"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
Monday, October 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 22, 2007
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
"'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
Thursday, October 18, 2007
'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
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
Monday, October 15, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 8, 2007
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 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
Thursday, October 4, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 1, 2007
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
