Developing distinctions between different categories of “love” in Japanese and English

Introduction:

Different languages approach the concept of love differently by using different vocabularies to describe and categorize it. In English, it is just as appropriate to “love your car” as it is to “love your husband”. Contrastingly, the Japanese language necessitates different words to express the distinct positive sentiments one would associate with a car, a spouse, or a family member. The distinction between the maternal love felt by a mother towards her son, and the romantic love shared by a married couple, is usually very clear to most adults, however, this distinction is not innate (For example, it is observable in everyday life that young children report wanting to “marry” a parent or a childhood friend, grouping the concepts of familial love, friendship and marital love into an all encompassing definition of love). At what age does the distinction become clear to children? Is there a relationship between the age at which a child begins to differentiate between different variations of love, and the vocabulary associated with the languages they speak? Could the language one speaks shape thought?

The Whorfian hypothesis postulates that language can influence the thought patterns of its speakers, causing them to organize thought and categorize concepts differently than speakers of another language (Kay & Kempton 1984). This study directly relates to the Whorfian hypothesis, as it assesses the impact of different vocabularies of love on the respective language’s speaker’s conceptualization of love.

A book called Language and Cognition: A Developmental Perspectives compiles past research on this topic, focusing on the developmental issues associated with language and cognition, and emphasizing the importance of answering the question “How do children acquire the conventional meanings of words?” (Dromi, 1993). The accuracy and speed with which children learn new vocabulary (45 words a week at some stages in language development (Dromi, 1993)) indicate that the method by which new words are linked with their conventional meanings is not a process of memorization. Several theories have been proposed to explain this incredible phenomenon.

Initially, Piaget, one of the forerunners in developmental psychology, hypothesized that a “general, all purpose, inductive mechanism” (Dromi, 1993) was the explanation for how children correctly associate categories and concepts with terms with such speed. They theorized that the process by which children learned a language involved three stages. In the first stage, the child experiences an example of a concept linked with a word, and in response create an initial hypothesis of which category or concept that word refers to. This is the process that Piaget referred to as assimilation, the translation of incoming information into a form that the child can understand. Next, the child would adjust this hypothesized definition of the word in reaction to supporting evidence that their initial concept of the word is correct, or evidence which went against their original hypothesis. Piaget called this second process accommodation, as the child was accommodating new information into their definitions of words and concepts. Finally, Piaget argued that the child would reach the third and final stage of language learning, called equilibration, in which the child balances assimilation and accommodation to create a stable understanding of the word and the associated concepts (S. Johnson, public presentation, October 24 2007).

This hypothesis answered important questions in relation to developmental psychology as well as the focus of this study, but unfortunately, there are several problems with this notion of an “inductive language mechanism”. Firstly, this hypothesis did not explain the accuracy and speed with which the meanings of words converge among all humans. Although children were learning novel words at and extremely fast rate, their supposed “hypothesized definitions” were extremely accurate. Furthermore, this inductive language learning mechanism was used by 2 years olds much more effectively than by 6 year olds, leading developmental psychologists to believe that there was some constraints on human language learning that biased children in their hypotheses towards certain categorizations and concepts (Dromi, 1993).

For this reason, a new school of thought, which posited that Children are constrained to consider certain types of concepts before others, came into existence. This new school built on Piagets’ perspectives on language development, but placed more emphasis on the manner by which children created their “initial hypotheses” of a novel word’s definition through constraints.

One example of a language learning constraint is the taxonomic assumption, which leads children to connect a single word with an object, rather than a relationship, or descriptor. It is through these assumptions that a child will deduce that when you point to a dog and say “dog”, you are referring to the dog, rather than one of the dogs qualities (“furry”) or actions (“barking”)(Dromi, 1993).

Another example of this category of constraint is called the whole-object assumption. This constraint biases children towards consideration of the whole object rather than a part of it, when defining categorizations. To relate this assumption to the previous example, when an adult makes reference to a “dog” the child will assume that the word “dog” is associated with the whole dog, rather than just a part of it (“tail”) (Dromi, 1993).

The final constraint put on novel words is referred to as “the mutual exclusivity assumption”. This is the assumption that a word’s meaning relates to only one concept or object. For example, as children learn new words, they will assume that when you say “chair” you are referring to the single chair, rather than the table and tablecloth that usually accompany the chair (Dromi, 1993).

All of these assumptions have important implications for the study of the linguistic development of the distinctions between different categories of “love”. After the English-speaking child’s initial exposure to the concept of “love”, for example, current understanding of these three constraints leads to the conclusion that the child will conceptualize “love” as a whole object, which doesn’t include any of its associated parts. This could cause the child to ignore important subtleties of the term as a descriptor of a relationship, or the importance of distinctions in associated people, for example husband and wife, mother and child, or boy friend and girlfriend. The Japanese speaker, on the other hand, might be at a developmental advantage because the Japanese language makes these distinctions through different words for each category of “love”.

One study by Guiora, Beit-Haachmi, Fried, and Yoder in 1983 demonstrated a direct relationship between the language environment and gender identity attainment. The study examined the average age at which three groups of participants from Israel, Finland, and the USA, respectively, developed gender identity. Speakers of a language which emphasized gender within its structure, attained gender identity earlier on average than speakers of languages which did not emphasize gender differences (Gioura, Beit-Hallahmi, Fried, Yoder, 1982). This study has important implications for the results of the study of the effect of linguistic background on the development of the concept of love, because it demonstrates the developmental effects that language can have.

Another study that addressed the idea of differing concepts of love, examined the distinction between the neural correlates of maternal and romantic love through the use of fMRI. In this study, Mothers were shown pictures of their children, then pictures of their best friends and acquaintances as the control. The results showed that

"Both types of attachment activated regions specific to each, as well as overlapping regions in the brain's reward system that coincide with areas rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors. Both deactivated a common set of regions associated with negative emotions, social judgment and ‘mentalizing’, that is, the assessment of other people's intentions and emotions. We conclude that human attachment employs a push–pull mechanism that overcomes social distance by deactivating networks used for critical social assessment and negative emotions, while it bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry, explaining the power of love to motivate and exhilarate."
(Bartels & Zaki, 2003)

Although there are also overlapping areas of the brain that are activated by both emotions, the difference in activated regions suggest that there is a difference between these two emotions (Bartels & Zaki, 2003). This research, however, does not touch on developmental aspects of the neural activity associated with the word love, or the affects of language on cognition.

One study that does demonstrate a relationship between language and cognition is a study that examined the relationship between mental representation of abstract concepts in the mind and the language one speaks. In the study, participants were shown a growing line on a computer screen, then either asked to estimate the amount of time that passed, or the change in length of the line. Participants whose language refers to time metaphorically as a “long” time (English and Indonesian speakers) usually estimated that more time had passed when a line grew a longer distance. Contrastingly, Spanish and Greek speakers, whose language generally refers to a volume or amount of time, for example, “mucho tiempo” (much time), did not experience this affect (Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2007). This links between idiom and the conceptualization of abstract ideas, is indicative of the effect that language has on the conceptualization of abstract ideas.

Another recent study demonstrates the influence of language on perception. This research demonstrated that Russian language speakers are better at differentiating between dark and light blues than English speakers, due to the fact that the Russian language has words for dark and light blue (Winawer et al., 2007) From the results it can be concluded that language does have some affect on mental processes, however, language’s specific role in emotional development and the understanding of the concept of love is not evident in this study.

I predict that children who speak Japanese will be able to distinguish between the love felt between a mother and a son, a boyfriend and a girl friend, a husband and wife earlier in life than an English speaking child.

Method:

Participants: 200 American children who speak only English were tested, ranging in ages from 3 to 18,106 of which were girls, and the remaining 94 were boys. These children were invited to the study through advertising at day cares, day camps, and hospitals that offered 10$ for one hour of testing. 200 more Japanese and English speaking children were tested, ranging in ages from 3 to 17, 99 of which were girls, the remaining 101 were boys. These students were recruited from local Japanese American schools in the US. Finally, 200 more Japanese speakers from Japan were enlisted in the study, 120 of which were girls, and 80 of which were boys, and paid to participate. This group ranged in age from 4 to 18.

Procedures: There are four short children’s books that tell love stories that were translated into English and Japanese. The first story related the story of a mother and a child. The next told the story of two friends that love each other. The third was a story of a boyfriend and girlfriends that love each other, and the final story talked about a mother and father’s love for each other. These stories are extremely brief, and will the language appropriate word for love within the story (e.g. in the short story about the married couple they will say “I love you” or “aishiteru” at some point).

Each participant will be read all four short stories and then questioned afterwards in relation to the strength and type of love depicted in each short story. The Japanese monolinguals will be tested in Japanese, The American monolinguals will be tested in English, and the bilingual children will be randomly assigned to either be tested in English or Japanese.

Measures: The measures will be in the questions asked after the reading of the short children’s stories. Participants will be asked two questions: “Are the boyfriend’s feelings towards the girlfriend more intense than the Mom’s feelings toward her children?” and “Is the sentiment between the husband an wife different from the sentiment between the baby and the mom?” These questions are phrased so that in both languages they do no create framing effects that can prime children for a certain answer in either language. Next, participants will be asked to answer with certain set responses (For example, “The mom feels more strongly towards the child” or “The boyfriend feels more strongly towards the girlfriend” in response to the first question, and “different”, “same” in response to the second question) to make each response more comparable to the responses of other participants. The responses will be plotted and analyzed in order to see if there is a correlation between the language spoken by the children, and the age at which they begin to differentiate between different types of love.

Discussion:

If the results show a younger average age of attainment of the distinction between different categories of “love” for Japanese speakers than English speaking children, then the results would support the original hypothesis that word distinctions between categories of love facilitate the development of conceptual distinctions.

There are several possibilities that could support my hypothesis, but would have different implications, however. One possibility would be if the data were to show a statistically significant difference between the ages at which bilingual children attain this ability when tested in English versus Japanese (Fore example, participants tested in Japanese might pass at an earlier age on average than participants tested in English). This would lead to the conclusion that there is some priming effect due to testing language. It is possible that the difference in average ages of acquisition is due to the fact that the language that the story is told in emphasizes the difference in the type of love, because different vocabularies utilized during the stories, priming the children to answer that there is a difference in Japanese and priming the children to answer that there is no difference in English. If this were to be the case, the data could not support the hypothesis that there is a permanent change in cognition due to the language that a child speaks, but rather that language can implicitly cause a child to answer the question in a certain way, and create priming effects.

If however, the bilingual children are statistically better at distinguishing between different types of “love” than the monolingual English-speaking children, the data would support the hypothesis that language does have some affect on the development and conceptualization of distinctions within the concepts of “love”.

One of the strengths of this study’s experimental design is rhetoric of the questions, making framing effects less likely to alter the participant’s response. If the participants that were tested in Japanese were asked a translation of the corresponding English question “Does the boyfriend’s “love” towards the girlfriend more intense than the Mom’s “love” toward her children?”, questioners would be compelled to use two different words in place of the English word “love”, one for romantic love between a boyfriend and girlfriend and one for maternal love. This framing of the question in Japanese would most likely cause framing effects, leading to children to respond that in fact there is a difference, due to the fact that two different words were use to describe each type of love.

One weakness of the study is that there are many possible confounds. One possible confound is the fact that although the questions are formed in order to avoid framing effects, the Japanese translation of the mother/child, boyfriend/girlfriend, and Husband/wife stories must use different vocabulary, where as the English translations would not, possibly priming the Japanese children to make a distinction between the different types of love.

Recommendations for future research: As discussed in the previous section, the language utilized within each story could prime the study’s participants for certain response to the questions. To diminish this confound in future studies, it may be better to test the children through different techniques. One way this could be accomplished would be to show the children pictures of the corresponding relationships instead of telling them stories.

Another interesting study could broaden the scope of included languages. Greek, which also makes several distinctions among categories of love, as well as spanish, which also makes distinctions, but to a lesser extent, could be compared to Japanese.

References:

Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M.C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., and Boroditsky, L. (2007) Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 7780-7785.

Bartels, A. and Zaki, S. (2003). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155-1166.

Kay, P. and Kempton, W. (1984). What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86, 65-79.

Casasanto, D., and Boroditsky, L. (2007). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/duration-cognition-2007.pdf

Dromi, E. (Ed.). (1993). Language and Cognition: A Developmental Perspective. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Gioura, A. Z., Beit-Hallahmi, B., Fried, R., & Yoder, C. (1982). Language environment and gender identity attainment. Language Learning, 32, RetrievedDecember 11, 2007, from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00973.x.

The Body Language of Love

"The Body Language of Love" is an article detailing the pivotal role that body language plays in communication, and suggesting ways that men can use body language to send the right signals and improve their interactions with women. Smiling, holding the woman's gaze without staring, and taking a wide stance are examples of the various body gestures the article describes as "good when it comes to the opposite sex".

This article does have scientific foundation. Mirroring of postures, gestures while communicating, for example, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when someone copies your movements. You are more likely to consider that person to be agreeable and to want to get to know them better. Another closely related concept is "rapport", defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, as "a relation marked by harmony, conformity, accord, or affinity", is a possible result, which occurs in part due to mirroring. Studies have also shown that, from an outside perspective looking in on a conversation, posture mirroring is indicative of positive connection and communication in the setting of psychotherapy, doctor patient relationship.

Furthermore, I feel that advice columns of this kind are rarely applicable in all situations, and the reader must always question their validity to an extent. Although the boy language detailed in the article most likely correlates positively with a male-female connection during communication, it would be an over simplification to take this combination of gestures as a recipe for the perfect relationship. A great example of this can be found in an episode of "The Office", in which Michael, the eccentric boss of the office, wishes to use a Wikipedia article's advice on body language to convey his power during a meeting with one of his subordinates. Not surprisingly, he fails miserably.

This article compels me to ask to what extent "self help" articles like this can have application. I searched online but there was very little research, it seemed, on the efficacy of these types of articles. It would be interesting to look into this area of psychology.

The Body Language of Love:
http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2007/11/the_body_language_of_love.html

Introduction to Psychology text book

NBC's The Office:
http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/

Idioms are a testimony to language's tortuous path

"Idioms are a testimony to language's tortuous path" is an article about idioms and their origins and evolution within a language. The term idiom encompasses everything from "the colloquial to a metaphor", and usually begins as a phrase describing some real phenomena, then develops a meaning of its own as its use is regularized losing its connection to that original reference (for example, "like a broken record" initially referred to the way a broken record skips causing repetition of sounds, and now means in general that something is repeated over and over again). Idioms are also sometimes associated with a subculture, or identity of its user ("like totally whatever" is the example given in the article).

This evolution of idiom relates to the idea of the development of profanity within a language as well. Initially the curse word literally references to a specific idea (for example hell), then the specific reference of the curse words becomes obsolete, leaving behind a more general application of the word, which is less literal (What the hell?). These parallels between idioms and vulgar language are indicative of the way language in general evolves.

Some interesting research relevant to idioms that I found interesting was actually done by our very own Lera Boroditsky. In one of her studies, she examined the influence of idiom on the conceptualization of abstract ideas, specifically, the conceptualization of time. Speakers of languages which referred to time as being "long" (in English we say, "that took a long time"), time is imagined as linear. Speakers of language that quantify time in volume (In Spanish it makes sense to speak of something taking "mucho tiempo" directly translated as "much time) will understand the time differently.

Idioms are a testimony to language's tortuous path:
http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-sundaylifeidioms.artnov25,0,2633476.story

Time in the mind: Using space to think about time:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/duration-cognition-2007.pdf

What is the language but its users?

"What is the language but its users?" elaborates on several obstacles involved in accurately defining words, and "capturing the essence of what a word 'is'". The definition of taste-sensations, for example, are notoriously difficult to capture, and are often defined by listing off things they are not, for example, sweet is defined as "not salty" and "not sour". And the prevalence of a word in everyday language does not facilitate definition. A great example is the word "time" and colors. A young child would easily understand the meaning of the word "play", however, in the Oxford English Dictionary it is defined 36 different ways. The article goes on the to describe the ways in which one dictionary entitled Johnson's dictionary goes about completing his definition by using illustration to complement the written definitions. Johnson's dictionary is based on the principle that:

"A dictionary of English commemorates the language as it has been written and spoken, rather than laid down and fixed by experts. Authority lies in practice." (What is the language but its users?)

This perspective language as something that can't be defined by authority, relates directly to the recent discord surrounding BBC's use of imprecise language. Some viewers are calling for BBC to install a language "watch dog" in order to prevent the misuse of words during broadcasts. From the perspective of the writer's of Johnson's dictionary, it could be argued that the reporters are in fact using words correctly, for it is common usage, not experts, who define words.

What I found most interesting about this article was that it leads you to the conclusion that one does not think only in words. When you imagine the sweet fragrance of flowers, you are not thinking in your head of a "not sour, not salty" scent. In introduction to psychology we recently learned about two cognitive models how meaning of words is organized in our minds. The first is the "definitional theory of word meaning", "which states that words are organized in our minds much as they are in standard dictionaries... as a bundle of meaning atoms, or semantic features" (Psychology). Each word can be stripped down to a set of necessary characteristics, and sufficient characteristics. The second theory is "prototype theory of word meaning" which hypothesizes that each word has a prototype that all meanings or examples of that concept can be compared to through a "family resemblance structure". An example of this is the definition of the word bird: we have a "prototypical" image of a bird in our minds and we relate other similar concepts to it. This article supports the second prototype theory of word meaning.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to look at what makes a word difficult to define. The article points out that commonly used words are often more difficult to describe verbally, however, this pattern is not very applicable in all situations are there are many examples of esoteric words which are also difficult to define. The answer to this question would be very telling of how cognition works, and the organization of the mind.

"What is the language but its users?":
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/11/9/lifefocus/16367630&sec=lifefocus

BBC 'requires language watchdog':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7067054.stm

My Intro to Psychology textbook

Most voters say language didn't trip them up at polls

"Most voters say language didn't trip them up" is an article detailing recent voter confusion due to the awkward language on ballots. On the ballot, voting "for" the proposition meant prohibitting the contruction of a high-speed toll road, while voting "against" it meant that were in favor of the creation of a new road. Most voters, as the title sugjest were not confused by the language on the ballot, although many admit that the language was confusing. More uncertainty over the language arose due to the fact that campeigns posted around the city advertised, voting "yes" or "no" when the ballot actually instructed voters to take positions "for" or "against" the proposition.

What I found interesting about this article was not the fact that there was confusion over seemingly contradictory logic of the ballots. Misleading political langauge is nothing new, and neither are confusing ballots.

What I found interesting was that while language can be a powerful tool of manipulation, used to create possitive or negative associations (prunes vs. dried plums), language can become so obviously confusing that it make people hyper aware of the manipulation (Is anyone really tricked by the use of the word "unborn child" in place of "fetus"?).

Also, a question that was brought up early on in the class was, what makes euphemisms most effective in changing the associations of words.

Most voters say language didn't trip them up:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-confusion_07met.ART.State.Edition1.41c368d.html

Humor Lost in Translation?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CEdNlbwCERI

This cartoon, is hilarious, but you don't just need to understand Japanese to find this funny. There are a lot of aspect of Japanese culture that must be understood (formal vs. rude way of speaking, the role of the Japanese wife, use of broken english in songs...). Its just a lot funnier in Japanese than in English.

"Love of Language" details master calligrapher Mohamed Zakariya's contributions to the written form of art. Calligraphy relates to much more than just art however, it is an important aspect of Islamic culture, a form of worship. His form of calligraphy exists "with the primary function of proclaiming the importance of the written word through beautiful writing." Zakariya spent a total of 14 years studying this art form, but he speaks modestly about his skill, stating that a calligrapher is always learning.

What I found very interesting about this article was the fact that calligraphy in associating with a written language is not universal. This art of writing is emphasized in Arabic, Chinese and Japanese, but how often do you come across an English master of calligraphy?

One distinction I noticed is the emphasis of each form. Asian and Arabic calligraphy is connected strongly with spirituality. The only source of western calligraphy I found was based mainly on the art form, and emphasis of the aesthetic of the written words in and of themselves, rather than connecting it to a greater spirituality.

There are several studies on the effects of calligraphy writing on cognitive processing, which I found interesting. One had to do with the stroke sequence errors of Chinese children. In Chinese, the order in which a character is drawn is of great importance, especially is relation to calligraphy. One study, by the department of Curriculum Studies of Hong Kong, examined the "importance of and the possible educational implications for the teaching of stroke sequences in the teaching of handwriting based on the empirical results." If this aspect of the language has an impact on the manner in which student learn, then would students exposed to a language like English that does not place any emphasis on the order in which one writes encourage a different type of learning?

There are also studies that look at the benefits of a writing system that is based on phonetics. A written language that does not involved year and year of study actually facilitates language learning, argues Toh Su Ling of the National University of Singapore, and make language learning more wide spread throughout a culture or society, calling this outcome "The Alphabet Effect".

This article compels the reader to understand the role of written language within a culture. How does a culture’s written language affect cognition?

Love of Language:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5269651.html

Children's stroke sequence errors in writing Chinese characters:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr11753670676705/

The Alphabet Effect:
http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/writing/uwc2101c/suling/paper3/paper3.html#INTRO

Chimpanzee Who Knew Sign Language Dies

"Chimpanzee Who Knew Sign Language Dies" reflects on the life of a chimpanzee named Washoe, and announces her death. According to the article, by the time of her death, Washoe had accumulated a total of 250 words, and had taught what she knew of ASL to three younger chimps. Although there is disagree whether Washoe was actually "speaking" and "using language", most agree that work with Washoe has shed light onto the cognitive workings of the chimpanzee as well as brought "a message of respect for nature," said Dr. Mary Lee Jensvold, assistant director of the nonprofit institute that taught Washoe ASL.

Evidence that chimps really cannot develop human-like language stems from another study done a Columbia University on a chimp named Nil Chimpsky (as a play on Noam Chomsky’s name). They wished to replicate the Washoe experiment, under slightly more controlled conditions. Unfortunately, Nim was less successful at increasing his vocabulary: She only accumulated a total of 125 words, and "with a more standard criteria the true vocabulary count would be closer to 25 than 125". Furthermore, the longest utterance Nim produced was "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you" showing no knowledge of grammar. Some argued that the operant training techniques could be used on a pigeon and still generate the same results, offering the example of Clever Hans. Chomsky argues, "Humans can fly about 30 feet-that's what they do in the Olympics. Is that flying? The question is totally meaningless."

However, to give the Hannah Hironaka perspective on the issue, I would still argue that Washoe's ability to model words using hands and is still an incredible profound development. Although the chimp obviously not using language as humans do, her ability to associate meanings with actions, form ideas by combining words in new ways (Refrigerator was "Openfooddrink" and toilet was "dirtygood"), as well as subsequent teaching of the language to younger chimps demonstrates to me an incredible learning capacity. Also, it seems strange that they view this chimp example so closed mindedly. If I were feeling confrontational, I would offer Chomsky this analogy: Just because a dogs, cat's, chimp's, etc. emotions are much less complex than human emotions, and much less conscious, does that mean that they experience no emotion? Is a dog wagging its tale when it sees you NOT experiencing the emotion of happiness, just because the dog's understanding of happiness is much less complex than ours? Similarly, is a chimp's use of signs to communicate meaning and teach this knowledge to future generations, not noteworthy just because it is not as complex as humans ability to do so?

Chimpansee Who Knew Sign Language Dies:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNtJe1ce99cEqe8NszC1xV6fpQQgD8SKGOVG0

Nim Chimpsky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky

Mind your language, critics warn BBC

"Mind your language, critics warn BBC" describes the recent criticism of BBC's careless use of language. "Replica", for example, is used a synonym for "likeness" by BBC correspondents, when in reality, it is defined as a "reproduction of a work of art". One critic, Bruton-Simmonds, argues that BBC's improper use of certain words, like "replica", can actually have a negative effect on the general population's vocabulary, and for this reason it is of the utmost importance that a high standard of language be upheld. Others make the opposite claim. 'Language evolves and we should evolve with it,' said Adam Jacot de Boinod on the subject.

Obviously, language does evolve and change over time. One LA times article entitled "Tracking the evolution of language" compares the rate at which irregular verbs are regularized to radioactive half-life. A more recent and controversial example of vocabulary evolution is the appearance of words like "irregardless" and "ginormous" in many reputable dictionaries. Obviously, language changes over time.

Bruton-Simmonds' argument is also flawed in that it claims that BBC's careless use of language is causing the breakdown of language within society, when in reality it is much more likely, in my opinion, that society's general lack of precise grammar and vocabulary knowledge is reflected in the BBC correspondent's language.

Although there are flaws with the critical view of BBC's use of precise language, critics due make a valid point: misuse of language does not support BBC's credibility. It would be difficult to take a news correspondent's report on the damage done by "ginormous" hurricane seriously. Likewise, you would not use slang, or profanity in an English paper. Language choice is critical for conveying information to an audience effectively.

One final thought to close this blog entry: I found the high standards to which critics hold BBC intriguing. If only we held our president to those same standards...

Mind your language, critics warn BBC:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/28/bbc.television

Tracking the evolution of language:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-verbs11oct11,1,3635612.story

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Definition of ginormous:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ginormous

Confrontations continue in Belgium's language row

The article "Confrontations continue in Belgium’s language row" describes the growing rift between the French speaking Walloons in the south of Belgium, and the Dutch speaking Flanders in the north. Now, over 4 months after the election, the country has yet to unite under a new government, and tensions between the north and south continue to rise.

What I find interesting about the current situation in Belgium is the role that language plays in the conflict. The Flanders differ greatly in political ideology, geography, etc from the Walloons, yet the focus of the debate seems to be on language.

Historically, Flemish was looked down upon by the French speakers of the south, and considered a lesser language. More recently, however, the north is increasingly wealthy, and the balance of power is changing because of it. This reversal of the linguistic hierarchy probably plays a key role in the conflict.

In efforts to increase mutual understanding, bilingual schools that enforce the use of both Flemish and French are materializing throughout Belgium. The bilingual school are working on the premise that understanding of both languages will help to unite the opposing demographics, however there are still many areas of Belgium that are predominantly monolingual.

This problem is not unique to Belgium. The Basque and Catalan populations of Spain have been trying to gain autonomy for years, and a split of Belgium may "embolden" them, comments the NY Times. The struggle for power between different linguistic cultures is a reoccurring theme, and it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why this seems to happen.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that people tend to feel more positively to people they understand and conversely more negatively towards those that they don't understand (interrogation example?).

Confrontations continue in Belgium's language row:
http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=449823&lng=1

Belgian schools: bilingual taboos easing in multilingual Belgium
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jEej8d2wyxP2YAXCARFxWR2uAbzg

Belgium:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/belgium/index.html?8qa

Critic IIan Stavans on the languages of love

In response to my previous post entitled "What the F***? Why We Curse", Maya commented:

"'In other words, one part of your brain recalls a word’s meaning, and the other recalls an emotional response or situation associated with that word.' That's really interesting. Do you think we have emotional responses to other words or expressions like 'I love you'?"

Maya brings up a very interesting question and, from personal experience alone, I would argue that there are most definitely emotional responses linked to the phrase "I love you". Continuing along this line of thought, however, leads to several other questions that are more difficult to answer. Is there a difference between definitions of the word "love" culture to culture? If so, does the language used to describe these differences actually affect the way people think about love, and their interactions between loved ones?

In the article I choose this week, IIan Stavans, author of “Love and Language” argues that there are great differences between each culture’s concepts of love.

"Love isn't universal... To the Yanomami of the Amazon jungle, in southern Venezuela and northern Brazil, the concept is absolutely alien. It's not that Yanomami parents and children don't bond, or that friendships aren't forged. It's just that those relationships aren't described with the kind of lexicon we Westerners use to refer to our senses of loyalty and commitment."

Although most of Ilan Stavans' evidence for his claim is very anecdotal, and more research would be necessary in order to prove those claims definitively, the point remains that the concept of love and its handling can vary greatly across culture.

In many other languages, for example, various types of love (mother to child, husband to wife, girlfriend to boyfriend, etc.) are each referred to with distinct words, differentiating linguistically all the sentiments that in English fall are referred to with the single word "love". In Greek, there is "eros", passionate love, "philia", usually love between friends, "agape", divine love, and “storge”, love between family members. Similarly, in Japanese, a boyfriend would rarely say to their girlfriend, "aishiteru", (this I love you is used for a deeper love, usually between married people) but rather "daisuki" (which can mean something along the lines of linking someone a lot, but also means I love you). There is also a word is Japanese, which refers only to maternal love for her children.

Does this separation of concepts of love make each emotion clearer in the mind of the speaker? This question is slightly reminiscent of Professor Boroditsky's study in reference the English blue, and the subcategories within Russian, and their affect on the speaker's perception. Maybe some type of experiment of this type would make for an interesting result.

Critic IIan Stavans on the languages of love:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/21/RV95SGEJ9.DTL&type=politics

Greek Love:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

Japanese language - talking about love:
http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/aa021101a.htm

'Baby genius' DVDs delay language skills

The article, “Baby Genius DVDs delay language skills,” reports on a surprising new study by researchers at the University of Washington: the DVDs designed to promote language and cognitive development, grooming babies for the Ivy leagues before they can even walk, actually might delay the very language development they’re attempting to accelerate. The study was conducted by means of a survey administered to 1000 families in the Seattle area. It found that for babies between eight and sixteen months old, the more Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby videos they watched, the fewer words they knew as compared to their fellow infants. More specifically, they knew six to eight fewer words than infants who watched no TV or other forms of television, with each hour of video viewing increasing this dichotomy between normal babies and infants force-fed a daily diet of these “educational” videos.

But is this causational? Do the DVDs themselves somehow impede language development with their bombardment of colorful words and images? Articles criticizing the Baby Genius phenomenon argue that the link is not causational; the DVDs themselves do not hurt a child’s natural language progression. Rather, it’s how much time spent in front of these videos that holds back the infant in the long run. Zimmerman, the main researcher in the aforementioned University of Washington study, argues that fifteen minutes a day in front of these videos is not going to make a difference in the baby’s development as compared to its fellow infants. It is the parents who guiltlessly plop their budding Einstein’s in front of a TV for hours and hours at a time whose infants end up with impaired language development. These hours could have been spent in ways much more vital and conducive to language and cognitive development, such as reading stories, playing games, and other vital parent to child interaction that is the true instrument towards and impetus behind learning.

But misguided parents, buying into the magical premise that a baby passively watching a DVD can be miraculously transformed into an academic mastermind, deemphasize the importance of this crucial interaction. Recognizing this misplaced emphasis on “educational” programming over in-person interaction, the American Academy of Pediatrics advises no screen time for children younger than two.

Dr. Vic Strasburger, a spokesperson for this academy, explains that, “Babies need face to face interaction to learn. They don't get that interaction from watching TV or videos. In fact, the watching probably interferes with the crucial wiring being laid down in their brains during early development.” In other words, children do not learn by passive osmosis, but rather active interaction.

A study by the University of Massachusetts found that one-year-olds who watched a video about how to use a puppet had to watch the video six times to grasp the skill, while babies who received a live lesson learned it immediately. This dichotomy between live interaction and passive instruction, and the latter’s inefficacy when it comes to infant development, is researchers’ main objection to these videos, rather than the content of the videos themselves. For not only do these DVDs impede critical language development, they can also reduce a child’s attention span later in life because of early over stimulation, as reality pales in comparison to the constant bombardment of sensory stimuli in these videos.

The picture these studies and articles paint is a scary one. Parents, sincerely wishing the best for their precious children, naively overexpose them to DVDs bearing names signifying future excellence: Baby Einstein, Baby Galileo, Baby Shakespeare. In turn, this overexposure hurts the very language development the parents were trying to enhance, also damaging an infant’s attention span as they grow older. This oxymoron—Baby Genius videos making kids less linguistically intelligent—is a testament to the importance of face to face interaction and parenting during infancy and early childhood. A DVD, even one with a grandiose title and overblown promises, can never replace reading a story to your child or the delighted expression on your face when he says his first word. Even in the digital age, language development is still rooted in a very primitive concept: human interaction.

Wishful Thinking:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502246.html

'Baby genius' DVDs delay language skills:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/baby-genius-dvds-delay-language-skills/2007/10/17/1192300839626.html

What the F***? Why We Curse

This article from The New Republic comments on a very interesting aspect of language: obscenities. It describes the history of cursing, as well as the psychological aspects of why linguistic taboos (fuck, shit, cunt, etc.) can provoke such an intense emotional response.

In English, cursing mostly can be traced back to religious swearing (e.g., “What the hell?”, “Damn you”, “Holy Mary!”) and its modern day equivalent (e.g., “What the fuck?” “Fuck you”, “Holy fuck!”).

Other curse words stem from bodily waste excretion and their related parts (shit, asshole, piss) also became taboo. The article hypothesize that this has to do with the fact that there is a correlation between the vulgarity of the word and its relative dangerousness as a “vector for disease”.

The theory on why words related to sexuality is also expounded: sexual intercourse is often associated with a lot of negativity, disease, unanticipated pregnancy, etc.

The “Stroop Test” is also described in the article, in which subjects were presented multicolored words asked to name the color of neutral words (e.g. chair). Next they were asked to name the color of emotionally charged words (profanity). It took longer for the participants to name the color of the emotionally charged words because the participant first had to suppress their automatic reaction to the word, proving that our reaction to the words is something very automatic.

The article also goes in depth into the reason why, although the meanings of most curse words can be expressed without graphic/explicit language. The words “poop” and “making love” is rarely censored. This is because the area of the brain, which deals with connotation and denotation of a word, is different. In other words, one part of your brain recalls a word’s meaning, and the other recalls an emotional response or situation associated with that word.

A different article from the New York Times gave examples of other interesting research on the subject.

One example of this was the reaction that cursing elicits. In a study done by Kate Burridge, a professor of linguistics at Monash University in Melbourne, found that profanity actually has a physiological effect on people. This effect is comparable to the effect felt by “university students who pride themselves on being educated when they listen to bad grammar or slang expressions that they regard as irritating, illiterate or déclassé.”

Furthermore, even chimps seem to have a system of communication which could be the ape equivalent of cursing, used to display aggression before the animals resort to physical violence.

I had trouble finding research on the disparity between the profanity within different languages, however, from my own experience with Japanese, I found that tone plays a greater role in the offensiveness of a statement than it does in English.

This article made me very interested in cursing however, and I am interested in pursuing line of research further.

Almost Before We Spoke, We Swore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20curs.html?pagewanted=1

What the F***? Why We Curse:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20071008&s=pinker100807

Plain language starts with the reader

"Plain language starts with the reader" is an article, which details some of the problems of objectivity due to new South African legislation. These new laws require companies to use language that someone with "minimal experience as a consumer of the relevant goods and services" will be able to understand. This law is very important considering the diversity of languages that thrive in the country (11 official languages). Although English is generally understood throughout South Africa, it is ranked fifth out of 11 as a language spoken at home (http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/demographics/language.htm).

I found this article applicable to the study of language and society because it effectively highlights several recurring problems with language.

Language can be a tool of manipulation. I know I have experienced times when language was used to confused and confound me into signing my way into vulnerable positions. I opened my first bank account this summer and with it I received a little booklet of fine print, filled with banking jargon. It was intimidating as a person of "minimal experience as a consumer of the relevant goods and services", even though all of the information was presented to me in my mother tongue.

The article also emphasizes the role of presentation of written language. Small text, poor design, and even certain fonts can obfuscate the meaning of text, while the opposite can facilitate reading. A key example that comes directly from my experience is how much easier it is to read a book with slightly bigger text. There are numerous studies that support these conclusions.

Finally, even the most rigid language can still portray a flexible message. Although the laws detailed in the article explicitly call for plain language in company documents, there are so many subtleties in definitions that make it nearly impossible to make a subjective regulation, totally free of loop holes. User-testing to ensure that the intended readers can "reasonably be expected to understand it" is one possible remedy to this problem.

Oh so relevant to this course.

Plain language starts with the reader:
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/82/18680.html

More information on the languages spoken in South Africa:
http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/demographics/language.htm

The Effects of Font Type and Size on the Legibility and Reading Time of Online Text by Older Adults:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/hci/projects/elderly.pdf

Speaking the language where you live

"Speaking the language where you life" is an opinion piece (blog entry) in which the author makes an argument (diatribe) against immigrants who live in the USA but are not yet proficient (fluent) English speakers.

The author of the blog supports her argument with some valid points. A language barrier makes it more difficult to communicate/order food/change a phone plan/handle an emergency, and it would be much more convenient if all parties spoke the same language. She closes with the argument that if she were a foreigner, she would hold herself to the same standard, and work to learn the native language.

Her argument is not without holes, however. For one, phone services are often outsourced to foreign countries where labor is cheaper and English is not the first language. This could explain a phone services correspondent who speaks with an accent. Does this girl expect people in other countries to speak perfect English, just because it would make her life more convenient?

Furthermore,

"Research conducted in this country in the 1930s and 1940s showed that bilingual people demonstrate greater social tolerance and are more likely to have academic success than monolingual people are. This research lay unnoticed for more than half a century. It is now being supported by research conducted in other countries, such as North America, Australia, India and Scandinavia. Thus from both socially cohesive and educational perspectives, the promotion of multilingualism is likely to have important advantages for the entire South African Society." (Pansalb, 1998)

"Dolphinqt" may want to try learning a second language in order to understand a little more about tolerance.

The idea of many "official languages" within the US made me curious to know more about other countries that have multiple “official languages” deal with this controversial issue.

In countries such as South Africa, where there are now a total of 11 official languages, a single official language was actually the cause of many problems. Involvement in the government, and understanding legislation would have been more difficult as non-fluent English speakers, creating the hegemony of English. English as an official language worked as an oppressive social force, creating socio-economic barriers for non-speakers.

There are problems associated with so many official languages, (which languages to teach in school, which language the government should use, etc.) however, South Africa is an extreme case. Does being tolerant of Spanish speakers, and living in harmony along side them really as problematic as this blogger is making it seem?

Maybe, we could even benefit from this mixture of culture and languages.

Speaking the language where you live:
http://www.progressiveu.org/170641-speaking-the-language-where-you-live

Multiligualism and Minority Languages in South Africa:
http://www.inst.at/trans/13Nr/thorpe13.htm

Language Policy Issues in South Africa:
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED391354&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED391354

The Man Who Lost His Language

Firstly, I'd like to point on the spelling mistake in ITALICS on the first line of the article, in which the review refers to a book titled "The man who LIST his language". Nice.

Anyway, this illness which is referred to in the article, aphasia, is something that has interested me (and probably anyone else who has heard of it/witnessed it) since a visit one of my mom's friends had a stroke and ended up "losing his language" about 5 years ago, although I didn't know it by its technical name back then. We also learned about it in Psych 01 recently, which made this article catch my eye.

Basically, the article describes a man whose "intelligence was not affected by his stroke. He could read books (at an astonishing rate), follow a conversation and travel. 'His semantic understanding of words and pictures was 100 per cent, as was his ability to read and copy upper-case as well as lower-case letters' (166). His loss of language concerned mainly loss of spoken language and writing."

It reminds me of a meeting my mother's friend during his recovery period. He was just learning to speak again, but what we interesting was that he could understand everything that was going on around him, yet he still couldn't do anything but make baby noises in response. And the fact that he could just lose that specific part of his brain in an instant, leaving the rest almost unaffected, blew my 13-year-old mind.

I've visited him since then and he relearned English since then (he now speaks with some what of an accent, not sure if it would even be called that), but if I remember correctly, during the in-between time he would communicate by writing on a pad of paper. This confused me even more because how could someone who couldn't speak coherently remember how to spell? I don't know about you but I still sound words out sometimes...

I looked at my psych textbook, which, by the way, was penned by my psych teacher (just thought I would throw that fun fact in there. When I found that out I almost peed my pants.) for some more insight into the disease. I found it really interesting because the disorder is so indicative of how the brain works. The book says that the reason for this type of illness is simple: "Like most mental activities, language use ... involves many different steps, many different processes. These include processes needed to "look up" word meanings in one's "mental dictionary", processes needed to figure out the structural relationships within a sentence, processes needed to integrate information gleaned about a sentence's structure with the meanings of the words within the sentence, and so on, Since each of these processes relies on its own set of brain pathways, damage to those pathways disrupts the process. As a result, the language loss observed in aphasia is often quite specific - with impairment to a particular processing step, followed by a disruption of all subsequent processes that depend on that step."

Two examples of aphasia that relate back to damage to specific areas along the pathway of information transfer include nonfluent and fluent. Nonfluent is the type I have witnessed, and the one which is mentioned in the article, which Fluent is the opposite: a type in which sufferers are able to produce speech, however do not seem to be able to understand it.

An example of the difference between fluent and nonfluent aphasia was given in our lecture and I stole this example from Professor Gross's Slide show:



Link to the Article:
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3850&cn=396

Fun Media Launches "Worldia," International Community Site ith Online Language Lesson Services

This news article, as the title suggests, comments on a new "International Community Site with Online Language Lesson Services". It sounds comparable to any other online social networking service, except for a few special add-ons: free online language tutoring, culture and lifestyle information exchange, and even the ability to converse with other members directly through the site. Since the March of this year over 8000 members have joined, representing "170 countries and regions of the world". The project sounds very interesting, and seems like a more straightforward way to exchange language and cultural information (as compared with traveling to a foreign country, and possibly returning with an horrendous case of culture shock sometimes known as "the Paris Syndrome").

I decided to check out the site, and on first impression, found it very welcoming. Rolling clouds over a light blue ocean is background to the words "Connect with the world in Worldia!" What a happy environment for language learning.

After further reading, however, I found multiple spelling and grammar mistakes. "Worldia is the international community site where people from all over the world come to exchange information and discuss aboutcountries, language and cultures" is written directly below the site banner, and "about countries" is combined into one word. If the creators of the site are making these types of grammatical errors, how are Japanese members of the site expected to become fluent?

Even excerpts from the site with no obvious grammatical errors, sound awkward in English, for example, "Let's learn or teach language lessons in Worldia!” sounds as though it were translated directly from Japanese, a language which has a "let's ****" conjugation of verbs that, while commonly used in Japanese, sounds awkward when translated into English in my opinion.

Furthermore, with all the recent news related to facebook, and its positive/negative affects on society, where would Worldia fit in?

But obviously, I am being too hard on Worldia. There is no way to expect an online social networking site to compare with learning language and its associated cultures within that country. Most of the people on the site are probably supplementing language learning with tutoring in real life as well, and any outlet in which one can practice could only be beneficial.

All in all, I applaud Worldia for putting out such a novel idea. It will be interesting to see how the program evolves in the future.

Link to article:
http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/Aktie/12718166/News/13504261/GOOGLE.html

The Worldia Experience:
http://www.worldia.net/

An interesting article on Facebook from News Week:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227872/site/newsweek/page/0/

My First Entry

The places I've been:



create your own visited country map
or check our Venice travel guide

What languages I speak:

I grew up speaking English, living only with my American mother. In middle school I began learning Spanish, and continued studying it through high school, completing the equivalent of 5 years of high school Spanish. During visits to Spain I am proficient enough at the language to ask where the nearest Laundromat is or to ask for directions when I am lost (I get lost a lot).

Before my freshman year of high school I moved to an international boarding school in Kobe, Japan. Classes were taught in English, however I was constantly exposed to the Japanese language through friends who are fluent Japanese speakers. Eventually, I learned Japanese, mostly outside of the classroom, and now, although I am weak at writing and reading, I can understand very informal conversational Japanese. It would be immediately obvious to any Japanese speaker that I am not a fluent speaker and tend to speak with very poor grammar, often confusing similar words, etc. however, I do have a basic understanding of the language.

Why I was interested:

After living in Japan for four years, I have gathered a small understanding of the subtleties of Japanese and the way it works. I experienced first hand how similar thoughts are often expressed using completely different combinations of words in Japanese than in English, started to understand the difference between the Japanese and American sense of humor, and even was able to witness some "Engrish" (the awkward English used on everything from translations of menus, to T shirts) in everyday life. I believe it would be very interesting to understand this phenomenon from a more academic perspective with some basis in psychology.

Lastly, I'd like to share some of my culture with you:

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the focus of this course, but I thought it would be appropriate to share these eloquent words that I found on the window of a wine shop in Sannomiya, a city close by my high school in Japan.