I noted that many participants subconsciously remark that they rated items a certain way because it reminded them of a more familiar dish. This suggests the instinctive reaction of linking the unfamiliar with anything vaguely familiar, thus producing results that disprove my hypothesis. However, supportive remarks were also noted, especially concerning completely indiscernible and completely foreign items. For such items, several subjects remarked that they wouldn’t like it because the name sounded “disgusting.” This only occurred with items labeled with a [oo] vowel sound, thereby staying in accordance with Otto Jespersen’s note “that back vowels such as the [u] sound in dull or ugh are very often found in words expressing disgust or dislike” and shown empirically by Grant W. Smith in his paper, “The Political Impact of Name Sounds,” when he hypothesized that “if names of candidates contained vowel sounds that are often used to express disgust (e.g., putrid, puke), then candidates with last names containing such sounds (e.g., Dewey, Buchanan) might be less favorably perceived than other candidates with better‐sounding names” (Lowry and Shrum, 2007). In our case, it was food rather than political candidates that was perceived with more disgust. However, because this was merely a verbal observation and was not significantly reflected in the written results, we cannot conclude that euphonic sounds produce a more favorable perception of food. Therefore, this test suggests that the name of foods has a rather insignificant effect on appeal perception and only becomes even a consideration when considering the subtler details of the food presented, and is otherwise clearly dominated by visual images. However, the case for phonetic symbolism remains strong, and more potent tests need be conducted to determine the extent of the influence sound symbolism has on gustatory appeal.
Bibliography
Druckman, James N. Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects. University of Minnesota. Oxford UP, 2001. 7 Nov.-Dec. 2007 .
Hubbard, Edward M., and V.s. Ramachandran. Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Synesthesia.
Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California. San Dieto, 2005. 7 Dec. 2007 .


Lowry, Tina M., and L.j. Shrum. Phonetic Symbolism and Brand Name Preference.
University of Texas At San Antonio. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH,, 2007. 7 Dec. 2007 .

Piller, Ingrid. Advertising as a Site of Language Contact. Cambridge UP, 2003. 7 Dec. 2007 .

"Prune Gets $10 Million Makeover -- as Dried Plum." CNN. 13 Sept. 2000. 7 Dec. 2007 http://archives.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/09/13/prunes.reut/

Shrum, L.j., and Tina M. Lowry. Sounds Convey Meaning: the Implications.
University of Texas At San Antonio. Psycholinguistic Phenomena in Marketing Communications, 2007. 7 Dec. 2007 http://faculty.business.utsa.edu/tlowrey/LowreyBookChapter2006.Final.pdf

Yorkston, Eric, and Geeta Menton. Names on Consumer Judgments.
Journal of Consumer Research, 2004. 7 Dec. 2007 .

Zasky, Jason. "Turning Over a New Leaf." Failure Magazine. Nov.-Dec. 2007 .

#16 The Last One (tear): revisiting #12

I spent a while pondering what do with this last entry. On my very deliberate search for something momentous enough fitting for a parting note, I came across an article that took me by surprise. A few entries back (four to be exact) I explored the topic of official national languages and how that relates (or doesn't) to the English language. My discussion boiled down to why despite an overwhelming majority speaking it, English hasn't been made the "official" national language in the United States. Although I've read several sources citing previous attempts to make this legislative law, I never seriously enterained the idea of making every piece of legislative document in the US only in English. The diversity of this country seems to exempt any notion of nationalizing a single language, and so I was extremely shocked to read the following article.

State Sen. Beason proposes English-only driver's exams
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/119676015549670.xml&coll=2

Recently, Senator Scott Beason of Alabama proposed a legislative bill that would make English the only language Alabama citizens could take their driver's test in. It seemed almost an incredulous proposition, especially with the 14 languages that are available now (including English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Korean and Japanese) in Alabama. He justifies his proposition by claiming that such a shift to a monolingual test would " improve highway safety." I was shocked that such an almost irrelevant reason could be used to justify what is obviously another act of exclusion. Beason claims that by forcing test takers to be proficient English speakers, this would lead to increased understanding of highway signs and thus reduce traffic violations and accidents. Other than being a stretch in logic (many, if not most, traffic signs are graphic or extremely simply in nature for the very purpose of easy comprehension by non native English speakers), Beason fails to see that learning english can potentially be a very arduous task for many. In the current situation, for those who have not been able to fluently communicate in English, they can at least seek comfort in gaining physical mobility, especially when they can take the driver's test in their mother tongue. By taking this option away and legally forcing another lifestyle upon immigrants and foreigners, Beason is essentially pigeon-holing them to a certain socioeconomic level, and thus perpetuating a discriminating cycle. It's also curious that given the numerous and effective multilingual model set (both on a state and national level), Beason still wants to break the mold and pass a bill that's been essentially blocked uncountable times in history.
Whether these repurcussions are known to him or not is unknown. But Beason's attemps to make English the official state language of Alabama carries weight beyond "improved highway safety." Such effects are discussed in the following article

Is having one-language test a good thing?
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/12/05/opinion/for_the_record/3-editorial.txt

This editorial talks about how making English the only language of the state will " conflict with Alabama’s efforts to attract foreign manufacturers" as well as "limiting the people who are licensed to drive to just those who speak English." I agree with these stances, from both the economic and societal aspect. After all, driver's tests are supposed to forecast how well a driver we'll be, not how well of a foreign language we can master.

#15 signing as a way of life

When speaking of sign language, many only focus on the differences on the "speaking" realm in communication. However, we often forget that signers must find alternative ways to cope with tasks and events beyond passing the salt around the dinner table or indicating that you'll be late for something. I ran across two different articles that describe the increased awareness of these other aspects of life, and how scholars and regular citizens alike are striving to make it easier for signers to enjoy life to its fullest.

The first of the articles,

Telling Stories in Silence
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/12/2/lifefocus/19579105&sec=lifefocus

speaks of the admirable attempts of a Malaysian sign language interpreter (Samuel Chew) working to translate Aesop's Fables into MSL (Malaysian Sign Language) for the nonhearing audience. He speaks of the challenges in this translation process that also occur with translation in other languages. However, there are a few points about translating written word (regardless of language) into sign language that really intrigued me. Unlike normal conversation where the single speaker can pause after speaking and wait for the interpreter to translate the dialogue to the signer, a play involves the continuous dialogue between several characters at a time, meaning that the interpreter would need to be able to sign several dialogues simultaneously, without breaks. Another aspect of interpreting a play that Chew has to take into strong consideration is diverting too much attention away from the actual play. This seems to be the most problematic point, for how can the audience enjoy the visuals of the play and understand the content simultaneously, especially in this case when they're coming from two different sources. What also intrigues me is that under normal circumstances, some plays can be hard enough to understand. However, because we are able to associate movements and expressions with a rough idea of what the character is trying to convey, it is not completely necessary to understand every spoken world. But in this particular group's case, this option is no longer available. They can't "guesstimate" what correlations the actions of the characters have with their dialogue because that split second it takes to look to the interpreter and make that extra connection, something has already been missed in the play itself. Also, numerous other questions can be asked as to how much of a real play viewing experience this can be. A huge element and tone-setter of most artistic expressions is created by music. How can this missing element be incorporated into the interpreter's translation? To address the combination of these points, Chew says,

"Many expressions are culturally laden, so adapting them can be tricky. For example, ‘I am no blue bird of happiness’ has to be interpreted into its implied meaning not its literal one because MSL doesn’t have a similar expression.”
The beauty of sign language, though, is how it enables its users to be very direct, giving very little opportunity to be misunderstood, or to come across as “refined’” or politically correct, he says.
“The language itself is an art of facial and body expressions. When signing, we get straight to the point."

Although this seems to be an adequate answer, I am still dubious as to how authentic this play-going experience will be if they must "get to the point" all the time and evade artistic expressions that sometimes make up the very crux of the play. However, as a whole, this is an incredible endeavor that tries to give signers as many equal opportunities as the hearing have. Despite the obvious kinks in the plan, the effort is valiant in itself.

Another article that describes a similar attempt is

Santa Knows Sign Language
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/NEWS03/712020685/1005

Here, a signer has taken up the role of the local "signing" santa claus. He's doing so because he noticed how many hearing-impaired kids have expressed a desire to tell the neighborhood mall santa their holiday wishlist, but either could not do so or found the experience to be extremely unfulfilling. Thus, with this change, there is now an equal and much more intimate understanding between the kids and Santa Claus. Like the previous interpreter, this reinvented Santa Claus has taken it upon himself to cater to the various needs of the deafs' lives. But in this example, there is more direct of an interaction, and less is lost in translation/interpretation. What do you guys think would be the ideal way to interpret a play from spoken word to sign language? Is there a paragon model, or are there inevitable barriers?

#14 language enrichment--yes/no?

Interestingly enough, two consecutive google alerts sent two specific links to articles directly contradicting each other. When juxtaposed, we see that these two articles both make very valid points. Which then, is the more "correct" stance on the issue?

The topic at hand is language enrichment: whether or not the change of a specific language by imbuing it with foreign words is beneficial to the speakers of the language as a whole.

The first article, found here:

How a few English words can help to keep our Welsh language alive
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/

lauds the affect English influence has on the Welsh language. In fact, it insists that due to the incorporation of many English words and sentence structures, Welsh has undergone a transformation--or modernization, if you will--for the better. It goes as far as to say that "fears that Welsh is being watered down by English are unfounded," approaching the dilution of the Welsh language from a comletely optomistic view. Welsh lingisuts imply that binding a language to a standard set of rules is anachronistic in today's world, and can only contribute to the degradation of the Welsh language. Purists, then, are considered behind their times. As a conclusion, this article believes that "It’s just important that people speak Welsh. Once you get them speaking, whatever the quality, there’s a possibility the language will develop."

Now we explore the other side of the coin:

Enrich language, don't kill it
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/COUNTER_VIEW_Enrich_language_dont_kill_it/articleshow/2573579.cms

This editorial that appeared in an Indian paper provides a counter perspective to the writers of the first article. Although they concede that "language enrichment" via imbuing the language with certain foreign elements is good to an extent, they also believe strongly in the overkill of such practices. Quote: "to throw all rules out of the window, completely transforming the nature and character of the language itself is tantamount to linguistic massacre." Now with the argument focused on the hyberdization of the English language, these writers argue that would make English obsolete as a global language, for the foreign words would only be comprehendible to the country from which they were borrowed. In effect, for a language to be universalized, it needs to be understand by many, and not just by a select few.

These two disparate articles bring up several questions concerning language hybirdization. When reading the first one, I almost got a sense of a defeatist attitude, as if the writers were throwing up the white flag of surrender and adopting a "we'll take it regardless of condition attitude". Now let's consider some hard facts. English is only the third most spoken language in the world, following Chinese as the first and Spanish the second. However, a strong argument has been made that English is perhaps the most disseminated language in the world. Where as Chinese and Spanish are concentrated in specific (if not single) countries, English has formal acceptance in at least 75 countries and territories. Why then, is English the language that receives priority in becoming a global language? Additionally, though the authors of the first paper insist that Welsh has also made an impact on the English language, the prominent language still stands to be English, that is, the hybirdization is more the anglification of Welsh rather than the "Welshification" of English. This then, leads us back to our initial discussion of English being able to absorb aspects of almost all language, and it becomes an advantage to English speakers. However, when the converse occurs--when other languages utilize English aspects--that language becomes almost diluted rather than hybirdized. In a more explicit example, there exists an English alphabet (the katakana) for the Japanese language, but such a system is blatantly missing in the English language. Even though many of our words are borrowed from the Japanese language (just think of a typical night out in Miyake on University...), it's almost as if those words have been uprooted from their origin Japanese roots and sucked into the English language. Therefore, when they are used in foreign conversation (conducted in English) in places other than the US or Japan, they are likely to be taken as part of the English language rather than borrowed terms from the Japanese langauge.
So, as it stands, personally, I think the second holds valid poitns--to a degree. The incorporation of foreign words into the English language serves to improve the utility of the language, and because it has such widespread usefulness, such additions will not hinder any comprehension. As for the effects of English on the Welsh language, I think the Welsh should approach the matter from a more realistic perspective. They need to consider the repurcussions should this "Welshgish" continue in the long run, and what that could mean for the ultimate fate of Welsh.


Sources:
http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm

#13 The next IT

A few years ago, the IT thing to have were those repulsive amorphorous creatures known only as Furbies. Then came the wave of technological toys: Gameboy, Wii, Ipods, etc..Now, the IT seems to be a lot less tangible, but a lot more pragmatic. The next big thing, then, seems to be being well-versed in several languages...before you reach adulthood, or really teenhood, really. Several different sources have reported some sort of foreign language program introduced to elementary school age children as early as kindergarden.

To keep up with the demand of contemporary society, schools feel like it can only be advantageous to start teaching students foreign languages at a young age. Quote: "But with increasing pressure on students to perform and a realization that children readily soak up subjects like foreign language at an early age, schools are offering those classes at the elementary level."
Articles have reported institutionalizing Spanish and Mandarin classes in elementary schools across the nation.

Even more innovative is the introduction of a program called Talking Hands that combines art and American Sign Language classes and brings it to kindergardeners. The creators of the program are delighted by the results they've seen so far, noting that kids pick up on ASL much more eagerly and rapidly when it's been combined with art education. For example, when the kids are taught to draw a tree, they are also taught how to sign "tree" in ASL.

Such World Language programs have been touted by school officials and parents alike, claiming that they cannot be more satisfied with something that'll teach their kids to be unbiased, multi-perspective individuals starting at an early age.

However, there are several things I see worth questioning in these programs
1. What is the efficiency/effectiveness of programs such as these? Assuming that kindergardeners today are no smarter than they were ten years ago, how much can they really learn? and how much will they really understand? I'd be impressed if at that age, they'd be able to have a sufficient grasp of english, much less any other language.
2. I agree with the consensus that kids will be introduced to much more diverse point of views through such programs, however, will such plans be really realized? I feel that unless there is a continual and systematic program that teaches these languages all through their elementary education, the kids have gotten nothing but a cursory glance at another world.
3. And as for the incorporation of these programs into their normal educational routine? Even though the concept is admirable--that a segment of time will be set aside periodically for foreign language instruction--what implications can this have on a young child? Would it be likely that the child, who has but a very shallow grasp of universal concepts, think that because such a marginal amount of time is dedicated to foreign language instruction, then that language is innately not as important as English, and will start perceiving it in an inferior way?

Of course, if all of these somewhat doubtful questions were taken into account, then there might not even be programs in the first place. Personally, I think these programs are great steps to connecting cultures, but the long term implications intrigue me. I'd attended a bilingual elementary school where mandarin was taught starting from kindergarden. However, because nearly everyone in the class was of some Chinese background, the language and culture were easier to absorb and actually understand beyond the superficial level. I was just wondering if such would be possible for languages with which young children have never had any contact with. What do you guys think?

Sources
"Kids learn sign language through art"
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/UPDATES01/71112040/1002/

"Elementary students go global with language instruction"
http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2007/11/12/local_news/news2.txt

"It’s never too early to learn languages"
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/355941.html

#12 a national language

Moscow to press Latvia to give Russian language official status
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071106/86889684.html

A little background
Russia has been recently pressurng Latvia to declare Russian as its official national language. As of today, Latvia is the only ex-Soviet country where Russian is still treated as a foreign langauge, even with 30% of its population identify themselves as native Russian speakers.

After reading this article, I found myself asking what the use of an "official" national language is. Even with 96% of the US population speak English (82% are native English speakers), the United States still hasn't announced English as the official national language. After a little research, I've found that the giving a language an official status can also be done not only to declare its dominance, but also to protect less ubiquitous, indigenous languages. Interestingly enough, this seems to be the strategy Russia is taking. Russia argued that Latvia must declare Russiian as the official national language because many "large ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Estonia have been assigned "non-citizen" status, which denies them a national passport and other rights, and prevents them from voting." There seems to be the logical connection between declaring an official language and the subsequent enfranchisement of basic human rights.

However, if we were to follow this train of thought, how would the US fit into the picture? Even though an overwhelmingly large percentage of the population speak English, there hasn't been deemed a need to proclaim English as the national language. In fact, though most legislative and official documents and proceedings are conducted in English, many states have provided for foreign language translations of these official documents.
What explains the rationale for the United States not to make English the official language? I think Congressman Mike Honda puts it best in his article

Immigrants' language skills crucial in era of global economy
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7374151?nclick_check=1

when he says that "multilingualism not only culturally enriches our country, but it makes long-term strategic sense if we want to remain the leader of the free world in a global era." By not enforcing a national language, foreigners are then, at no official pressure (social pressure is a different story) to discard their ancestral tongue and force themselves to speak English. However, I still wonder: what are the advantages of giving the predominant language "official" status, and what are the social implications of that? In short, does Russia have ulterior aims in forcing Latvia to give Russian official status? What do you guys think?

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States

#11 of terror suspects and chimps

I've recently read two articles that, although at first glance very different, are more similar upon inspection.

The first speaks of the very curious case about a prison visit:

Terror Suspect's Brother Accused of "Sinister" Sign Language
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/terror-suspects.html

Yahia Megahed is the brother of Youssef Megahed, a "University of South Florida student and terror suspect." He was arrested after being stopped by police in a speeding car in which a box of .22 caliber bullets and some homemade pipe bombs containing explosives material were found. The story follows, then, that during one prison visit, brother Yahia tried to send "sinister messages" to Youssef with sign language and facial expression. Apparently, as seen on the survelliance cameras, Yahia first "cleared the scene" to make sure no one was present, then started raising his eyebrows and "signing" to the camera. Professionals who understand American Sign Language were hired, and they interpreted the hand signals to be signing the letters m,i,g,c,l. The prosecutor, then, used this as further evidence that Youssef shouldn't receive bail, because he was scheming with external agents.

I was very much intrigued by this claim,and wondered if body language could really convey a sense of such sinister intentions as described. So, I found the link to the actual footage caught by the cameras, and watched the scene for myself (y'all should check it out--it's quite amusing):

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=4557891&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

What I felt, after watching the clip, was a sense of the absurd. The actions and motions that brother Yahia took was extremely remniscent of my little brother on Skype, who, when sure that no one was around him, would make funny faces into the webcam and spontaneous hand gestures. However, I looked at the case from the perspective of the investigators, who seemed to find something more sinister in these actions when set against the background of the case (potential terroists threat). So then, is there an objective way to interpret body langauge? At what point (and to what extent does this depend on personal biases) does body language cease to be innocent and unpremeditated expression, and instead seem to convey something with much more implicit meaning? What do you guys think? Was Yahia's moment in the spotlight tainted with something darker and more implicit?

In a second case, sign and body language also plays a rather prominent role.

An African Chimpanzee and its Language of Signs
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/02/stories/2007110257872200.htm

The female chimpanzee, Washoe, was believed to be the first nonhuman who has learned human language. Empirical evidence obtained from experiments showed that when researchers, under a controlled environment, communicated to Washoe using only sign language and minimal facial/body expression/language, she signed back with appropriate answers. However, the interesting part of these results is that both Chomsky and Pinker dispute the accuracy of these interpretations (that Washoe actually acquired human language). Chomsky argued "neural requirements for language developed in humans after the evolutionary split between humans and other primates," while Pinker contested that "primates simply learn to perform certain acts in order to receive rewards, and do not acquire true language."
What intrigues me about Pinker's point is that it sounds very much like a child first learning a language. An infant the age of three surely does not know what "walk" means, but when they're told to "walk" and immediately placed on their feet (and treated afterwards when they do take those first few steps), they begin to associate "walk" with the reward. Thus, they react more to the consequences of the utterance than to the actual definition itself. What then, does this imply about chimps? Can they not also pass the first "perform and reward" stage and eventually move into comprehension. I suppose this brings up the question: is the actual act of learning innate, or can it actually be acquired with deliberate effort? What's your take on this?