Success in Foreign Language Acquisition:
Traditional Classroom Instruction Versus Rosetta Stone
“I think Americans who used to feel other people needed to learn [English] now realize that the time has come when that doesn't work anymore,” said Kathryn Groth, vice president of the Frederick school board who oversaw the addition of Chinese to their language department (Aratani 2006). In the times of increasing globalization, the world is witnessing more cross-national and cross-continental interactions than ever before. With this increased interaction in the business, political, and social realms comes an increased need for foreign language instruction. Businessmen and women learn new languages for advancement opportunities, ambassadors and soldiers learn them out of communicative need, and others learn them for personal or travel purposes. Regardless of purpose, all learners want to be fluent…fast. This raises the question: what’s the fastest and most effective way to learn foreign languages? In the search for the most effective instruction method, researchers and experts of language study assess factors such as retention rates, pronunciation, cultural knowledge, comprehension, fluency in speech and writing, and speed of learning (Hurley & Tinajero, 2001, p. 14). However, it should be noted that there is no single method that works best for every type of language learner; individual differences affect students’ learning styles. Assessing the types of language knowledge acquired using each method, I will show that traditional classroom instruction is more effective than the computer program Rosetta Stone in producing well-rounded bilingual students.
Regardless of differences in instruction, learners all use a certain set of learning strategies to acquire understanding and eventual fluency of a FL. According to Zoltán Dörnyei (2005) Professor of Psycholinguistics at the University of Nottingham, learning methods that incorporate certain types of learning strategies are called 1) cognitive: involving manipulation of input through repetition, summarizing, and using images, 2) metacognitive: using higher-order strategies aimed at analyzing, monitoring, evaluating, planning, and organizing one’s own learning, 3) social: involving interpersonal behaviors focused on increased amount of foreign language (FL) communication and practice, and/or 4) affective: controlling emotional conditions and experiences that shape one’s subjective involvement in learning (169). These strategies incorporate listening, vocabulary, speaking, reading, writing, and translation tactics. Specific examples of strategies include imitating native speakers, creating mental images of words, taking notes in the FL, and translating texts (Dörnyei, 2005, p.185-186). Repetition, memorization, and internalized rule-formation are additional strategies (Littlewood, 1984, p. 49-50). Furthermore, senior Lecturer C.J. Dodson of University College of Wales stated that in the process of learning a FL, all learners suppress their mother tongue (MT), essentially using only one language at a time. When producing output, the learners see images of what they wish to define and then label it in the FL; they connect the MT and FL through mental images instead of translation (Dodson, 1967, 47).
In the process of language learning, it remains unclear whether there is a single path of development followed by all learners, with variances in speed and efficiency of learning created by individual differences or whether these same differences cause individuals to follow different development paths entirely (Littlewood, 1984, p.51). Regardless, the influences of these differences are far from negligible. Students differ in motivation, learning opportunities afforded, nature of linguistic input received, and ability to learn. Some learn the FL out of communicative need, others desire to get involved in the FL community, and some see it as a useful tool for furthering goals. In terms of learning opportunities, chances to practice or study through immersion greatly affect fluency. The emotional climate of the classroom also helps or hinders learning. The personality of the teacher, his/her ability, and the quality of input he/she provides to students affect learning. Students’ ability to learn varies depending on personality, dedication, age, cognitive factors, and the active strategies they adopt (Littlewood, 1984, pg. 53-62). The variation in learning styles highlights the difficulty analysts face in labeling any single method as superior. For the purpose of this paper, a successful learner will be defined as a student who emerges with a high level of fluency and formal, conversational, and cultural mastery of the language. In course of the comparison, I will objectively list the advantages and disadvantages of both instructions methods, and then make a concluding judgment of their efficacy.
Classroom instruction
In the classroom, there exist two basic types of instruction, one focusing on audio-lingual learning and the other on grammar-translation learning. Dodson calls these styles the direct and indirect methods, respectively. The direct method focuses on oral instruction and stresses that the FL should be learned the same way as the MT. When taken to the extreme, this means keeping written materials off the syllabus until students acquire basic oral fluency; it claims that learning to read and speak in a FL develop as two separate languages in the mind. Through in-class immersion, students make direct associations between the FL words and objects (Dodson, 1967, p. 37-43). Conversely, instructors using the indirect method focus on grammar rules and vocabulary; students are taught to combine the two to formulate phrases. They spend the majority of class time writing and translating passages. Accuracy is valued, and oral learning only plays a small role (Dodson, 1967, 44-54). Dodson concluded that the best method of instruction, called the bilingual method, is a fusion of positive elements from both extremes. This method encourages instructor-student interaction and teaches students to learn new words and phrases through association with images and text (1967, p. 67-71). Most instructors use methods that incorporate characteristics of both styles, and as a result, they teach some variance of the bilingual method.
Advantages of classroom instruction
Learning in a classroom under the guidance of an instructor provides many advantages. First, students have the benefit of direct interaction and communication with the instructor. They are free to ask any type of question and receive a prompt response. If the students still do not understand, further explanation is provided. Students are constantly receiving input as the teacher speaks, and they can practice imitating him/her (Littlewood, 1984, p. 49). When students err, the instructor engages them in recasting; he/she repeats the student’s utterance correctly, highlighting the error the student made. They provide confirmation checks, answer clarification requests, and conduct comprehension checks (Gass, as cited in Foster-Cohen, 2009, p.124-125). They highlight important features and patterns of the language and spend extra time on the concepts students struggle with. They also have the opportunity to explain unfamiliar idiomatic expressions and vocabulary in context (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 161). Constant feedback is provided, as teachers are constantly assessing their student’s progress in class through testing. This close tracking reveals weaknesses to the instructor and allows him/her to make adjustments to the syllabus (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p.11). These advantages highlight a major benefit of classroom instruction, flexibility.
Learning in a classroom has other basic advantages; for example, through interaction with classmates, students earn extra practice. Also, for those who are anxious about making errors, chorus responses, which involve the whole class, allow them to gain confidence (Dodson, 1967, p. 76). On a basic physical level, being enrolled in a language class forces one to practice. It’s a binding engagement; thus it provides motivation to attend and learn. The instructor has the ability to create the best possible learning environment: he/she controls classroom conditions by opening windows, being positive and smiling, and using encouraging body language (Dodson, 1967, p.81). Perhaps most important is the inclusion of cultural education in classroom language courses. Learners are exposed to cultural texts, audio, film, and history of the target language. This fosters interest in the FL culture, increases motivation, and breaks down cultural prejudices. For example, some instructors set up pen-pal programs that allow students to directly interact with native speakers (Walsh, as cited in Michel, 1967, p.341-342). The numerous positive aspects of classroom instruction have made it the preferred method for decades.
Disadvantages of classroom instruction
Although classroom learning is successful in many aspects, it is far from flawless. The setting can create anxiety and inhibit learning; constant testing places great importance on accuracy (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 201). In this setting, individual students don’t receive much speaking time, as everyone has to have a chance to participate (Otto as cited in Gougher, 1972, p. 11). A major issue in classroom learning is the clash of learning/teaching styles. Obviously, it would be impossible for the teacher to accommodate all learning styles in the classroom, but “learning style mismatches are at the root of many learning difficulties” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 150). By instinct, most instructors teach their personal style because it seems the most appropriate from their perspective; however, it is not always compatible with the students and can actually make learning more difficult. Also, in classroom learning, so much of the success of the students learning depends on the ability and dedication of the teacher. He/she can overemphasize certain subjects while neglecting others or even create a negative environment through aggression (Littlewood, 1984, p. 32). Last, the form-oriented, highly structured nature of classroom instruction restricts natural processes and can hinder learning, leaving students to solve “linguistic puzzles” created by grammar rules (Dodson, 1967, p.39). These inherent flaws in classroom instruction result from the imperfect nature of instructors and uncontrollable variances in style.
Rosetta Stone
As an alternative to classroom instruction, many language learners have turned to computer software, and of the numerous available programs, Rosetta Stone has the best track record for producing results. CNN described it as “the gold standard of computer-based language learning” (“Rosetta Stone,” 2010). An independent study conducted by visiting professor, Roumen Vesselinov, Ph.D., at Queens College City University in NY showed that after 55 hours of use of the program, 56-72% of students increased oral proficiency by at least one level (measured by ACTFL OPIc test). This was equivalent to 84 hours or one semester of college class time (2009, p. 6).
The unique structure of the program focuses on teaching the FL in the same way the MT was learned, through images and oral learning. Their copyrighted method is called “Direct Immersion” which the company claims, “activates your own natural language-learning ability” (“FAQ,” 2010). This method is unique in that it teaches learners to map new FL words directly to an image, eliminating the need for translation from the MT to the FL and thus teaching the learner to think in the FL. Rosetta Stone argues that the translation method taught in many classrooms slows learning and makes speaking a new language, “intimidating and laborious” (“FAQ,” 2010). The program includes 19 units, and each unit has 10-11 lessons followed by a review lesson upon completion of each unit. Visually, the program presents images on digital note cards. Depending on the user’s choice of settings, the student will either produce the word orally, match what they hear to an image/word by clicking, or type in the word matching an image (Tanner, 1995, p. 328). For example, in French mode, a native speaker’s voice would say, “chien” and the user would click on the one of the four photos on the screen that corresponds to the meaning (“dog”).
Advantages of Computer Software Learning: Case Study, Rosetta Stone
Many of the advantages of using Rosetta Stone involve convenience. With the software, learners determine how much time and when they want to work. Also, it’s portable: software can be installed on laptops, online subscriptions allow access from any computer, and voice lessons can be downloaded onto mp3 players (“FAQ,” 2010). Students learn at their own pace in a private environment. The intimate environment eliminates the anxiety of judgment and distractions while also providing one-on-one interaction (Hutchinson, cited in Michel, 1967, p. 356-357). Learners can repeat lessons they find difficult or skip ahead to harder tasks. They can select a certain language skill to practice and adjust difficulty by changing delays and timers (Erickson, 2004, 1028). The interface is user-friendly with lots of visuals, and the program is interactive (“Rosetta Stone Spanish Review”). For oral exercises, a microphone is needed; the program uses voice recognition software to record the learner’s response and judge the correctness of the accent (Erickson, 2004, 1027). In aural exercises, learners hear and learn from authentic native speaker’s accents (Tanner, 1995, 329). Throughout the program, the learner can track their progress through scores provided for each exercise completed (“Rosetta Stone Spanish Review”). Aside from vocabulary and structure, the program also incorporates some practical and problematic elements such as idiomatic expressions (Delgado, 1995, 331).
Disadvantages of Rosetta Stone Instruction
Although learning through Rosetta Stone is convenient and relatively simple, the program fails to address several important elements of FL learning. To effectively learn a language through Rosetta Stone, students have to be deeply motivated and invested in learning a language since the amount of time they use the program is dictated by personal choice. Also, the program is expensive; for example, Level 1 for French starts at $229 (“Learn French”). It requires true desire to learn for one to be willing to spend the money and use the program regularly. Also, technical difficulties are frustrating; trying to type responses with the software can be problematic. It is case-sensitive and accent marks must be added manually by clicking buttons on the screen. Writing quickly becomes tedious. For certain languages such as Russian, a different keyboard is required (Tanner, 1995, 329).
During the exercises, which teach vocabulary through image matching, one can guess the correct answer through process of elimination, and if the wrong answer is chosen, the program allows one to continue guessing until the write answer is found. As described by a reviewer of the program, the exercises are often “repetitive or tedious.” He said, “It was easy to lose focus, get lazy, and just guess,” (“Review of Rosetta Stone”). Minimal reinforcement and unrestrictive scoring decrease participant motivation (Delgado, 1995, 331). Furthermore, the learner shapes his/her own curriculum by setting difficulty levels and selecting exercises of interest. It is hard for a learner to know what would be most beneficial to them. Having the liberty to shape their own curriculum, they may not be getting a well-rounded education (Tanner, 1995, p. 329).
Most importantly, Rosetta Stone neglects important aspects of language learning. Learners are exposed to phrases without grammatical explanations. First and second person verb forms are not taught, for example (Erickson, 2004, 1027). A user wrote, “There is no reference made to tense or sentence structure,” (Scanlon). Another major drawback is the lack of cultural material presented. Neutral photographs of people of varied ethnicities in different international settings do not provide any cultural context (Erickson, 2004, 1028). Learners are not exposed to famous literature, films, music, and history of their target culture, thus missing an important aspect of language learning. No additional instructional materials are provided with the CD-R except for a user’s guide (“Rosetta Stone”). These disadvantages highlight the fact that Rosetta Stone may be the next-best method of learning a language, but not one able to replace classroom instruction.
Results of learning through different methods
Depending on how the FL is learned, varying levels of fluency are produced. Comparatively speaking, classroom language instruction is more effective at producing well-rounded, fluent students. Through classroom instruction, students gain cultural knowledge, comprehension, confidence, enhanced vocabulary, enhanced writing skills, sentence structure knowledge, and increased FL literacy (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 24). The cultural knowledge attained through the incorporation of outside sources and interactions with native speakers helps foster greater understanding of and interest in the FL culture (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 12). Learning in a structured classroom where textual sources are often used, students improve reading comprehension and literacy (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 22-23). Working through exercises in class, students gain confidence when they receive approval and encouragement from the instructor through physical and verbal cues (Littlewood, 1984, p.66). They also gain enhanced vocabulary skills and sentence structure knowledge (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 11). Writing assignments and exercises on examinations force students to improve their writing skills (Dodson, 1967, p.37). Overall, we see that this type of language learning is a sufficient method of FL instruction.
Conversely, the Rosetta Stone method emphasizes spoken learning. It improves oral and aural skills, accents, and retention. Claiming to teach FL the way the MT is taught to children, the program focuses on oral learning (but neglects grammatical structure instruction). It improves students’ accents; it provides voice recordings of native speakers and assesses the learners’ responses with voice recognition technology (Erickson, 2004, p. 1027). Last, through the fun, simple, image-based exercises, retention rates are high. The program recycles former vocabulary and phrases from previous units, so the learner does not forget what was already taught (Gonzales). However, as stated by language learning analyst, Joseph Hutchinson, Rosetta stone is a “basic function of helping develop and maintain the listening and speaking skills” (as cited in Michel, 1967, p. 358). Although Rosetta Stone is a strong program and successfully improves language knowledge, it is no match for classroom instruction.
Conclusion
As observed, classroom instruction is superior; however, individuals should decide which method best serves their interests depending on their language needs, motivations, and availability. Learners eager to learn a language in order to orally communicate with FL speakers in a short period of time should opt for Rosetta Stone, but those who have the time to invest and wish to be truly proficient should use classroom instruction. Rosetta Stone would serve as an excellent complement to classroom instruction. Professor Benwell of Coventry Polytechnic (1986) says that computer language programs “provide excellent methods of carrying out remedial and reinforcing work in language learning” (p. 15). Critic José Delgado says that it “could not replace teachers as facilitators of learning or as the best models to emulate, but it can enhance their instruction with a variety of resources…” (1995, p.332).
In determining the effectiveness of language instruction methods, there are many aspects of language learning that must be considered. Learners use cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective methods to adopt a FL. Strategies such as note taking in the FL and imitation are examples of these methods. Individual differences such as motivation, ability, and learning style influence what strategies and methods individuals find most effective. In the classroom setting, instructors use variations of the bilingual method while the Rosetta Stone program uses the Direct Immersion method. Each method improves FL fluency in different ways. Classroom instruction produces reading, writing, oral, and cultural knowledge of the FL while Rosetta Stone produces mostly oral and aural fluency. Overall, classroom instruction produces more well rounded learners who have a grasp of the written and spoken aspects of the language as well as cultural knowledge about the FL culture, making interactions with native speakers meaningful and successful.
References
Aratani, Lori. (2006, August). With a changing world comes an urgency to learn Chinese. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article /2006/08/25/AR2006082501418.html
Benwell, G. A. (1986). Integrating the computer into a language course. In K.C. Cameron, W.S. Dodd, & S.P.Q Rahtz (Eds.), Computers and Modern Language Studies (pp. 15-17). Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Delgado, J. F. (1995, January). Review of: The Rosetta Stone Language Library: Español Level Ia. Hispania, 78(2), 331-332.
Dodson, C.J. (1967). Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erickson, L. O. (2004, January). Reviews: course materials and methodology-Rosetta Stone, Personal Edition: Level I and II. The French Review, 77(5), 1027-1028.
FAQ. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/personal/how-it- works/faq#qa3
Gass, S. (2009). Cracking the language code: processing strategies in first language acquisition. In S. H. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 40-61). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gonzalez, Ursula. (2010). Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/ personal/what-people-say/reviews
Hurley, S. R., & Villamil, T. J. (2001). Literacy assessment of second language learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hutchinson, J. (1967). In J. Michel (Ed.), Foreign language teaching: an anthology (pp. 355-370). New York: Macmillan Co.
Learn French. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-french
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Acquisition Research and its Implications for the Classroom. London: Cambridge University Press.
Otto, F. (1972). The foreign-language teacher and the process of change: a case for individualized instruction. In R. Gougher (Ed.), Individualization of instruction in foreign languages: a practical guide (pp. 9-24). Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.
Review of Rosetta Stone. Retrieved from http://www.language-learning-advisor.com/ contact.html
Rosetta Stone. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/
Rosetta Stone Spanish Review. (2010). Retrieved from http://learn-spanish-software- review.toptenreviews.com/rosetta-stone-review.html
Scanlon, A. (2007, June). Foreign tongue acquisition software: Rosetta Stone language learning. Retrieved from http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001717.php.
Tanner, J. (1995, January). The Rosetta Stone. Computers and the Humanities, 28 (5), 328-330.
Vesselinov, R. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of Rosetta Stone. Retrieved from http://resources.rosettastone.com/CDN/us/pdfs/Measuring_the_Effectiveness_RS- 5.pdf
Walsh, D., W. Starr, & M. Thompson. (1967). Articulation in the teaching of foreign languages. In J. Michel (Ed.), Foreign language teaching: an anthology (pp. 333 344). New York: Macmillan Co.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Gender of Death in Art
"It is our perception of death which decides our answers to all the questions that life puts to us." -Dam Hammarskjold
After discussing the connection between the gender of the word "death" and its representation as male or female in the artwork of certain cultures, I was curious and began researching. I came across an interesting article, "The Gender of Death: A Cultural History in Art and History" which provides numerous examples of this connection but also points out a few peculiar exceptions. The author Karl S. Guthke presents several other explanations for gendered depictions of death. One is that gender of objects does not predispose individuals to form gendered images of objects.
This argument shaped by Greville Corbet argues that instead, semantic factors he calls "quasi-mythical, folkloric concepts" about abstractions such as death present in a community influence how its members view death. These are often developed very early in the culture's history. Guthke proposes that Graeco-Roman myths and Biblical tales forged the earliest lasting perceptions of the nature of death. For example, in the Bible, Satan is the fallen angel named Samuel while in mythology, Aurora, the Fates, and The Kers were all female representations of death.
When examining how languages without gendered words depict the concept, Guthke found that perceptions were based on semantic categories such as animate/inanimate, human/nonhuman, rational/irrational, strong/weak, a combination of these factors or several others not listed. He argues that these categorizations, formed by perceptions integrated into the cultures centuries and millennia ago, play more of a role in our perception of death than the gender of the word does.
Perhaps the gender of the word influences perceptions because of its literal assignment of gender to the abstraction; I believe the historic preconceptions play a bigger role. For example, in Scandinavian languages, death was masculine until gender disappeared from the language in the Middle Ages; it then became feminine. Once the influence of the grammatical gender was absent, Scandinavians relied on cultural indicators, which originated from the "primitive animism" of the culture's beginnings.
Examples of contradictions in literature and art are present in most languages, but here I will cite only Spanish, French and German cases. In Spanish "la muerte" is feminine, but in both Don Quixote and King Balthasar's Feast, death is represented as a male. In the first, he is a young male actor and in the latter, he is a nobleman with a sword in tow who identifies himself as the son of sin. In German, the piece "The Best Physician" by Alfred Kubin depicts death as a tall, slender woman dressed in a black robe and a large necklace. She is suffocating a dying man by placing her hand over his mouth. However, in German "der Tod" is a masculine word. In French, death is portrayed as a male in several cases despite it's femininity: "la mort." In Jean Grandville's piece "Journey to Eternity" death is a soldier dressed in military garb, a ceremonial headdress and holding a battle sword. He appears to be leading the group of mean behind him to their deaths. These are just a few examples of such contradictions. There are numerous others listed in the article.
This argument seems legitimate and is supported by numerous examples; however, what is excluded from the study is how the numbers compare. It's interesting that he found so many contradictory examples, but how many of these are there in relation to the number of depictions that follow the gender of the word?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Power of Reading: The Comprehension Hypothesis
Growing up. we always heard from our teachers and parents that it's important to read recreationally. But aside from gaining pop culture knowledge, is it really all that beneficial? Numerous studies argue, yes. This finding is far from surprising, but what I found interesting about the article,"Does the Power of Reading Apply to All Languages?" in the California based magazine, Language, is the examination of how reading affected students of 1st, 2nd, and Heritage Languages (HL). The article was a mapping of recent studies supporting the Comprehension Hypothesis which argues that we learn a language by understanding it (that's where reading comprehension comes in).
For 1st language learners, researchers examined several different languages. In a study by Shu, Anderson, and Zahng (1995), results showed that Chinese students who engaged in leisure reading had a stronger grasp of difficult vocabulary. Also, Mandarin speakers in Taiwan scored higher on standardized testing when they increased time spent reading for fun (Lee 1996). In Venezuela, Rodriquez and Trujillo (1996) found that by providing students with a stocked library, they students read more and thus improved their levels of reading comprehension and vocabulary.
When learning Heritage Languages, students who read recreational materials such as magazines, comics, and novels showed higher proficiency. Korean children who read such materials provided by their parents were more proficient than those who did not. However, here it is important to note that other factors are at play here. For example, the regularity which parents communicate with their children in the HL, and the children's desire to speak the HL play a large role in aiding or hindering their proficiency levels. Nonetheless, these studies assert that reading is the single most important factor. Schan, Hopkins, and Vojr (1985) reported that Spanish speaking children who read in Spanish 45 minutes a week for 8.5 months improved their reading speeds and vocabulary in Spanish.
As expected, in foreign language or 2nd language learning, the same theory holds. Day and Hitosugi's study showed that university Japanese language students that read children's books in Japanese for 10 weeks significantly improved their reading comprehension.
As supported by numerous studies conducted with 1st, 2nd, and Heritage Language learners, reading recreationally improves vocabulary, comprehension, reading speed, and overall literacy. So what does this mean for our education system? All schools should have sufficient libraries. A study conducted by Krashen et al this year showed that having 500 books or more in a library proved to increase the rate of recreational reading and overall reading test scores for 10 year-olds in the U.S. By providing access to books, we are opening doors for children to improve literacy, thus it is an immediate necessity.
But what do you think? These studies serve as concrete evidence supporting my P.O.V., but are the other factors such as parents' role more important in your opinion?
Source:
"Does the Power of Reading Apply to All Languages?" Language.. May 2010. pgs. 24-27.
For 1st language learners, researchers examined several different languages. In a study by Shu, Anderson, and Zahng (1995), results showed that Chinese students who engaged in leisure reading had a stronger grasp of difficult vocabulary. Also, Mandarin speakers in Taiwan scored higher on standardized testing when they increased time spent reading for fun (Lee 1996). In Venezuela, Rodriquez and Trujillo (1996) found that by providing students with a stocked library, they students read more and thus improved their levels of reading comprehension and vocabulary.
When learning Heritage Languages, students who read recreational materials such as magazines, comics, and novels showed higher proficiency. Korean children who read such materials provided by their parents were more proficient than those who did not. However, here it is important to note that other factors are at play here. For example, the regularity which parents communicate with their children in the HL, and the children's desire to speak the HL play a large role in aiding or hindering their proficiency levels. Nonetheless, these studies assert that reading is the single most important factor. Schan, Hopkins, and Vojr (1985) reported that Spanish speaking children who read in Spanish 45 minutes a week for 8.5 months improved their reading speeds and vocabulary in Spanish.
As expected, in foreign language or 2nd language learning, the same theory holds. Day and Hitosugi's study showed that university Japanese language students that read children's books in Japanese for 10 weeks significantly improved their reading comprehension.
As supported by numerous studies conducted with 1st, 2nd, and Heritage Language learners, reading recreationally improves vocabulary, comprehension, reading speed, and overall literacy. So what does this mean for our education system? All schools should have sufficient libraries. A study conducted by Krashen et al this year showed that having 500 books or more in a library proved to increase the rate of recreational reading and overall reading test scores for 10 year-olds in the U.S. By providing access to books, we are opening doors for children to improve literacy, thus it is an immediate necessity.
But what do you think? These studies serve as concrete evidence supporting my P.O.V., but are the other factors such as parents' role more important in your opinion?
Source:
"Does the Power of Reading Apply to All Languages?" Language.. May 2010. pgs. 24-27.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Language Loss and Revival Case Study: Bretagne, France
In the Northwestern region of France, in the province of Brittany (Bretagne), there has been a renewed interest in the revival of the formerly dominant regional language, Breton. It is a Celtic language and a descendant from the Celtic British language which was first brought to the region during the Middle Ages. Over time, it was influenced by French and Latin, and today it is a fluid, Celtic language. Listen to a sample in this video (the Breton anthem).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCDZtYkfhjQ
In the latter part of the MIddle Ages, Breton was replaced by Latin and then French in high society. Thus, the language became a popular language spoken mainly by the plebeians of society. To this day, French remains the sole language of the Republic of France. In 1880 and until the mid 1950s, Breton was actually banned from schools, and citizens of Brittany were humiliated and punished gravely for speaking the language. Residents refrained from using it, even at home. This persecution greatly hurt the language. In less than a century, the number of speakers of Breton declined by 80%. Today around 13% of the region's population (about 200,000 people) speak the language. Historian Fanch Broudich claims it is the only language in history to have declined in use so dramatically in such a short period of time.
However, today, the younger generations have a renewed interest in learning about their Breton heritage. A young girl interviewed said, "To defend our culture, we have to speak Breton." It is seen as a "resistance to globalization" and a way to reconnect with cultural identity. In the 1970s, a community of concerned Breton elders and parents created the Diwan school system. These schools use Breton as the language of instruction and often do no begin teaching French until age 7. By age 10, the two languages are taught at equal frequencies. These immersion schools are very effective at producing Breton speakers, and the revival of the language has been seen as a success. The problem remains in the sheer numbers of Brittany citizens who are not learning the language.
I wanted to write about this subject because I always find it interesting to learn about small different cultural communities that are often neglected or unexposed in our general world view. Also, I love to learn of examples where language revival is successful because I think it's a very important issue.
Sources:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/breton.htm
http://icdbl.org/saozg/Diwan_Intro.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vMxu1bUq8 (al Jazeera report)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCDZtYkfhjQ
In the latter part of the MIddle Ages, Breton was replaced by Latin and then French in high society. Thus, the language became a popular language spoken mainly by the plebeians of society. To this day, French remains the sole language of the Republic of France. In 1880 and until the mid 1950s, Breton was actually banned from schools, and citizens of Brittany were humiliated and punished gravely for speaking the language. Residents refrained from using it, even at home. This persecution greatly hurt the language. In less than a century, the number of speakers of Breton declined by 80%. Today around 13% of the region's population (about 200,000 people) speak the language. Historian Fanch Broudich claims it is the only language in history to have declined in use so dramatically in such a short period of time.
However, today, the younger generations have a renewed interest in learning about their Breton heritage. A young girl interviewed said, "To defend our culture, we have to speak Breton." It is seen as a "resistance to globalization" and a way to reconnect with cultural identity. In the 1970s, a community of concerned Breton elders and parents created the Diwan school system. These schools use Breton as the language of instruction and often do no begin teaching French until age 7. By age 10, the two languages are taught at equal frequencies. These immersion schools are very effective at producing Breton speakers, and the revival of the language has been seen as a success. The problem remains in the sheer numbers of Brittany citizens who are not learning the language.
I wanted to write about this subject because I always find it interesting to learn about small different cultural communities that are often neglected or unexposed in our general world view. Also, I love to learn of examples where language revival is successful because I think it's a very important issue.
Sources:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/breton.htm
http://icdbl.org/saozg/Diwan_Intro.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vMxu1bUq8 (al Jazeera report)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Chinglish: To Eradicate or to Preserve?
In a recent NY Times article, I discovered an important and new point of view on Chinglish, as it is used in China. Chinglish is the fusion language of Chinese and English (much like Franglais and Spanglish). It is prominent in China on street signs, restaurant menus, and other public places and things such as drinks. For example, there exists "The Jew's Ear Juice" and clothing sizes representing large that are instead "fatso" or "lard bucket." These horrid translations are often humorous, but on a more serious note, they are embarrassing, unprofessional, and often unsuccessful at communicating important messages. For English speakers trying to get around Beijing, confusing signs such as this one that reads "Because if the tourist does not obey the staff to manage or contrary holds, Does, all consequences are proud" which is supposed to instruct visitors the entry requirements for a park, do not serve their purpose but merely serve as an embarrassing reminder that the government is not appropriately handling translations.
However, despite the inconvenience and confusion these mistranslations cause native English speakers, some Chinese are strong supporters of their existence. Oliver Lutz Radtke, a former German radio personality and expert on Chinglish argues that the fusion language provides insight into how Chinese people think and the importance of Chinese language structure, as seen in the attempted translations. He said, “If you standardize all these signs, you not only take away the little giggle you get while strolling in the park but you lose a window into the Chinese mind." They reveal the poetic nature of the language. For example, instead of warning, "stay off the grass" some signs read "The Little Grass Is Sleeping. Please Don’t Disturb It." A quick Google search revealed a Facebook groups calling to "Save Chinglish!" and also this website, http://chinglish.com/main, that is the home of the Chinese-English Chamber of Commerce that calls Chinglish the "new approach to language and trade."
Regardless, the government, with the help of volunteers, has been documenting these mistakes and attempting to correct them. This process began in 2001 when China was chosen to host the 2008 Olympics, and in 2002, the Beijing Tourism Bureau created a hotline that allows English speaking residents and visitors to report mistranslations. Since then, over 400,000 street signs and 1,300 restaurant menus have been replaced. As Beijing becomes ever more important as an international business capitol, the Chinese government sees the need to make the city more accessible and professional-looking for English speaking visitors.
According to Wikipedia (I must admit, not the best source, so please excuse me if the information isn't totally correct, and please correct me if you are familiar with Chinese!!) mistranslations are often due to major differences between the Chinese and English languages. For example, in Chinese there is no equivalent for the word "the," so on signs, it is often used excessively or not at all. Also, commas in Chinese are used without a conjunction and periods are only used to indicated the end of a train of thought, so they aren't used until the end of a passage in most cases. This difference explains the misuse of commas and periods in translations.
It's interesting to me to think that there are people out there fighting for the preservation of this modern, hybrid language. To me, it seems that the prevalence of Chinglish in Beijing is more of an inconvenience than anything else, and sadly I cannot agree with Radtke who sees Chinglish as an endangered language that deserves to be preserved. Although, I do enjoy finding humorous examples online. What do you think? Does it qualify as a real language, and if so, is it worth preserving?
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6052800.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/asia/03chinglish.html?pagewanted=2
http://chinglish.com/main
However, despite the inconvenience and confusion these mistranslations cause native English speakers, some Chinese are strong supporters of their existence. Oliver Lutz Radtke, a former German radio personality and expert on Chinglish argues that the fusion language provides insight into how Chinese people think and the importance of Chinese language structure, as seen in the attempted translations. He said, “If you standardize all these signs, you not only take away the little giggle you get while strolling in the park but you lose a window into the Chinese mind." They reveal the poetic nature of the language. For example, instead of warning, "stay off the grass" some signs read "The Little Grass Is Sleeping. Please Don’t Disturb It." A quick Google search revealed a Facebook groups calling to "Save Chinglish!" and also this website, http://chinglish.com/main, that is the home of the Chinese-English Chamber of Commerce that calls Chinglish the "new approach to language and trade."
Regardless, the government, with the help of volunteers, has been documenting these mistakes and attempting to correct them. This process began in 2001 when China was chosen to host the 2008 Olympics, and in 2002, the Beijing Tourism Bureau created a hotline that allows English speaking residents and visitors to report mistranslations. Since then, over 400,000 street signs and 1,300 restaurant menus have been replaced. As Beijing becomes ever more important as an international business capitol, the Chinese government sees the need to make the city more accessible and professional-looking for English speaking visitors.
According to Wikipedia (I must admit, not the best source, so please excuse me if the information isn't totally correct, and please correct me if you are familiar with Chinese!!) mistranslations are often due to major differences between the Chinese and English languages. For example, in Chinese there is no equivalent for the word "the," so on signs, it is often used excessively or not at all. Also, commas in Chinese are used without a conjunction and periods are only used to indicated the end of a train of thought, so they aren't used until the end of a passage in most cases. This difference explains the misuse of commas and periods in translations.
It's interesting to me to think that there are people out there fighting for the preservation of this modern, hybrid language. To me, it seems that the prevalence of Chinglish in Beijing is more of an inconvenience than anything else, and sadly I cannot agree with Radtke who sees Chinglish as an endangered language that deserves to be preserved. Although, I do enjoy finding humorous examples online. What do you think? Does it qualify as a real language, and if so, is it worth preserving?
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6052800.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/asia/03chinglish.html?pagewanted=2
http://chinglish.com/main
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Belgium Unraveled by Language
For the second time in the past 5 years, Belgium's government has fallen as we know it. Yves Leterme, the Christian Democrat prime minister, just resigned after only five months. However, it is no cause for alarm in Belgium because it is the third resignation in the past 3 years. The conflict between the Dutch-speaking Flanders to the north and French-speaking Wallonia in the south is so extreme that government bodies cannot operate successfully. In federal parliament last week, 150 deputies chanted, "Long live free Flanders, may Belgium die."
For the past 30 years, the government has unstably functioned to unite the nation, but still there is little Belgian pride. A Flander commented: "There's no loyalty to a country called Belgium. There has never been a country that has lasted so long in conditions like this." The country essentially runs as two separate nations; there exist no national political parties, no national newspaper, no national TV channel, and no common school curriculum. The north is flourishing economically while the south is deep in debt and the two groups normally vote on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Every effort is made to avoid interaction between the groups. School children are educated on separate floors and with a different curriculum and universities are separated on the basis of language.
The country of 10.5 million people, is 58% Dutch speaking and 31% French speaking. For the most part, the two groups live in different geographic regions, but as this changes, conflict arises. French-speaking middle class families are moving out to the Flemish-dominated suburbs as Brussels becomes increasingly crowded; here, they face animosity and aggression. Friction, however, is greatest in the city itself in areas where the Flanders and Wallonia live side by side. Although both sides agree that violent conflict is not likely, they do admit that emotions are tense on both sides. Separatists have started defacing bilingual street signs. In the city's governmental structure, the two sides use legislation and restrictions to undermine each other. For example, proceedings conducted in the town of Linkebeek must be in Flemish even though 13 of the 15 councillors are native French speakers.
The importance of this issue is that language is at the heart of it. I was shocked to discover that language could be so powerful; it essentially toppled the Belgian government. As said by the Ian Traynor, the author of the article, "Language is the fundamental flaw at the core of Belgium's existential crisis, taking on the role that race, religion, or ethnicity play in other conflict-riven societies. The country operates on the basis of linguistic apartheid, which infects everything from public libraries to local and regional government, the education system, the political parties, national television, the newspapers, even football teams."
What do you think? Does Belgium have potential for reconciliation? Are they addressing these issues incorrectly? Or is a divorce in the making?
For the past 30 years, the government has unstably functioned to unite the nation, but still there is little Belgian pride. A Flander commented: "There's no loyalty to a country called Belgium. There has never been a country that has lasted so long in conditions like this." The country essentially runs as two separate nations; there exist no national political parties, no national newspaper, no national TV channel, and no common school curriculum. The north is flourishing economically while the south is deep in debt and the two groups normally vote on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Every effort is made to avoid interaction between the groups. School children are educated on separate floors and with a different curriculum and universities are separated on the basis of language.
The country of 10.5 million people, is 58% Dutch speaking and 31% French speaking. For the most part, the two groups live in different geographic regions, but as this changes, conflict arises. French-speaking middle class families are moving out to the Flemish-dominated suburbs as Brussels becomes increasingly crowded; here, they face animosity and aggression. Friction, however, is greatest in the city itself in areas where the Flanders and Wallonia live side by side. Although both sides agree that violent conflict is not likely, they do admit that emotions are tense on both sides. Separatists have started defacing bilingual street signs. In the city's governmental structure, the two sides use legislation and restrictions to undermine each other. For example, proceedings conducted in the town of Linkebeek must be in Flemish even though 13 of the 15 councillors are native French speakers.
The importance of this issue is that language is at the heart of it. I was shocked to discover that language could be so powerful; it essentially toppled the Belgian government. As said by the Ian Traynor, the author of the article, "Language is the fundamental flaw at the core of Belgium's existential crisis, taking on the role that race, religion, or ethnicity play in other conflict-riven societies. The country operates on the basis of linguistic apartheid, which infects everything from public libraries to local and regional government, the education system, the political parties, national television, the newspapers, even football teams."
What do you think? Does Belgium have potential for reconciliation? Are they addressing these issues incorrectly? Or is a divorce in the making?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Effectiveness of Foreign Language Learning
In a Washington Post Local Living article, Jay Matthews boldly argues that learning and teaching foreign languages in middle school and high school is a waste of time and funds. His main argument is that students are able to easily breeze through language courses in high school with very little effort and high marks. Most high schools don't require foreign language study for graduation, and those that do usually only require 2 years. This is the same for colleges, they traditionally only ask their applicants to have completed two years. I'd have to agree with Matthews on the point that two years is not nearly enough time to gain any level of proficiency in a foreign language. Extended study and immersion are necessary to obtain fluency.
Also, many students choose to study languages that they are not likely to use often (or ever in the case of Latin) for interactions with other native speakers. They simply wish to fulfill a requirement. For example, Matthews studied German and Latin in high school but quickly forgot it all because he didn't continue his studies in college or practice speaking with anyone. On the flipside, students who are determined to learn a foreign language can successfully do so with the help of language instruction in high school.
For example, I knew that I wanted to be as fluent as possible in French to be able to more easily communicate with my older relatives in Lebanon. I studied it from 7th-12th grades in school and then continued my studies at Stanford. I also participated in an immersion program in Montreal with a host family two summers ago (although it's questionable if that helped or hurt because the Quebecois accent is ridiculous!). I can confidently say now that I am fluent. I used what I learned in the classroom as a base and then continued learning at home by reading French books, listening to the music, and practicing with my father. I can't really say that I learned French strictly through my school's program, but at the same time, it taught me the integral basics of grammar and vocabulary. I doubt would have been motivated enough to learn the language from scratch on my own.
Although these programs aren't churning out fluent speakers by the time of graduation, I think it's too strong of a statement to say that they're useless. For those learning Spanish, even small amounts can prove to be beneficial, so studying it in high school certainly isn't a waste of time. Also, studying foreign languages opens doors. If I hadn't studied French, I wouldn't have been eligible for the study abroad scholarship in Montreal, and I probably never would have visited the city. After my stay there, I decided to apply to McGill University and seriously considered attending the school (but who was I kidding-choosing between sunny CA or snow-covered Montreal...easy choice).
So what do you think? Are our foreign language programs so bad that they should just be eliminated, or is there value to be found in them?
See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/04/why_waste_time_on_a_foreign_la.html
Also, many students choose to study languages that they are not likely to use often (or ever in the case of Latin) for interactions with other native speakers. They simply wish to fulfill a requirement. For example, Matthews studied German and Latin in high school but quickly forgot it all because he didn't continue his studies in college or practice speaking with anyone. On the flipside, students who are determined to learn a foreign language can successfully do so with the help of language instruction in high school.
For example, I knew that I wanted to be as fluent as possible in French to be able to more easily communicate with my older relatives in Lebanon. I studied it from 7th-12th grades in school and then continued my studies at Stanford. I also participated in an immersion program in Montreal with a host family two summers ago (although it's questionable if that helped or hurt because the Quebecois accent is ridiculous!). I can confidently say now that I am fluent. I used what I learned in the classroom as a base and then continued learning at home by reading French books, listening to the music, and practicing with my father. I can't really say that I learned French strictly through my school's program, but at the same time, it taught me the integral basics of grammar and vocabulary. I doubt would have been motivated enough to learn the language from scratch on my own.
Although these programs aren't churning out fluent speakers by the time of graduation, I think it's too strong of a statement to say that they're useless. For those learning Spanish, even small amounts can prove to be beneficial, so studying it in high school certainly isn't a waste of time. Also, studying foreign languages opens doors. If I hadn't studied French, I wouldn't have been eligible for the study abroad scholarship in Montreal, and I probably never would have visited the city. After my stay there, I decided to apply to McGill University and seriously considered attending the school (but who was I kidding-choosing between sunny CA or snow-covered Montreal...easy choice).
So what do you think? Are our foreign language programs so bad that they should just be eliminated, or is there value to be found in them?
See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/04/why_waste_time_on_a_foreign_la.html
Endangered Languages
In the New York Times, I stumbled across an interesting article about the prevalence of endangered languages in New York City. Experts estimate that over 800 languages are spoken in NYC and around 400 are considered endangered; Daniel Kaufman, a professor of linguistics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York said, "We’re sitting in an endangerment hot spot where we are surrounded by languages that are not going to be around even in 20 or 30 years.” These endangered languages are from Indonesia, Belize, Tajikistan, Poland, and more. They include but are not limited to Aramaic from the Semitic family; Bukhari (a Bukharian Jewish language, which has more speakers in Queens than in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan); Chamorro (from the Mariana Islands); Irish Gaelic; Kashubian (from Poland); indigenous Mexican languages; Rhaeto-Romanic (spoken in Switzerland); Romany (from the Balkans); and Yiddish. Some of these languages actually have more native speakers in NYC than in their home countries.
In an effort to conserve and revive these languages, Professor Kaufman and several associates have created a non-profit organization called the Endangered Language Alliance (ELA). The group identifies endangered language speakers and brings them into labs to research and record the dying languages. They're mission statement is as follows: “to further the documentation, description, maintenance, and revitalization of threatened and endangered languages, and to educate the public about the causes and consequences of language extinction.”
One specific case highlighted in the video that accompanies the article is the tribal Darfurian language Massalit. The linguists brought in Daowd I. Salih, a Darfurian refugee, to interview. They ask him how to say simple phrases such as "a man holds a fish" in Massalit, and they look for patterns in grammatical formation and vocabulary. They are attempting to record the language for the first time in the hopes of preventing its extinction in Sudan.
Other groups are following suit and joining the fight to revive endangered languages. Speakers of an indigenous language from Belize called Garifuna are offering classes at the Yurumein House Culture Center in the Bronx and the Biko Transformation Center in East Bushwick. A father teaching his young daughters folk songs in the language said, "It’s going to give them a sense of self, to know themselves. The fact that they’re speaking the language is empowerment in itself.”
http://endangeredlanguagealliance.org/main/about
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/nyregion/29lost.html?pagewanted=2
VIDEO: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/04/28/nyregion/1247467719180/city-of-endangered-languages.html
In an effort to conserve and revive these languages, Professor Kaufman and several associates have created a non-profit organization called the Endangered Language Alliance (ELA). The group identifies endangered language speakers and brings them into labs to research and record the dying languages. They're mission statement is as follows: “to further the documentation, description, maintenance, and revitalization of threatened and endangered languages, and to educate the public about the causes and consequences of language extinction.”
One specific case highlighted in the video that accompanies the article is the tribal Darfurian language Massalit. The linguists brought in Daowd I. Salih, a Darfurian refugee, to interview. They ask him how to say simple phrases such as "a man holds a fish" in Massalit, and they look for patterns in grammatical formation and vocabulary. They are attempting to record the language for the first time in the hopes of preventing its extinction in Sudan.
Other groups are following suit and joining the fight to revive endangered languages. Speakers of an indigenous language from Belize called Garifuna are offering classes at the Yurumein House Culture Center in the Bronx and the Biko Transformation Center in East Bushwick. A father teaching his young daughters folk songs in the language said, "It’s going to give them a sense of self, to know themselves. The fact that they’re speaking the language is empowerment in itself.”
http://endangeredlanguagealliance.org/main/about
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/nyregion/29lost.html?pagewanted=2
VIDEO: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/04/28/nyregion/1247467719180/city-of-endangered-languages.html
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Biblical Translation
English
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Français: (translated by myself)
(1) Au commencement Dieu a créé le ciel et la terre. (2) Maintenant la terre était informe et vide, l’obscurité était sur la surface de l’abîme, et l’esprit de Dieu plainait sur les eaux. (3) Et Dieu a dit, « Que la lumière soit, » et il y avait la lumière. (4) Dieu voyait que la lumière était bonne, et il séparait la lumière de l’obscurité. (5) Dieu appelait la lumière « jour, » et l’obscurité il appelait « nuit. » Et il y avait soir, et il y avait matin-la première journée.
Français (translated by Edouard Négiar)
(1) Au commencement Dieu créa le ciel et la terre. (2) A ce moment la terre était sans forme et vide, l’obscurité était sur la surface de l’abîme, et l’esprit de Dieu plainait sur les eaux. (3) Et Dieu dit, « Que la lumière soit, » et la lumière fut. (4) Dieu vit que la lumière était bonne, et il sépara la lumière de l’obscurité. (5) Dieu appela la lumière « jour, » et il appela l’obscurité « nuit. » Et le soir vint, et il y eut le matin-la première journée.
I included the translation that I did myself and also the translation that a friend of mine, Edouard, who is a native French speaker, did. I found it interesting to compare the two. Mainly, there are differences in verb tenses. I used the imperfect tense but he chose to use the French literary tense "passé simple" which is considered more poetic and used in texts such as the Bible. Also, to retain the sense of the passage, he rearranged certain nouns and verbs, making them read more naturally in French.
Choices I had to make:
Choosing between “sur” or “au dessus.” One is used for the physical meaning of being on top of an object and another has a looser sense of being above something.
To describe hovering, I had to choose between “plainait” and “vol stationnaire” which both mean hovering, but one is literally ‘stationary flight’ while the other is more of a theoretical hovering like ‘she’s been hovering around him all day.’
“Jour” and “journée” both mean day but one is used in a more factual way (like ‘I was gone for 5 days’) while one attaches emotional meaning to the duration of time (‘pendant la journée’ =during the day).
Anything lost? I think in this case specifically, it was fairly simple to retain the meaning and sense of the passage, but this is perhaps because language is my first language and the French translation makes sense in my head because it mirrors the English one. That's why I asked a native speaker to do the same translation. I wanted to see if there was anything I was missing. He did make additional changes that took the translation to the next level-giving it the same sense and feel that the passage gives to native English speakers.
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Français: (translated by myself)
(1) Au commencement Dieu a créé le ciel et la terre. (2) Maintenant la terre était informe et vide, l’obscurité était sur la surface de l’abîme, et l’esprit de Dieu plainait sur les eaux. (3) Et Dieu a dit, « Que la lumière soit, » et il y avait la lumière. (4) Dieu voyait que la lumière était bonne, et il séparait la lumière de l’obscurité. (5) Dieu appelait la lumière « jour, » et l’obscurité il appelait « nuit. » Et il y avait soir, et il y avait matin-la première journée.
Français (translated by Edouard Négiar)
(1) Au commencement Dieu créa le ciel et la terre. (2) A ce moment la terre était sans forme et vide, l’obscurité était sur la surface de l’abîme, et l’esprit de Dieu plainait sur les eaux. (3) Et Dieu dit, « Que la lumière soit, » et la lumière fut. (4) Dieu vit que la lumière était bonne, et il sépara la lumière de l’obscurité. (5) Dieu appela la lumière « jour, » et il appela l’obscurité « nuit. » Et le soir vint, et il y eut le matin-la première journée.
I included the translation that I did myself and also the translation that a friend of mine, Edouard, who is a native French speaker, did. I found it interesting to compare the two. Mainly, there are differences in verb tenses. I used the imperfect tense but he chose to use the French literary tense "passé simple" which is considered more poetic and used in texts such as the Bible. Also, to retain the sense of the passage, he rearranged certain nouns and verbs, making them read more naturally in French.
Choices I had to make:
Choosing between “sur” or “au dessus.” One is used for the physical meaning of being on top of an object and another has a looser sense of being above something.
To describe hovering, I had to choose between “plainait” and “vol stationnaire” which both mean hovering, but one is literally ‘stationary flight’ while the other is more of a theoretical hovering like ‘she’s been hovering around him all day.’
“Jour” and “journée” both mean day but one is used in a more factual way (like ‘I was gone for 5 days’) while one attaches emotional meaning to the duration of time (‘pendant la journée’ =during the day).
Anything lost? I think in this case specifically, it was fairly simple to retain the meaning and sense of the passage, but this is perhaps because language is my first language and the French translation makes sense in my head because it mirrors the English one. That's why I asked a native speaker to do the same translation. I wanted to see if there was anything I was missing. He did make additional changes that took the translation to the next level-giving it the same sense and feel that the passage gives to native English speakers.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Abuse of language: deceiving readers with convoluted wording
Interestingly, a new non-profit, Center for Plain Language, is trying to simplify language in the government and business sectors. The president of the center, Annetta Cheek, argues that complex wording and phrasing in bank, government, and insurance documents leave most Americans in the dark on important issues. This is often intentional (especially in the business sector). For example, when purchasing a Blackberry, the website has consumers agree to a set of policies indicating that they understand the company's policy; however, in the fine print, complexly worded, the form also states that by signing the document, the consumer agrees to any future policy changes the company makes. Furthermore, the company is not responsible for announcing when changes are made; rather, it is up to the costumer to check the website for changes. These kind of sneaky loopholes are hidden behind complicated language that most people either avoid or don't understand. This becomes increasingly important when ordinary citizens are dealing with government or insurance documents.
One example included was the following wordy Medicare letter (don't bother to read it all!). "Investigators at the contractor will review the facts in your case and decide the most appropriate course of action. The first step taken with most Medicare health care providers is to reeducate them about Medicare regulations and policies. If the practice continues, the contractor may conduct special audits of the providers medical records. Often, the contractor recovers overpayments to health care providers this way. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the provider is consistently violating Medicare policies, the contractor will document the violations and ask the Office of the Inspector General to prosecute the case. This can lead to expulsion from the Medicare program, civil monetary penalties, and imprisonment."
Which the Center for Plain Language translates as "We will take two steps to look at this matter: We will find out if it was an error or fraud. We will let you know the result." These simplified version is easier to understand and a quicker way to pass on information. There is also an interesting chart that translates commonly used phrases. For example, they translate "economically marginalized" as poor and "render non-viable" as kill.
The arguments for the use of plain language are that it's easier, quicker, and even cheaper. For example, when an office of the Veterans Benefits Administration simplified a standard letter sent to all veterans, the frequency of calls for questions dropped from 1.5 calls per letter to .27 calls. Also, in Washington state when the State Dept. of Revenue reworded a notice sent to business owners about paying "use taxes" (tax on items bought in other states or online), they exceeded the estimated tax revenue by $800,000 (previously, 97% of business owners had ignored the notices).
Opponents argue that over simplification of language dumbs down vocabulary. However, in these cases, I feel that language simplification is necessary. Businesses, insurance companies, and even the government are taking advantage of Americans by hiding policies amidst jumbled, complex language. Although I understand the benefits of and need for official/professional language in these types of documents, when it becomes so jumbled that the readers do not understand, the documents become useless and sometimes even deceiving. I support the simplification of language in these types of documents. What do you think? Would this threaten American intellectualism or decrease our breadth of vocabulary?
See:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-complicated-language-made-clearer-q/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-plain-language-examples/
http://www.centerforplainlanguage.org/aboutpl/selling_benefits.html
One example included was the following wordy Medicare letter (don't bother to read it all!). "Investigators at the contractor will review the facts in your case and decide the most appropriate course of action. The first step taken with most Medicare health care providers is to reeducate them about Medicare regulations and policies. If the practice continues, the contractor may conduct special audits of the providers medical records. Often, the contractor recovers overpayments to health care providers this way. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the provider is consistently violating Medicare policies, the contractor will document the violations and ask the Office of the Inspector General to prosecute the case. This can lead to expulsion from the Medicare program, civil monetary penalties, and imprisonment."
Which the Center for Plain Language translates as "We will take two steps to look at this matter: We will find out if it was an error or fraud. We will let you know the result." These simplified version is easier to understand and a quicker way to pass on information. There is also an interesting chart that translates commonly used phrases. For example, they translate "economically marginalized" as poor and "render non-viable" as kill.
The arguments for the use of plain language are that it's easier, quicker, and even cheaper. For example, when an office of the Veterans Benefits Administration simplified a standard letter sent to all veterans, the frequency of calls for questions dropped from 1.5 calls per letter to .27 calls. Also, in Washington state when the State Dept. of Revenue reworded a notice sent to business owners about paying "use taxes" (tax on items bought in other states or online), they exceeded the estimated tax revenue by $800,000 (previously, 97% of business owners had ignored the notices).
Opponents argue that over simplification of language dumbs down vocabulary. However, in these cases, I feel that language simplification is necessary. Businesses, insurance companies, and even the government are taking advantage of Americans by hiding policies amidst jumbled, complex language. Although I understand the benefits of and need for official/professional language in these types of documents, when it becomes so jumbled that the readers do not understand, the documents become useless and sometimes even deceiving. I support the simplification of language in these types of documents. What do you think? Would this threaten American intellectualism or decrease our breadth of vocabulary?
See:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-complicated-language-made-clearer-q/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-plain-language-examples/
http://www.centerforplainlanguage.org/aboutpl/selling_benefits.html
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Evolution of Language
If you've ever tried to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, you know from experience that the English language has undergone major changes since the 1300s. At that time, Old English was changing significantly; in Scotland, the Northumbrian dialect became the Scots language, and in the dialect more commonly spoken in England became Early Modern English. The printing presses that sprung up in London allowed this version of English to proliferate, and it became the dominant dialect in the UK. But enough of history. How is language changing today?
Technological advancements that spring up what seems to be daily in our generation are largely responsible for modern changes in the spoken English language. For example, there is an article, "Hugely popular text messaging spawns language change," which describes numerous new words created solely to describe certain actions associated with text messaging. There is hexting (cheating on your partner through text), drexting (drunk texting), and sexting (sending naughty images and texts). There are numerous others such as confexting (a text confession) and wexting (walking and texting simultaneously), but perhaps the most widely used word produced from texting is sexting because it has made a splash on the legal scene; it has been ruled that sexting with youth under 18 is considered child pornography.
Read more funny examples of texting lingo: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Hugely+popular+text+messaging+spawns+language+change/2930387/story.html#ixzz0lqqOGsvQ
While still talking about technology, we must acknowledge that cell phones, AIM, and Facebook have changed the way the youth communicate. There are numerous abbreviations such as lol, nvm, ttyl, etc. that save time and space when typing. People are unbelievably creative when shortening words. However, these usually stay in cyberspace (although some people use 'jk' commonly in spoken language). A widely popular word that is used daily by young Americans is 'like.' It has been a part of the English language for years, but only recently has it begun to be used as a filler (where some people say 'um' when thinking). Other words are simply reflections of current issues, interests, and politics. In the 1940's, we got "blitzkrieg." The 1980's gave us "anime" and "moonwalk." Today, we have adopted words and phrases such as collateral damage, NASDAQ, ageism, Ethernet, petrodollars, and so on. As time passes, the language continuous to grow exponentially. The English conversational vocabulary has grown from 90,000 to nearly 500,000 words.
Purely for your amusement, here is an exaggerated parody of the overuse of the word like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ
Some nations are up in arms to fight these changes, or what they might call "pollution" of their language. For example, in order to preserve the purity of the French language, there exists L'Académie française. This exclusive organization consists of 40 members, called les immortels (the immortals) who are elected by existing members and who serve on the board until death. The members of L'Académie are responsible for preserving the French language (specifically keeping English words out), they periodically produce French dictionaries with new words they have created to address modern issues and inventions. For example, for the word e-mail, they adopted the Quebecois word "courriel" but in France, most people still use "e-mail" or the abbreviated version "mel" in daily conversation.
My question to you is whether the natural evolution of language is a negative thing? Does the addition of new words detract from the purity of a language? Are this changes a reflection of changes in culture or thought?
additional referenced sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Scots_language
http://www.flashnews.com/news/wfn5100416fn9876.html
Technological advancements that spring up what seems to be daily in our generation are largely responsible for modern changes in the spoken English language. For example, there is an article, "Hugely popular text messaging spawns language change," which describes numerous new words created solely to describe certain actions associated with text messaging. There is hexting (cheating on your partner through text), drexting (drunk texting), and sexting (sending naughty images and texts). There are numerous others such as confexting (a text confession) and wexting (walking and texting simultaneously), but perhaps the most widely used word produced from texting is sexting because it has made a splash on the legal scene; it has been ruled that sexting with youth under 18 is considered child pornography.
Read more funny examples of texting lingo: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Hugely+popular+text+messaging+spawns+language+change/2930387/story.html#ixzz0lqqOGsvQ
While still talking about technology, we must acknowledge that cell phones, AIM, and Facebook have changed the way the youth communicate. There are numerous abbreviations such as lol, nvm, ttyl, etc. that save time and space when typing. People are unbelievably creative when shortening words. However, these usually stay in cyberspace (although some people use 'jk' commonly in spoken language). A widely popular word that is used daily by young Americans is 'like.' It has been a part of the English language for years, but only recently has it begun to be used as a filler (where some people say 'um' when thinking). Other words are simply reflections of current issues, interests, and politics. In the 1940's, we got "blitzkrieg." The 1980's gave us "anime" and "moonwalk." Today, we have adopted words and phrases such as collateral damage, NASDAQ, ageism, Ethernet, petrodollars, and so on. As time passes, the language continuous to grow exponentially. The English conversational vocabulary has grown from 90,000 to nearly 500,000 words.
Purely for your amusement, here is an exaggerated parody of the overuse of the word like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ
Some nations are up in arms to fight these changes, or what they might call "pollution" of their language. For example, in order to preserve the purity of the French language, there exists L'Académie française. This exclusive organization consists of 40 members, called les immortels (the immortals) who are elected by existing members and who serve on the board until death. The members of L'Académie are responsible for preserving the French language (specifically keeping English words out), they periodically produce French dictionaries with new words they have created to address modern issues and inventions. For example, for the word e-mail, they adopted the Quebecois word "courriel" but in France, most people still use "e-mail" or the abbreviated version "mel" in daily conversation.
My question to you is whether the natural evolution of language is a negative thing? Does the addition of new words detract from the purity of a language? Are this changes a reflection of changes in culture or thought?
additional referenced sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Scots_language
http://www.flashnews.com/news/wfn5100416fn9876.html
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Loss of Lakota Language and Culture
photo of Tina Merdanian
In my PWR class this quarter, we read about a young Lakota man who grew up in the midwest not knowing anything about his culture until he reached Dartmouth and took formal classes on his culture and language. I was intrigued by the story and have always had an interest in the conservation of culture, so when I found an article addressing the decline in the use of Lakota language, I was intrigued. The article provides a brief history of the mission era during which the Spanish set out to destroy the Lakota culture. The natives were forced to enter missions where they were converted to Catholicism and forced to learn Spanish. One elder remembers being thrown against a wall as a child for speaking Lakota with his brother in class. This type of oppressive erasure of culture had profound effects on the retention rates of the Lakota language. The Lakota who grew up in the missions associated their native language and religious traditions with shame and punishment, so they consciously chose not to pass on these traditions to their children. They came to believe that if their children spoke Lakota, they would be uneducated.
Now that their kids have their own families and live in an environment that is no longer hostile to their culture, there is growing interest in reviving the language and rediscovering the Lakota heritage. However, the parents of these children are not fluent in Lakota and remain widely ignorant of traditional practices. Teachers fluent in the language are now attempting to teach the children the language, but they elders claim they are not able to connect with students and/or mispronounce important words. There is also a lack of material for instruction and no set curriculum, so the language programs differ greatly across Rapid City and the rest of the state. Many believe the family is responsible for teaching the children at home, but sadly, this just isn't happening. Not all parents speak the language, and even when so, the children often resist learning it because it is 'uncool.'
What I found most interesting about this article was the clear connection it made between language and culture. For the Lakota, it seemed to be the single most important aspect of their culture they wished to preserve. The author writes that one young woman was "proud of a heritage and culture that hinges on the very thing that erodes more each year: the language of her people." Founder of the Piegan Institute on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, MT, said the language is like a family heirloom, like a grandmother's wedding ring or a family member's old shawl. Another tribal member, Tina Merdanian said that knowing the language defines one's Lakota identity and that there are certain expressions and phrases that you cannot find the words for in English. She also links the Lakota language to the spirituality of the people. In a personal narrative, Robert Bennett, a Lakota, wrote that “I believed [learning] the language would return some of my identity."
For this tribe, the preservation of their language means more than simply preventing its extinction; it is their closest link to their culture and heritage. They see it as a key to their past and religion. This is important to remember when we talk about language; it's not simply a mode of communication but also an important part of identity and culture.
SOURCES: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_3986038e-474f-11df-be8c-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_cd98cfea-4752-11df-ae10-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story
"Why Didn't You Teach Me?" Robert Bennett
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Politics of Language Adoption
As mentioned in a previous blog, countries across the world are faced with an important decision, to adopt or restrict the use of the English language. I argued that they are mostly concerned with conservation of native languages and culture, yet I neglected to acknowledge that there are important political forces at work. Many countries are adopting English to guarantee a place in the world market, but is this the only reason? For example, in Georgia, as aforementioned, President Saakashvili was implemented major changes in schools that would increase the number of students who learn English. Yuliya brought to my attention that Saakashvili was educated at Columbia University in NYC and has a reputation for being very closely tied to the American government. How much did his political connections with the U.S. influence his decision? I believe it certainly played an important role; he clearly wants continued financial aid from the U.S. and thus sees it necessary for younger generations to learn English and maintain friendly ties with America. Similarly, Spanish educated President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines is receiving the Don Quixote Prize from Spain for her efforts to reinstate the teaching and use of Spanish in schools. In conjunction with the presentation of the award, bilateral talks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the current president of the European Union, are in order. By teaching Spanish in schools, the government was provided the opportunity to interact with the Spanish government.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22153
http://news.brunei.fm/2010/04/11/philippine-president-to-receive-spain’s-don-quixote-prize-for-promoting-spanish-language-in-schools/
In another case, the Greeks encourage the preservation and use of Greek language in Australia. A group called the Union of Modern Greek Instructors of Victoria plans to hold a conference next month during which they will discuss how to improve the grade of professional Greek instructors in Australia and identify pre-existing problems with Greek instruction (In 2006, 252,222 Australians spoke Greek). The two countries have been longtime allies and trade partners; in the last fiscal year, trade between the countries was valued at $229 million. Also, recently, in light of the economic crisis in Greece, Australia provided the country an aid package valued as much as $61 billion dollars. We see again how foreign language adoption is affiliated with economic and political ties.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/greece/greece_country_brief.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a31Ydmc37oHQ
In a different situation, language can be used as a reconciliatory tool. For example, in Turkey, Armenian is now offered as an optional language class. The government began including it in schools' curriculum as part of their "zero problems with neighbours" policy and consider it a "gesture." It is an effort to mend Turkey's longtime tense relations with the Armenian community. They will later offer Arabic and Hebrew as well to strengthen relations with their Arab and Israeli neighbors.
http://www.historyoftruth.com/news/latest/6438-armenian-language-classes-may-be-optional-in-schools
As seen through these examples, language helps strengthen or create ties between countries and is closely tied to politics. What do you think? Do the political connections or language ties come first? Does it matter?
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22153
http://news.brunei.fm/2010/04/11/philippine-president-to-receive-spain’s-don-quixote-prize-for-promoting-spanish-language-in-schools/
In another case, the Greeks encourage the preservation and use of Greek language in Australia. A group called the Union of Modern Greek Instructors of Victoria plans to hold a conference next month during which they will discuss how to improve the grade of professional Greek instructors in Australia and identify pre-existing problems with Greek instruction (In 2006, 252,222 Australians spoke Greek). The two countries have been longtime allies and trade partners; in the last fiscal year, trade between the countries was valued at $229 million. Also, recently, in light of the economic crisis in Greece, Australia provided the country an aid package valued as much as $61 billion dollars. We see again how foreign language adoption is affiliated with economic and political ties.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/greece/greece_country_brief.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a31Ydmc37oHQ
In a different situation, language can be used as a reconciliatory tool. For example, in Turkey, Armenian is now offered as an optional language class. The government began including it in schools' curriculum as part of their "zero problems with neighbours" policy and consider it a "gesture." It is an effort to mend Turkey's longtime tense relations with the Armenian community. They will later offer Arabic and Hebrew as well to strengthen relations with their Arab and Israeli neighbors.
http://www.historyoftruth.com/news/latest/6438-armenian-language-classes-may-be-optional-in-schools
As seen through these examples, language helps strengthen or create ties between countries and is closely tied to politics. What do you think? Do the political connections or language ties come first? Does it matter?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
English: Friend or foe?
As technology and globalization connect cultures and people like never before, countries across the world are approached with an important decision: adapt English or fight it? English has become the dominant international language of business, and countries adopt it mainly for this reason: to ease trade and interactions. Although, some fear it threatens their heritage. As a result, there has been a surge in the use and revival of native languages, in opposition to English.
For example, in Glasgow, the city council is launching a 3-year plan to increase the use of Gaelic. It will be used for signs and official council communications. Officials hope to eventually see Gaelic used in everyday conversation, especially amongst the youth. Glasgow City Councilor Aileen Colleran notes, "Gaelic has a very special place in the history of Glasgow." The Scottish in Glasgow feel that Gaelic is an important part of their identity and want it to become the dominant language, in place of English-the language their historic oppressors, the English, forced onto them. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8605014.stm for more details. Also in the UK, an avid blogger comments that politicians who integrate American phrases into their language should be reproached. He calls it "Americanized lazy talk,” says "What I...object to is Brits who feel that they gain something by adopting American usage," and he even calls the politicians "presenters archly trying to sound like shock jocks." Although Brits and Americans speak the same language, the pronunciation is different and certain phrases are unique to each. The blogger calls for preservation of what he calls the Queen's English. He considers the British English to be superior and more proper than American English as do many other Brits who commented on his blog. One comment reads, "Are we trying to become the fifty-first state?" and yet another commenter writes, "The corruptions hurt my old ears." Humorous yet insightful, these posts show that some Brits feel America's English is tainting their dialect, and they wish to reverse and halt these changes. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7555717/Martha-Kearney-should-stick-to-the-Queens-English.html for more comments.
In Ghana, the Upper West Regional Minister, Mr. Mahmud Khalid, encourages Ghanaians to use local languages instead of English and to ensure that English words don't seep into these local languages and alter their integrity. He argues that,” if...allowed to continue, it would lead to the erosion of aspects of the country's unique culture and thereby deny future generations the opportunity of sharing in the rich cultural heritage of the people." See http://news.peacefmonline.com/social/201004/41349.php.
Some countries, however, such as South Korea, encourage its citizens to learn English and use it in the workplace. South Koreans also maintain a strong sense of national and cultural pride. In Georgia, President Saakashvili is leading what he calls a "linguistic and computer revolution" that will provide XO mini-laptops to children to help with English learning will be mandatory starting in first grade. He believes that teaching the children English will ensure a bright future for the nation and its citizens. See http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22153.
So how is it that these countries can maintain a balance while others cannot? I believe it is because certain countries are more confident that their cultures will be preserved from generation to generation while others are greatly threatened by the presence of English and have already started to see the youth neglect their heritage in favor of English and the pop culture often associated with it.
Locals often fear that English will taint or replace their native language and/or dialect, so they focus on the preservation of culture through language. It's a legitimate and important concern. What makes the world so unique are the differences that exist between foods, traditions, and languages; to lose this cultural diversity would truly be a shame. On the other hand, in a quickly developing world, it is important to have some sort of universal language to ease transactions and increase interactions between nations. English became this language because the British exported it during their imperial days and today, America is a global superpower, thus increasing the use of English on a global scale. Especially for developing countries, learning English eases the transition into the international business market. I see the value in both arguments, but I believe the best solution is a compromise between the two cases. Countries can do both; adopt English as a supplementary language and also preserve their native tongues. English can be taught as a second language but by no means has to replace the native language. We see that South Korea has been able to successfully make this transition. Continued emphasis on the importance of the nation's culture will make citizens more aware that globalization is a threat to their heritage, which leads them to consciously preserve their heritage. Luckily, we live in a time during which diversity is celebrated and culture is valued. Do you know of other examples where a balance has been achieved? and why do you think it works there?
For example, in Glasgow, the city council is launching a 3-year plan to increase the use of Gaelic. It will be used for signs and official council communications. Officials hope to eventually see Gaelic used in everyday conversation, especially amongst the youth. Glasgow City Councilor Aileen Colleran notes, "Gaelic has a very special place in the history of Glasgow." The Scottish in Glasgow feel that Gaelic is an important part of their identity and want it to become the dominant language, in place of English-the language their historic oppressors, the English, forced onto them. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8605014.stm for more details. Also in the UK, an avid blogger comments that politicians who integrate American phrases into their language should be reproached. He calls it "Americanized lazy talk,” says "What I...object to is Brits who feel that they gain something by adopting American usage," and he even calls the politicians "presenters archly trying to sound like shock jocks." Although Brits and Americans speak the same language, the pronunciation is different and certain phrases are unique to each. The blogger calls for preservation of what he calls the Queen's English. He considers the British English to be superior and more proper than American English as do many other Brits who commented on his blog. One comment reads, "Are we trying to become the fifty-first state?" and yet another commenter writes, "The corruptions hurt my old ears." Humorous yet insightful, these posts show that some Brits feel America's English is tainting their dialect, and they wish to reverse and halt these changes. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7555717/Martha-Kearney-should-stick-to-the-Queens-English.html for more comments.
In Ghana, the Upper West Regional Minister, Mr. Mahmud Khalid, encourages Ghanaians to use local languages instead of English and to ensure that English words don't seep into these local languages and alter their integrity. He argues that,” if...allowed to continue, it would lead to the erosion of aspects of the country's unique culture and thereby deny future generations the opportunity of sharing in the rich cultural heritage of the people." See http://news.peacefmonline.com/social/201004/41349.php.
Some countries, however, such as South Korea, encourage its citizens to learn English and use it in the workplace. South Koreans also maintain a strong sense of national and cultural pride. In Georgia, President Saakashvili is leading what he calls a "linguistic and computer revolution" that will provide XO mini-laptops to children to help with English learning will be mandatory starting in first grade. He believes that teaching the children English will ensure a bright future for the nation and its citizens. See http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22153.
So how is it that these countries can maintain a balance while others cannot? I believe it is because certain countries are more confident that their cultures will be preserved from generation to generation while others are greatly threatened by the presence of English and have already started to see the youth neglect their heritage in favor of English and the pop culture often associated with it.
Locals often fear that English will taint or replace their native language and/or dialect, so they focus on the preservation of culture through language. It's a legitimate and important concern. What makes the world so unique are the differences that exist between foods, traditions, and languages; to lose this cultural diversity would truly be a shame. On the other hand, in a quickly developing world, it is important to have some sort of universal language to ease transactions and increase interactions between nations. English became this language because the British exported it during their imperial days and today, America is a global superpower, thus increasing the use of English on a global scale. Especially for developing countries, learning English eases the transition into the international business market. I see the value in both arguments, but I believe the best solution is a compromise between the two cases. Countries can do both; adopt English as a supplementary language and also preserve their native tongues. English can be taught as a second language but by no means has to replace the native language. We see that South Korea has been able to successfully make this transition. Continued emphasis on the importance of the nation's culture will make citizens more aware that globalization is a threat to their heritage, which leads them to consciously preserve their heritage. Luckily, we live in a time during which diversity is celebrated and culture is valued. Do you know of other examples where a balance has been achieved? and why do you think it works there?
Monday, April 5, 2010
How Language Affects Mindset and Vice Versa
I stumbled across a column written by a college student at the University of Oregon addressing the benefits of studying foreign languages. She insists that the only way to gain a well-rounded impression of a culture is to study its native language. She argues that learning a foreign language provides useful insight that cannot be acquired merely through taking an English-taught class on a specific culture as many students do at Oregon to fulfill a graduation requirement. Elisabeth Bishop writes, "Learning about a non-English speaking culture in English is a bit like watching a 3-D movie without the glasses. You can get the general idea, but you won’t be able to appreciate the subtleties."
These subtleties she speaks of are especially important if one plans to travel to a foreign country or interact with people from different cultural backgrounds. They teach us about what a culture appreciates, how its people value the respect of elders, what is humorous to them, and what is acceptable. For example, idiomatic expressions provide insight into how the natives (when I say natives, I merely mean the native speakers of the language associated with a certain culture) think. I've always found it interesting to see how different languages express the same thing. For example, in English, we say, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse," but in French, we say "J'ai un faim du loup!" which translates to 'I have the hunger of a wolf.' It makes me wonder how and why these expressions, which ultimately mean the same thing, came to be phrased so differently in different languages? Presumably, all idiomatic expressions have historical origins, but I have not been able to find the history of these two sayings; regardless it indicates that different events or habits that originated in France and the UK (or the US depending on when) caused these two phrases, which express the same thing, to have different literal meanings. In the Native American language, Lakota, the translation for the English word "life" is a phrase that translates to "I have come this far." This phrase, in my opinion, is a much deeper description of the journey of life and lends a sense of experience and struggle to the word. I see this as an indication that the Lakota have a deeper and more spiritual perspective on the meaning of life.
Even grammatical rules in a language can reflect values of a culture. For example, unlike in English, in French, there are two different forms of "you." "Vous" is formal (and/or plural) and used with adults or superiors, and the informal "tu" is used with friends, family, and those younger than the speaker. Does this indicate that the French place more importance on respect of elders? I believe that is the case, maybe not to much today, but in the past, when the language was first developing. Languages can also reveal what is important to its speakers. Certain Eskimo languages reportedly have over 100 ways to describe the word snow (although this can also be attributed to the method in which they construct sentences). This specific example has been linked to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which states that language is shaped by a culture's preoccupations, which for Eskimos often involved snow.
Professor Boroditsky conducted a study, published in 1999, examining how Mandarin and English speakers conceive time. Results showed that Mandarin speakers saw time as vertical, and English speakers thought of time in a horizontal plane, while bilingual participants perceptions' varied based on when they learned each language. The conclusion of the study was that language is a powerful tool in shaping abstract and habitual thought, although it does not entirely dictate one's thought patterns. This is yet another example of how language affects how people think which leads me to the conclusion that speakers of languages do have different mindsets, even if only in an abstract sense, and inversely, differences in languages represent different value and belief systems. What do you think? Am I placing too much emphasis on the importance of language?
Sources consulted:
"Why Didn't You Teach Me?" Robert Bennett
"Immerse yourself in language: Learning about other cultures requires more than just sitting in a lecture hall." Elisabeth Bishop. http://www.dailyemerald.com/scene/immerse-yourself-in-language-1.1291900
"Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time" Lera Boroditsky. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCR-458W20N-K&_user=145269&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1282200870&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=d00d73c0fe1f4e9f2066d6acff477d5b
These subtleties she speaks of are especially important if one plans to travel to a foreign country or interact with people from different cultural backgrounds. They teach us about what a culture appreciates, how its people value the respect of elders, what is humorous to them, and what is acceptable. For example, idiomatic expressions provide insight into how the natives (when I say natives, I merely mean the native speakers of the language associated with a certain culture) think. I've always found it interesting to see how different languages express the same thing. For example, in English, we say, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse," but in French, we say "J'ai un faim du loup!" which translates to 'I have the hunger of a wolf.' It makes me wonder how and why these expressions, which ultimately mean the same thing, came to be phrased so differently in different languages? Presumably, all idiomatic expressions have historical origins, but I have not been able to find the history of these two sayings; regardless it indicates that different events or habits that originated in France and the UK (or the US depending on when) caused these two phrases, which express the same thing, to have different literal meanings. In the Native American language, Lakota, the translation for the English word "life" is a phrase that translates to "I have come this far." This phrase, in my opinion, is a much deeper description of the journey of life and lends a sense of experience and struggle to the word. I see this as an indication that the Lakota have a deeper and more spiritual perspective on the meaning of life.
Even grammatical rules in a language can reflect values of a culture. For example, unlike in English, in French, there are two different forms of "you." "Vous" is formal (and/or plural) and used with adults or superiors, and the informal "tu" is used with friends, family, and those younger than the speaker. Does this indicate that the French place more importance on respect of elders? I believe that is the case, maybe not to much today, but in the past, when the language was first developing. Languages can also reveal what is important to its speakers. Certain Eskimo languages reportedly have over 100 ways to describe the word snow (although this can also be attributed to the method in which they construct sentences). This specific example has been linked to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which states that language is shaped by a culture's preoccupations, which for Eskimos often involved snow.
Professor Boroditsky conducted a study, published in 1999, examining how Mandarin and English speakers conceive time. Results showed that Mandarin speakers saw time as vertical, and English speakers thought of time in a horizontal plane, while bilingual participants perceptions' varied based on when they learned each language. The conclusion of the study was that language is a powerful tool in shaping abstract and habitual thought, although it does not entirely dictate one's thought patterns. This is yet another example of how language affects how people think which leads me to the conclusion that speakers of languages do have different mindsets, even if only in an abstract sense, and inversely, differences in languages represent different value and belief systems. What do you think? Am I placing too much emphasis on the importance of language?
Sources consulted:
"Why Didn't You Teach Me?" Robert Bennett
"Immerse yourself in language: Learning about other cultures requires more than just sitting in a lecture hall." Elisabeth Bishop. http://www.dailyemerald.com/scene/immerse-yourself-in-language-1.1291900
"Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time" Lera Boroditsky. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCR-458W20N-K&_user=145269&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1282200870&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=d00d73c0fe1f4e9f2066d6acff477d5b
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Intro
I've always been interested in learning about people that were different than me. Growing up in Arkansas, all my friends were the same and I seemed to stick out; it was never an issue, they treated me equally, but I couldn't help but develop an interest in finding others that were "different." I became obsessed with learning about other cultures and languages. I asked for Rosetta Stone for Christmas when I was 11 (and didn't get it-that stuff if expensive!), but my parents did buy me children's Arabic books and tapes.
create your own visited country map or check our Venice travel guide
Both my parents are Lebanese immigrants, and I grew up hearing French, Arabic, and English at home. My father taught me to speak French when I was younger, and I studied grammar and structure in school for 7 years. I can fully understand Lebanese spoken Arabic, but cannot speak it well. I practice my French and study Arabic every summer in Lebanon. I'll be starting Spanish at Stanford next year.
I spend every summer in Lebanon with friends and family, and I love the country and its people, but I was always bothered by the fact that I didn't fully fit in. My family always called me American, which I was proud of, but I didn't understand why I wasn't included in their exclusive Lebanese categorization. Back home, I was never fully American either. I didn't know the names of classic songs, t.v. shows or movies that my friends watched and listened to and I pronounced certain words incorrectly. It seemed that I didn't fit in anywhere. It's amazing to me that language can play such an important role in the formation of one's identity and sense of belonging.
Over the years, I've noticed several other puzzling aspects of language. Like why can I sometimes think of a way to express myself in French but can't think of the English equivalent? And why can I fully understand Arabic but not form the same phrases myself? Also, are languages reflections of cultures, or do cultures shape languages. I'm interested in more than just the languages themselves but also how they affect people and communities. That's why I decided to take this class. Also, I wanted to be amongst students who shared an interest in languages and cultures. I'm excited to learn from a group of students who come from diverse backgrounds. :)
create your own visited country map or check our Venice travel guide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)