Here is an example of vandalized bilingual road signs in a Flemish town.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)