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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
#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?
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?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
#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
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
Monday, October 22, 2007
#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?
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?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
#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?
"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?
Monday, October 15, 2007
#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.
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
#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
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
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 1, 2007
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)