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.

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

Valley girl - in this bar - The Catherine Tate Show - BBC comedy

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

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

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?

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?

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

For some reason, Google signs my name as Tina. My apologies. My name is indeed Tania.