#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?