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?

#10 perfect pitch? no way!

I'd like to dedicate this post to Otto Murphy, a friend trying very hard to learn mandarin chinese.
During lunch today, Otto found enlightenment. Although his pronunciation is impressively authentic (he's lived in Beijing for the past 10 months), he still grapples with why the language is so difficult to learn and speak. Then, he advances a theory: "Hey Cindy," he says, "why do you think there are so many chinese people with perfect pitch? Could it be that the language itself is so demanding in terms of tonal accuracy?" It was an interesting theory, but I casually brushed it to the back of my mind because, well, I know plenty of chinese people who are disasterously tone-deaf.

Well, Otto's theory resurfaced again today when I was reading an article:

"Boy, 10, has learned ten languages"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7035251,00.html
The surprising part of this article came not from the fact that Arpan Sharma, an elementary-aged boy, has taught himself Hindi,Spanish, Italian, German, French, Thai, Swahili, Mandarin, Polish, English, and Lugandan (the language of Uganda)--well actually, it is quite an impressing feat--but that he notes at the very end of the article that "his musical ear has helped him linguistically." This struck me as extremely relevant to Otto's comment, except instead of linguistic skills helping one's musical ones, the case here is in reverse. Maybe Otto was onto something.

I did a little research on the correlation between music and language, and was definitely surprised by the number of articles that came up on this topic.
One of the most informational:

Study: Language Determines Musical Skills
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041115/pitch.html

advances research that suggest the very solid connection between language and music. In particular, it states that native speakers of tone languages such as mandarin, cantonese, vietnamese, and thai, tend to have a higher likelihood of having perfect pitch, that is, when the individual is able to " name or produce a musical note without benefit of a reference note." As a little background, tone languages are those where a slight change in pitch changes the entire meaning of the word. For example, in Mandarin, there are four pitches. The word--"ma"--can mean mom, hemp, horse, or scold depending on which of the four pitches is spoken.
This research also brings up the interesting point that it could be the native speaker's early exposure to the tone language, rather than the langauge itself, that helps them with their musical abilities.

"While early music lessons improved the likelihood of a student having perfect pitch, the language of the students had a much stronger impact on pitch ability. For students who began musical training between the ages of four and five, 74 percent of the Mandarin speakers passed the perfect pitch test versus 14 percent of the English speakers."

This then, makes me wonder if those who pick up mandarin as a second language can also gradually produce perfect pitches in the music arena. Could there be a mechanism in the brain that sets a critical period and limits for how long language can affect musical abilities?

Another study:

Research Shows Correlation Between Music and Language Mechanisms
http://www.menc.org/information/advocate/brain.html

found that "there is an area in the right half of the brain known to interpret written musical notes and passages of notes, that corresponds in location to the left-half area of the brain known to interpret written letters and words," suggesting the very intimate connection between music and linguistic capabilities. Does this connection suggest that the two skills, if developed under optimal conditions (ie, at a young age) can complement and even bolster each other?

Another interesting study worth reading:
"Music Improves Language and Memory"
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s911523.htm
Most interesting part of research: the research, Dr. Agnes Chan, believes that " learning music stimulates the left temporal lobe, which processes auditory input. This in turn encourages the development of a part of the left temporal lobe called the planum temporale, which responsible for verbal memory. In this way, verbal memory training happens as a sort of 'by-product' of musical training."
On this topic, I wonder if learning music at an early age will help with an individual's ability to learn a second language in the future.

I suppose the moral of this post is that ordinary conversation can lead to inspiring (hopefully) posts!

Oh, and Otto, don't feel bad. Even Arpan Sharma remarked that Mandarin Chinese (along with Swahili) was one of the hardest languages he had to learn.

#9 speaking of english...

English is such a useful language. I mean, you can practically go anywhere in the world with it and minimally fear the language barrier (granted, complete comprehension is another case...). So how can English possibly, possibly go wrong?

Indigenous Languages in danger of Disappearing
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20071027.E02&irec=1

This article lies especially close to our class discussions due to our frequent discussions of the fascinating language and culture of indigeous Indonesians. Indonesia is a country where 746 aboriginal languages are spoken, but 10 of which have become extinct, with more to add to the roll call. Researchers cite several reasons for these alarming disappearances:
1. linguicide: also known as linguistic suicide, where languages disappear in massive patches due to natural disasters or genocides
2. language shift: the shift to a more dominant and "universally accepted" language due to practical or psychological reasons (ie. natives might believe the dominant language to be superior to their indigenous ones, and thus the speaker would be automatically elevated to a higher rung in the social ladder)
This is where English comes in. Though English does faciliate international communication, it does so at the risk of endangering less ubiquitous languages. And even though there are no national policies that strictly enforce speaking English, several recent cases in the news show that English has become a prerequisite to those who desire social mobility, in nearly any aspect of any country
Case #1: http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14550699 :"English is the language of retail today"
this article discusses the necessity of English language skills to retail employees in India (note: not the US/UK/austrialia). Echoing the belief of those who practice the language shift (described above), a storeowner states that ,
" 'English makes an impression like no other and especially in cities like Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, majority of the people who shop at stand along retail outlets or those in malls are well versed in English.' "
Another retail owner chimes in that
"If a particular retail chain is aimed towards the youth, then knowing Hindi and basic English should suffice. But if a chain is targeted at the elite crowd then English is a must. It all depends on the crowd that you expect to walk into your outlet." It's interesting that what's been cited as a psychological cause has actually turned into a fact in this case. There almost seems to be no way around it: either you speak English and reap the benefits of speaking a language associated with the "elite," or you don't.

Case #2: http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1790844.0..php: "Allardyce keen to keep English the language of choice"
Even in the sports-entertainment sector of society, the almost stifling effects of English can be seen. The coach of the team has banned any language other than english from training sessions and all other team efforts. He says the reason is that "That communication has to spill over onto the field and, while you might be able to communicate with one or two players who might speak French or a different language, that's not the answer."

However, I wondered if he's considered the implications of forcing his players to pick up english so quickly. As we've discussed in class, learning a second language becomes increasingly more difficult later on in life, and is possibly age-sensitive. Therefore, what use is a "universal language" (at least on the field) if the words don't come that easily, and players have to spend that many extra seconds to internally translate what it is they want to say to English (and this is hopefully assuming that they have translations down pat). Therefore, those extra seconds of delay could make a very significant impact on the outcome of the game. How can such problems be addressed? Might gesticulation or any other type of nonverbal communication transcend the problems associated with learning a new language?

3. socio-political enforcements: cited as "the most powerful force behind language disappearance," these enforcements come in the form of "language policy, language indoctrination through education, repression and pressure to use the official and national language over local languages." We saw that this was true in the two cases mentioned above, where some sort of implicit/explicit language policy has favored English over other local languages.

The article also offers several possible solutions to the problem of language disappearance. It suggests that the most effective way is making "ndigenous languages a compulsory subject in school."
However, I see several problems with this solution. I know someone who grew up in a Navajo reserve (he himself is not Native American) and has been learning Navajo ever since he was in elementary school (a result of a similar proposition to save a dying language). However, when asked to reflect on the effeciency of the program, he said that it's more nominal than anything else. Why? Due to lack of formal education on the part of the natives, the district was at a dire lack of qualified Navajo speakers. Taking the second best alternative, they basically hired whoever could speak Navajo, regardless of teaching credentials, and hoped it would work. In the end, it merely gave the students a jumbled and superficial glance into the Navajo language, partly due to inexperienced teachers, and the lack of a systematic plan.
What do you guys think about this problem and its possible solutions? Could education be the ideal way to save a dying language, or is there something else?

#8 so say you were shopping...

Edioma: it sounds like a good concept in theory, but will it actually produce the perceived results?

Edioma is the new portable application on your cell phone (as if we needed any more) that helps foreign language speakers facilitate their integration into english culture, especially in the verbal sense. Taken word for word, Edioma is designed to allow "Spanish (or other) speakers to learn helpful English phrases through their cell phone." To minimize the common translation mistakes that occurs with online translators, search phrases are organized into different "situational needs" to best match the situation at hand.
Quote: "When a speaker needs to say something in English, they just look up the phrase in Spanish and then choose one. On the screen, the English phrase pops up while a voice speaks the words in English. A user can either listen and repeat the words, hand the phone to an English listener or use the service to memorize the phrases for later."
And to add to this idealized version of language translation, Edioma also promises "educational games" to further one's English learning skills.

Now that sounds like a good idea and all (afterall, pocket translators can become cumbersome...) but if we really think about it, will it really yield such desired results?

First, let's take it from an economic point of view;
premise: I'll discuss the following perspectives using the Spanish speaker's example
1. the cost of this application is unclear, and generally speaking, a large proportion of the Spanish population in California are immigrants (lets put legality aside for a moment..) and many arrive in the US with minimum percurniary capabilities. So that's to say, why would you, an immigrant, spend money on an application that's not guaranteed to work 100% of the time when you can take ESL classes at a local college/adult school at very nominal cost? Additionally, no electronic application can mimic the educational experience to be gained from a classroom setting.

From a sociological point of view (I think this is the crux of my argument against Edioma)
1. Edioma describes an ideal situaion where the English learner can "either listen and repeat the words, hand the phone to an English listener or use the service to memorize the phrases for later." But let's consider a real life situation:
A Spanish-speaking immigrant is shopping at the local mall during the Christmas rush season. He stumbles across an item that seems very intriguing, but can't exactly identify the purpose/ cost of the object. The only employee he sees nearby is one who looks very harried and busy, but decides that he has no other alternative. So, he approaches with employee with his handy dandy Edioma-equipped cell phone.
In this above situation, it is reasonable to surmise that
1. in addition to the language and cultural barrier, the spanish speaker will probably feel even more ill at ease if he had to approach the employee with an electronic translator. Just by simply visualizing the situation, one will see that when the Edioma user finally locates the English phrase he wishes to convey (and that's assuming that he's familiar enough with the technology and set up of the program to get the right within a decent number of seconds), the awkwardness and possible frustration will be enough to perpetuate tensions between the two parties. The employee, already not in the best of moods, will be aggravated when constantly handed the cell phone and detest communication with what essentially is an electronic party. On the other hand, the Spanish-speaker will be embarassed that he had to resort to such cumbersome ways to convey his questions, and at the same time uncertain whether or not the translator captured the nuances of his question. What can result is then, confusion, exasperation, or admittance to defeat ( or combinations of any of the above)

what we have above, then, is a very unideal situation. It completely defeats the purpose of cultural immersion, and in some ways is very counterproductive. Additionally, it is psychologically more comforting to have a translator constantly at your side than to have to rely on oneself for all the translation, so what can possibly happen is an over-dependence on electronic applications and subjecting oneself to the control of a inanimate entity.

This situation can also be used to address the question Steve posed in my last post: what are people really thinking when they interpret speech? When people process speech from another party, it is a combination of influctuations, tones, expressions, and words that help them put together a hollistic picture of what the other party is saying. Thus, with the advent of this electronic translator, only the words portion of the whole picture will be conveyed, thus depriving the receiving party of a large part of the equation. We ask ourselves, how realistic is it to expect a person to search up the phrase they want to convey, show it to the receiving party, and simulataneously put on expressions/gestures to get across what sentiments they wanted to accompany such phrases? Short answer: not very.

Thus, as ideal a language panacea this may seem, it is either an all too optimistic a forecast, or just a clever attempt of American capitalists to exploit and manipulate the situations of foreigners in America. Which interpretation do you guys think is more correct?

sources
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=21348

#7 speech theory

The recent finding of the FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals have prompted a scientific upheval in terms of how scientists viewed these earliest beings.

Brief Background

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071018-neandertal-gene.html

According to the new discovery, scientiest found that unlike previously assumed, Neanderthals could've very much been able to speak and talk (using language) like modern humans, as evidenced by the discovery of the FOXP2 gene, which is commonly known as the "speech and language gene." It is dubbed as such because when a mutation occurs on this gene, only language and speech capabilities are affected. Past research has shown that those with the mutation have a difficult time talking, due to "problems with making the quick and complex movements of the mouth and tongue needed to talk intelligibly," and comprehending the spoken word.
Such research, then, refutes previous notions that Neanderthals were truly primitive in all respects, and had only vocal grunts and gesticultion as means of communication. These views are presented in an earlier National Geographic article that cites language as the deciding factor of victory in a hypothetical confrontation between humans and Neanderthals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1124_041124_neanderthals_language_2.html
Even though this article presents a disproved idea, it does make an interesting connection between language and cultural arts. It says that "neandertals were skillful toolmakers and hunters, they don't appear to have produced any art or personal ornaments," suggesting that with the advent of language, beings were able to concoct art and other more individualistic characteristics (tangent: so does language the propelling force that defines us as individuals?)

Though I've only cited the National Geographic piece, many other articles reported on this finding, always ending in a note that suggests this discovery provides a new link between the evolutionary lapses betwen Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.


Response

After reading about such findings, I immediately wondered what makes the difference between language and speech. Especially in modern day society, these two words are frequently used interchangeably, thus making distinction difficult. I felt like this distinction must be made in order to understand what it is about language that mere vocalization and gesitcultion couldn't convey. A little research:

http://www.peacehealth.org/kbase/topic/special/hw265266/sec1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Scenarios_for_language_evolution

lead me to this answer: while speech indicates the physical act of talking and making sounds with our vocal chords, language is "our system of using words to communicate." Interestingly enough, the first site also defined language as including gestures.

That being said, is speaking a language really a tell-tale sign of genetic advancement and subsequent species promotion? There are many languages in the world where the language is not composed of words, but rather, by entitities that more resemble gutteral sounds than spoken word (one specific example comes to mind: the Sho people in the Kalahari desert in the film ,"The Gods Must Be Crazy" spoke a language comprised of "clicks" rather than words). How then, is this explained in terms of the claim that language is far more advanced and "chosen" by the Darwinian theory when compared to gestures and speech (as defined above)?

Another interesting point the wikipedia article brings up:
"Research found strong support for the idea that verbal language and sign language depend on similar neural structures. Patients who used sign language, and who suffered from a left-hemisphere lesion, showed the same disorders with their sign language as vocal patients did with their spoken language. Other researchers found that the same left-hemisphere brain regions were active during sign language as during the use of vocal or written language." This implies that gesturing and spoken word are processed through the same hemisphere/region of the brain. Again, this challenges our preconceived notion of language being associated with words (prime example: sign language)

Another argument can be made for the universality of gestures and basic "speech." We all know from empirical experience that when finding ourselves in a foreign environment in where we know not the language, we tend to resort to gesticulating rather than speaking a language. Thus, in terms of pragmatism and universality, and with the increasing flow between cultures, is then, gesticulating making a comeback in the world of communication?

#6 abusive language

Perhaps the model case of depression and low-self esteem has its roots in self-effacement caused by abusive language. Tragically, a similar case popped up in today's news:

"Abusive Language caused work-related suicide"
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20071017TDY04306.htm

The case revolves around a Japanese employee who was being constantly verbally belittled and abused by his superior. He would have to deal with daily comments dealing with his incompetence and general insignificance, usually formed in malevolent comments:
"Your existence is offensive to my eyes. Get out of my sight"
"You'rer a wage-snatcher parasitizing the company"
"You're a social phobic, aren't you?"

The article then made references to the victim's suicide note, in which he said that, "My defects echo around my head, and I now despise myself."

My reaction:

Though this case is not in the very least uncommon (alas), I pondered the very implications of language, tone, and effects on the human mind. I found it intriguing that the victim, an otherwise healthy 35-year old man leading a normal life, have gradually adopted his supervisor's perception of him to be his own. In other words, as the abuse continued, he let another's definition of himself define who he is as a person. Language in this case, can be a horrid perpetuator of human cruelty.

However, I also wondered about the effects of tone and language. As adolescents, we often joke around with our peers, sometimes uttering the same exact phrases, but in much lighter and playful tones. And though some of us take these jabs a little more seriously than others, more often than not, we can brush off such comments, at most with an awkward chuckle or a personal defense. What then, determinies how the impact of certain phrases affect our brains: the explicit content of the language, or the tone it was uttered in?

Further research lead me to this case study:

"Both Halves of the Brain Process Emotional Speech"
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr03/brain.html

In this experiment, participants "listened to recordings of actors pronouncing sentences with happy, sad, angry, fearful and neutral meanings using tones of voice that were either neutral or emotional. When the actors' meaning and tone of voice signaled different emotions--for example, when the sentence, "The little girl lost both her parents," was spoken in a happy tone--participants were asked to pay attention to either the meaning or the tone."

In our previous case, if the supervisor had uttered such accusations in a "happy tone," would the result been as tragic? When the vicitim replays those abusive scenes in his mind, will he be as deeply traumatized as he was if the content and the tone didn't match?

The research done by these scientists resulted in the finding that the right side of the brain is responsible for processing the emotional content of speech, while the left is responsible for processing emotional meaning, or what emotions the context of the utterance were supposed to evoke. It continues to state that if there's a disparity between the content and the tone (as in our hypothetical case), then both sides of the brain become active, as if mentally struggling to decide which hemisphere should dominate.

Which then determines the final result of a remark? It's logical to conclude that if the tone matches with the content of the language, then a hollistic impression would be made. But what it they don't match? What it there's a huge difference between the two aspects? What then?

#5 The prudence of translation

Translations have always been a little questionable, so I guess it's only prudent (haha) to dedicate this entry attempting to solve the central question of whether, if at all, it's appropriate to translate languages.
I ran into quite an opinion piece here:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/10/13/4572738-sun.html

The columnist here offers a "quick fix" to the language barrier between the Peruvian oil companies and the Amazonians. He claims in his solution that to befriend the native Amazonians (and we all know that sharing a common language is almost a direct segway into friendship and intimacy) the Peruvian oil companies should hire a U.S. company to create a "language guide" that would be comprehensible to the natives. Already, I see several things wrong with this concept.
First, language is being used as a facilitator of communication, and not THE channel of communication. I wonder if in a way, the Peruvian oil companies can take adavantage of this langauge barrier and exploit the Amazonians and their resources, and then reassign responsibility by claiming that there was a misunderstanding between the capitalists and the natives. Also, why is the intermediate US company (third party) even necessary in this process. For a more intimate connection, shouldn't the companies take time to practice cultural immersion (like this author did here: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=124576&bolum=132, if not as a way to thank the Amazonians for all they will take, then at least for some shared ground of communication?) and actually learn the language and the cultural implications to minimize damage to both parties?
The columnist then goes on to state that by simply translating a few phrases that are purportedly "native" in sound and concept (ie, "How many moons or suns have you walked for," or "We come in peace and are people just like you") the companies will simply gain entrance into Amazonian society. First off, even if these questions were culturally valid, the mere fact that an unaboriginal individual speaking it, and doing so not from innate knowledge but in a stilted form with it's source in a foreign creation (the language guide) will create an immediate sense of inauthenticity and general falsity.
So we ask ourselves, does TRULY learning a language require consequent cultural immersion, like the author of the second article did in Turkey, or is it even marginally feasible to learn a language, be accepted by the natives of that language, without undergoing cultural immersion. Or, would the ideal solution be to develop a "universal language" that transcends all these barriers and provide an immediate forum of interaction for all societies. But it that's the case, can individual cultures still exist, or will there be more of a global culture, which is a stir-fry of every culture?
This is a little remniscent of the internet culture that's developing: it transcends cultural implications and brings everyone together in a global forum with a shared language. This however, seems to be the closest to an universal language, which in truth, isn't really a language at all.

#4 revisiting entry #1

It’s interesting how casual ponderings can take unexpected turns. Take for example, my ramblings about a Darwinian mechanism in language two posts down. Today’s Google Alerts sent me to article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=8B115001-E7F2-99DF-346F909C5D6D751C&chanID=sa007

that was so appropriately titled: “Use it or Lose it: Why Languages Change over Time.” This article deals with the transformation and disposal of some irregular verbs and general vocabulary over time. For example, over the years, the past tense of “help” changed from “holp” to the present day “helped.” It’s interesting to note that they categorized these changing verbs as “infrequently used irregular verb,” noting that these were the quickest to change: “a verb used 100 times less frequently evolved 10 times as fast.” Why was it that the past tense of “help” was so irregular hundreds of years ago? Could it be that there was another word to substitute “to have aided someone sometime before the present”? The article goes on to remark that most of these irregular verbs have been replaced by their root verb + “ed” mainly due to the simplicity and ease to commit to memory of the word. Then I wondered: is this a reflection of western culture, that the past tense of an action does not nearly mean as much as the present, and therefore is not worth the merit of a completely different word? Could it represent our predilection for expedition at the expense of culturally linguistic implications? The western lifestyle certainly does lend itself to this way of thinking: life here is so much more fast-paced, and an extreme emphasis seems to be placed on “living in the moment.” Therefore, the cultural aspects of these verb transformation seems to dictate the outcome of a change. That is, the adoption of –ed to represent past tense is very much a reflection of the contemporary culture.
After doing a bit of research, I came across another site that made an interesting remark considering the correlation between language and culture: it was noted that some of Darwin’s contemporaries “were not evolutionists and adhered to quasi-mystical ideas to explain language development.” Interestingly enough, they believed that language were animate and breathing things, or that an “internal spirit drove language change.” Could this internal spirit be synonymous with the cultural underlings of the society? Interesting how such concepts relating language and society were developed so long ago!
source
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-verbs11oct11,0,6512249.story?coll=la-home-center

Language: the chicken or the egg?

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/10/5/lifefocus/18951336&sec=lifefocus
In one of the most intriguing articles I’ve come across so far, I found this central question being posed in the language realm: Which is more important to coherent speech, vocabulary or grammar? Before taking the same middle road and saying “both,” I thought it’d be interesting to analyze this problem from both a sociological and scientific point of view.
Being a fan of the culinary arts allowed me to understand where the author of the first article was coming from. Much like recipes, speech and conversation in general would not be possible without the basic ingredients, and in a linguist’s point of view, that would be vocabulary. However, many may also argue that you can’t form a coherent sentence without the basic grammatical knowledge of verbs, nouns, subjects, etc. This then, seems to be a great predicament. The author of the first article gives five basic arguments for why vocabulary is “far more important”
1. there’s no point in knowing grammar if you don’t have the word bank to fit into sentences
2. many linguistic segments already come in “ready-made” phrases that are much easier to commit to memory than to process and analysis the grammatical structure
3. empirical experience shows that many sentences have come into existence not because their grammatical structure makes sense, but because they have been “uttered before” and have just taken root in society
4. sentence structuring comes naturally, not with deliberate consideration to its grammatical structure
5. non-native speakers should concentrate on context and “lexis” rather than grammar.

While the writer makes some cogent arguments, I can’t help feeling that he’s forgetting the “human factor” in learning a language, particularly for non-native speakers. As part of the normal human psychological search for comfort and stability when immerse in a new environment (in our case, a new language), it is nature to look for the most stylized and solid aspect of the language. In many languages, if not all, this can be found in grammar. Grammar is rooted in specifics, and language students feel that they’ll have a much more solid grasps on these specifics than something abstract like “lexis” and “phrase packages.” These aspects, although important, come more easily with time as the student becomes more and more immersed in the foreign culture. With this point, it seems like the author is almost making a categorical argument for the necessity of cultural immersion when one picks up a new language. So this brings us back to the root of our class: is the separation of language and culture impossible, are they permanently intertwined, or can one adopt one without the other?
In regards to this grammar vs. “lexis” issue, I also found it interesting to investigate whether grammar can analogously be considered the “techy” side of language, and “lexis” be the “fuzzy” side. Does this then imply that a person’s predilection for one or the other (grammar or vocabulary) depending on which side of one’s brain is more developed (or if they’re right or left handed)?

This article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040428062634.htm on “language centers” in the brain seems to partially address that question. The article states that in individuals from childhood to age 25, “language capacity in right-handers grows stronger in the left hemisphere of the brain” So if we were to continue with the initial hypothesis that grammar is the more “techy” part of language, add it to the known fact that the left hemisphere of the brain processes information in a linear fashion, dissecting the parts of the whole, then it can be logically concluded that grammar is perhaps most easily learned in this age interval. This brings us to the interesting issue of whether as the language center shifts when a person ages, the person gains more and more ability to adapt a more holistic view of speech (and thus adding more complex “lexis” arrangements), thereby being more coherent in discourse. So, then, the question leads to why as people age, they tend to be slower in speech, and how does conditions like autism and Alzheimer’s fit into the big picture? This will require much more research, something I’ll be sure to be on the look out for when reading advances in cognitive science.

Entry #2: The Necessity/Purposes of Learning Foreign Languages

This post is an extension of what we started discussing during Tuesday’s class: is learning the native language absolutely necessary for survival in a foreign land?

While perusing the Google Alert links, I couldn’t help notice the connection between three of the links:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300business/0100news/tm_headline=lack-of-spending-on-learning-languages-8216-costs-billions-8217&method=full&objectid=19878990&siteid=50082-name_page.html
(Lack of Spending on Learning Languages ‘cost billions’)

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1568292007
(Scots Jump Language Barrier)

http://media.www.cardinalcourieronline.com/media/storage/paper1247/news/2007/10/03/Viewpoint/Expand.Horizons.With.Foreign.Language-3010040.shtml
(Expand Horizons with Foreign Languages)

All three of these sites seemed to share one thing in common: they strongly advocate taking up foreign languages. However, there also seems to be somewhat of a warning imbedded in the first two, one that warns against the dangers of complacency in knowing only English. One specific point the first article brought up, that “companies are over-estimating the economic advantages of speaking English… language complacency has a significant negative effect on British exports. Other nations’ propensity to learn English is not enough to compensate for our own under-investment in language skills,” prompted me to ponder the same case but in a United States setting. Just what percentage of the US population spoke another language? Brief research showed that in 2000, only 20% of Americans over the age of five reported speaking a different language AT HOME.* This seems to mimic the problem Professor Foreman-Peck pointed out in the article: with this relatively low statistic in one of “the most diverse countries in the world,” serious implications could be made about the (over?) dependency US citizens have on English. Interestingly enough (but slightly off on a tangent), the Census also seems to point out that “the West and South combined had about three times the number of Spanish speakers as the Northeast and Midwest combined.” One can make a certain inference about this significant discrepancy in number of Spanish speakers. The physical proximity to the Spanish’s country of origin (Mexico) seems to correlate directly with how comfortable people are with learning/practicing the language. There seems to be many questions that can be raised from this point. Do we only practice languages for pragmatic reasons? Is there a psychological root behind finding a comfort zone for an existing language before picking it up? Is it possible to want to learn languages for the SOLE reason of cultural diversity (must there be a pre-existing environment)? And again, I end my post on some sort of a cliffhanger that I hope will be addressed during lecture.

* http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001406.html

entry #1: The Creation and Disappearance of Languages

The juxtaposition of the following two news articles creates an interesting question: can the sporadic creation of words (and essentially, language) today even slightly compensate for the rapid disappearance of language steeped in history?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php “Translating the Lingo of adultalesence”
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7046816?nclick_check=1 “Last Living speaker works to keep NorCal tribe’s language alive”

While reading the first article, I reflected on some things I’ve heard said about colloquialisms in modern society: “kids today don’t appreciate the value of proper English,” or “the reassignment of different meanings to common words (what’s having issues with someone got anything to do with ‘having beef?!’) utterly devalues the original word.” I’m not going to lie: I was once a language purist, that is, I refused to partake in slang talk and was basically a stickler for correct spellings and usage (I went by the book—the big book: the Oxford English Dictionary). I was never one for internet/ AIM lingo: I never caught on to 1337 (“leet”) talk and “like” and “this” were never spelled “lyk” and “dis.” But now in retrospect, I think I’ve come to recognize the cultural implications of tween-talk. Incorrect spellings, absurd usages weren’t displays of immaturity, but instead, displays of a whole new culture. They represented the era of kids who found traditional spellings and definitions bland and unimaginative, they represented a culture that was used to creative formations and expedition. So now that I’ve established (to myself) that the creation of this new language was in fact a reflection of the formation of a veritable culture, I asked myself whether or not this came at the expense of other cultures.

We’ve briefly discussed in class the rapid endangerment of thousands of languages across the world. According to some sources, 5/6 of all languages are in some state of endangerment.* I was honestly taken aback by this astonishing figure, but after some thought, realized that because I was surrounded by a limited number of languages all the time, I never realized how many languages I wasn’t aware of (that sounds a bit like a “duh” statement). This posed the question of whether languages operated on a Darwinian theory. Do languages disappear because they’re “weaker” than others? Does this imply that the endangered culture is also, in a scientific sense, inferior (or merely lacking in man power?)? And if so, according to Darwin, wouldn’t language disappearances be a naturally “good” thing—that is, they promote the advancement of society toward a more…sophisticated level? Although I’ve read several sources that seemed to imply this to be the case, I think that culture and language are exempt of the Darwinian theory. Cultures are not something inherent in individuals, but rather, the amalgamation of a community of similarly minded and spirited people. But, I have wondered if the loss of a language correlates directly with the loss of a culture. I suppose this is the crux of our course: can language or culture exist independent of each other?
So, to wrap up my rather winding ramblings, do you guys think that we’re gaining new cultures at the expense of old ones? If so, was this replacement “worth it” (have we gained from the systematic formation of new languages in today’s society?) or should we instead cling onto pre-existing languages and strive to keep them alive. Or, ideally, is coexistence between the two possible?

* source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2002/0425fast.htm
interesting site that describes the endangerment of languages in such terms: “a language is considered endangered when it is no longer spoken by children, moribund when only a handful of elderly speakers are left, and extinct when it is no longer spoken.” Do check it out!

me in a nuthsell//introduction

Hi there! I'm Cindy Guan, and I'm originally from Shanghai, China. I speak three languages: english, mandarin (although I'm basically illiterate and a shame to my people), and "spanish" ( quotes because I don't really speak it as formally as I'd like considering my five years of formal instruction...). Anyway, I came to the US when I was four, which although seems like a young and tender age, has left me enough impressions of my ethnic culture to be able to consider issues with multiperspectives. I guess I never really gave any formal consideration to the correlation between language and society, but in retrospect, I can definitely recall a few instances where I found myself grasping just how much (and why!) language affected our everyday lives so much.

Ex #1: My last name, as you've probably noticed, is Guan. Several westernized versions of this last name include (and are probably more familiar) Quan, Kwon, and Kwan. This may seem like a tangent, but just bear with me. The event was 10 years ago, at a friend's birthday sleepover. I remember watching the Olympics Women's Figure Skating event, and our favorite skater (and long time idol), Michelle Kwan, had just finished her event with a definite flair and near perfect scores. In the moment of excitement, I proudly announced that historically, I have some definite blood ties with this amazing athlete. My best friend looked at me quizzically, asking how in the world that could've happened. I explained to her that in mandarin (the national language of China), our last names were of the same character, meaning that we shared a common ancestor. The only reason that her's was spelled Kwan was because she was Cantonese, and because chinese last names were based on pronunciation, her's was spelled the way it was pronounced in cantonese. This friend's expression now turned smirkish and challenged my claim to fame by declaring that because she herself was of Cantonese origin, she actually shared more ties with Michelle than I did. Anyway, we went on with this (petty) argument as only eight-year-olds could ("me!" "no, ME!!"), but the point is, this little event reminded me how integral a part language plays in any given society. Given the same situation but in a different country, we probably would've never had such a disagreement.

It's just really amazing how something as ubiquitous as language can penetrate so many aspects of society. just think about all the possibilities!

I'll update more as these little recollection come to me!



create your own visited country map