"How the Languages we Speak Shape the Way We Think" seems to take for granted the answer to the question "DO languages shape the way we think?". From our discussions and the evidence exhibited so far, that would seem to be the case, but not everybody is entirely convinced of that.
Thoughts can clearly be abstract, and when recalling pictures or music people clearly do not analyze the content of the thought in words, but rather re-create the sensory experience in their minds. If asked to describe a picture or a piece of music, one has the ability to take the thought from its abstract sensory medium and turn it into words, which can give a rough approximation of the thought to another person. The other person then, in turn, attempts to recreate the thought in his own head, to varying degrees of success depending on the quality of the description and the receiver's experience with the topic. So is it true that "language is a way for getting a thought from one head into another; it's not a way of having a thought" as Steven Pinker claims?
A quick side-note, the definition of "thought" could well encompass many books, but for the purpose of this post, I'll just go with something from the Oxford English Dictionary, thought is "exercise of the mental faculty; formation and arrangement of ideas in the mind." That, of course, begs the question of what constitutes an "idea," but we'll let that one sit for now.
Pinker offers some evidence for the assertion that language is utterly unnecessary for thought(this comes from the video available in the library in which Pinker is giving a lecture in Britain about The Language Instinct):
1. Other creatures, dogs or chimps for example, certainly appear to have thoughts in the absence of language. The same goes for babies early in development: they can think, remember, make associations, experience sensations and communicate their inner state without the use of any formal language.
2. While they are limited in number, there are deaf adults who never learned a formal sign language and are apparently "without language." They also clearly are capable of thoughts and ideas and creativity. They can do things like repair bike locks which not only shows technical skill, but suggests that they know of the function of a bike lock: two pieces of metal that should stick together sometimes and come apart at others depending on who is accessing it.
3. Even for those who have language, the process from thought to speech is often a treacherous one. What we say is often different from what we mean; further, it's very difficult to express thoughts in words. (This just got me thinking, it often seems, at least for myself, that I have an understanding of something, or I have some complex idea in my head that doesn't lend itself to explanation. However, when forced to transmit this idea from myself to another person and I endeavor to put the thought/idea into words, it solidifies my understanding of it, storing it more effectively in memory. Perhaps it is more advanced thoughts, more accessible and communicable thoughts that rely on language while baser or more abstract thoughts/ideas exist at a prelingual level.)
4. Our thoughts are very unambiguous (at least to ourselves) while language is highly ambiguous as seen by our unsuccessful attempts to teach computers to speak. (Think back to the alternative meanings that the computer gave to "Time flies like an arrow") Language's ambiguity is also shown by the endless lists of ambiguous, comical headlines
. The authors of these headlines weren't being ambiguous on purpose, they had a very clear idea in their head, but when that idea is translated into language, ambiguity arises.
5. Language is very sketchy. There are not enough words for full lines of reasoning. The husband in the " 'I'm leaving you.' 'Who is he?' " sketch had a huge series of thoughts in one instance between what his wife said and what he said. He could elaborate them into words if need be, but what happened in his head was not based in language, it was a chain of nonverbal reasoning.
The only conclusion I can really draw from this limited discussion is that there are clearly "thoughts" that one can have without language. Is the title of our seminar inaccurate? I really don't think so. It is also just as clear that plenty of thoughts happen WITH the help of language, and it might even be that they are the most useful, solid, fully-understood thoughts that we have which are based in language. As mentioned, one (or a few) could go on for ages discussing what constitutes real "thoughts" anyway.
My main source for all this was the video in the library (source info in the post below), but an excellent source for information on psycholinguistics (or many other cognitive studies) is here.
Another language acquisition link. This is another youtube video; they start discussing language around 22:00 if you're interested. It's Steven Pinker and Gene Searchinger, author of "The Human Language" speaking on some show from what appears to be the 1980's. In it, Pinker says, "I believe we think in images, we think in abstract propositions... I believe that the thoughts underlying language are not themselves words, but that we use words as the primary means from getting ideas from one head to another."
A random article. Do video games that "train" your brain work? Looks like there's some minimal evidence:
Video game brain training works?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Into the scientific realm
Now that our introsem has taken a turn towards the formally articulated theories of language with relation to acquisition, innateness, its effects on thought, and thoughts effects on it, I'm finding it necessary to reevaluate my own beliefs about this topic. Lera Boroditsky and Steven Pinker both seem very intelligent and articulate, and I respect both of them intellectually, but they have different beliefs on some of these aspects of language. I need to figure out how to square their ideas with my own beliefs. In order to do so, I've just begun to do some background research. So if anybody (especially Steve) wants to point me in the right direction for some background reading on the subject of language acquisition and innateness, please comment away, or email me at stevenmcrane@gmail.com.
For this post, most of my information comes from this link:
All about the innateness of language
Are there genetically-specified aspects of language, or aren't there? Pinker and Chomsky would say there are, but our own esteemed professor would argue otherwise, claiming (I think) that what is innate is an astounding ability to learn, which can just as well be applied to language as to most anything else. Lera's argument does seem to be simpler, more straightforward, more intuitive. Occam's razor would lead us to believe that this is correct, as would plenty of other evidence I'm sure (which I hope to dig up later.)
However, I'm sure Chomsky and Pinker would have considered this, yet they seem to have found the evidence that there IS something innate about language more compelling than the evidence otherwise. A simplified line of reasoning from the Chomskian camp goes as follows:
1. Language is incredibly, incredibly complex.
2. Children learning language are exposed to certain aspects of it from which they can learn.
3. In the end, the amount of incredibly complex language that a child knows far superceedes the amount he or she has been exposed to.
Essentially this argues that at some given point, children will know more language than they have ever been exposed to, more than they could have ever learned through ordinary learning mechanisms. (This is a type of "poverty of the stimulus" argument, by the way).
Other support (sorry, not specific studies yet) for the innateness theory:
1. Different languages across the globe which are unrelated historically share a number of similarities without any apparent cause.
2. Children learn language so quickly and so well that they would be dubbed prodigies were they learning anything besides language. Basically, they claim children learn language without any explicit instruction while many other things (reading, writing, math, music) take years of explicit instruction which often ends up failing in the end.
These lines of reasoning also seems quite convincing, with the proper proof to back them up, of course. I'm sure our professor has well-reasoned responses to all of these arguments, and I'm eager to hear them. Clearly, the debate on the innateness of language must be over the evidence itself, the individual studies and scenarios. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to seek out all those sources now, but maybe for the next post... Perhaps a preview:
"Language is a way for getting a thought from one head into another; it's not a way of having a thought." -- Steven Pinker
Future posts might focus on one or some of the following, but they seemed like good links to share right now in the first place:
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/bickerton.html
All about creoles and their facets.
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/clark.html
All about psycholinguistics, the main focus of our introsem.
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/gleitman.html
All about language acquisition.
http://content.apa.org/journals/sjp/66/2/129a
Review of a book, From molecules to metaphor. A neural theory of language.
Hey look! Youtube! No reading!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU
Steven Pinker at Google talking about The Stuff of Thought.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LjQM8PzCEY0
Steven Pinker before The Stuff of Thought came out.
There's also a recorded talk Steven Pinker gave in England on video cassette in the library that explains many of the concepts from The Language Instinct (call no: ZVC 14476, be sure to play it in the PAL tape player)
For this post, most of my information comes from this link:
All about the innateness of language
Are there genetically-specified aspects of language, or aren't there? Pinker and Chomsky would say there are, but our own esteemed professor would argue otherwise, claiming (I think) that what is innate is an astounding ability to learn, which can just as well be applied to language as to most anything else. Lera's argument does seem to be simpler, more straightforward, more intuitive. Occam's razor would lead us to believe that this is correct, as would plenty of other evidence I'm sure (which I hope to dig up later.)
However, I'm sure Chomsky and Pinker would have considered this, yet they seem to have found the evidence that there IS something innate about language more compelling than the evidence otherwise. A simplified line of reasoning from the Chomskian camp goes as follows:
1. Language is incredibly, incredibly complex.
2. Children learning language are exposed to certain aspects of it from which they can learn.
3. In the end, the amount of incredibly complex language that a child knows far superceedes the amount he or she has been exposed to.
Essentially this argues that at some given point, children will know more language than they have ever been exposed to, more than they could have ever learned through ordinary learning mechanisms. (This is a type of "poverty of the stimulus" argument, by the way).
Other support (sorry, not specific studies yet) for the innateness theory:
1. Different languages across the globe which are unrelated historically share a number of similarities without any apparent cause.
2. Children learn language so quickly and so well that they would be dubbed prodigies were they learning anything besides language. Basically, they claim children learn language without any explicit instruction while many other things (reading, writing, math, music) take years of explicit instruction which often ends up failing in the end.
These lines of reasoning also seems quite convincing, with the proper proof to back them up, of course. I'm sure our professor has well-reasoned responses to all of these arguments, and I'm eager to hear them. Clearly, the debate on the innateness of language must be over the evidence itself, the individual studies and scenarios. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to seek out all those sources now, but maybe for the next post... Perhaps a preview:
"Language is a way for getting a thought from one head into another; it's not a way of having a thought." -- Steven Pinker
Future posts might focus on one or some of the following, but they seemed like good links to share right now in the first place:
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/bickerton.html
All about creoles and their facets.
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/clark.html
All about psycholinguistics, the main focus of our introsem.
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/gleitman.html
All about language acquisition.
http://content.apa.org/journals/sjp/66/2/129a
Review of a book, From molecules to metaphor. A neural theory of language.
Hey look! Youtube! No reading!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU
Steven Pinker at Google talking about The Stuff of Thought.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LjQM8PzCEY0
Steven Pinker before The Stuff of Thought came out.
There's also a recorded talk Steven Pinker gave in England on video cassette in the library that explains many of the concepts from The Language Instinct (call no: ZVC 14476, be sure to play it in the PAL tape player)
Monday, October 22, 2007
Language as "visual" art?
Paintings, photography, sculpture -- these are what most people think of when they think of art. And if asked to consider how words might be used as art, they think of novels, poems, maybe even clever advertisements. But simple, virtually unformatted phrases or sentences? Language, words, specifically printed words as art? I had trouble grasping what this artist might be after, but a quote from the article,"Though Mr. Weiner considers himself a sculptor, he says that imposing his specific personal vision for a work upon a viewer is akin to 'aesthetic fascism.' " opened my eyes to a deeper meaning behind this unorthodox display. I think the artist, Lawrence Weiner, has hit on something more than just "new and different" as so many artistic breakthroughs are: it actually makes sense.
Normally I tend to dismiss bizarre new art forms as positively ridiculous, but this one smacks of something a bit deeper. The medium of words. There's so much potential! Far more than a spoon-fed image, words create an abstract concept, picture, or idea in somebody's mind far more beautiful and elaborate, more multi-faceted and complex than anything static and of substance in the physical world. Words give rise to different thoughts from person to person, and even different thoughts in the same person, depending on his mood when viewing this unorthodox "art." Instead of imposing his own mandates on his viewers, Lawrence Weiner is truly leaving the beauty of his work to the mental faculties of his viewers, or more accurately, thinkers.
Because we use language every day, almost every second in our thoughts, Weiner's work is something that becomes constant in life. As he puts it, "If it's successful, the work really becomes part of people's lives," because the effort one puts into appreciating Weiner's work is a series of thoughts based on words, and if those very words are brought up in the course of daily thought or communication, it's a direct link to that former process.
One extra strange, slightly perplexing link you probably didn't see. I wonder about the scientific evidence behind perceiving this naked-woman silhouette's spin direction and left and right brainedness:
Spinning Naked Woman Silhouette.
This one's rather interesting; a novel approach to foreign language learning. It seems like a fatal flaw, however, is that adults can't learn language as easily or in the same way as young children, whom they constantly reference.
Paintings, photography, sculpture -- these are what most people think of when they think of art. And if asked to consider how words might be used as art, they think of novels, poems, maybe even clever advertisements. But simple, virtually unformatted phrases or sentences? Language, words, specifically printed words as art? I had trouble grasping what this artist might be after, but a quote from the article,"Though Mr. Weiner considers himself a sculptor, he says that imposing his specific personal vision for a work upon a viewer is akin to 'aesthetic fascism.' " opened my eyes to a deeper meaning behind this unorthodox display. I think the artist, Lawrence Weiner, has hit on something more than just "new and different" as so many artistic breakthroughs are: it actually makes sense.
Normally I tend to dismiss bizarre new art forms as positively ridiculous, but this one smacks of something a bit deeper. The medium of words. There's so much potential! Far more than a spoon-fed image, words create an abstract concept, picture, or idea in somebody's mind far more beautiful and elaborate, more multi-faceted and complex than anything static and of substance in the physical world. Words give rise to different thoughts from person to person, and even different thoughts in the same person, depending on his mood when viewing this unorthodox "art." Instead of imposing his own mandates on his viewers, Lawrence Weiner is truly leaving the beauty of his work to the mental faculties of his viewers, or more accurately, thinkers.
Because we use language every day, almost every second in our thoughts, Weiner's work is something that becomes constant in life. As he puts it, "If it's successful, the work really becomes part of people's lives," because the effort one puts into appreciating Weiner's work is a series of thoughts based on words, and if those very words are brought up in the course of daily thought or communication, it's a direct link to that former process.
One extra strange, slightly perplexing link you probably didn't see. I wonder about the scientific evidence behind perceiving this naked-woman silhouette's spin direction and left and right brainedness:
Spinning Naked Woman Silhouette.
This one's rather interesting; a novel approach to foreign language learning. It seems like a fatal flaw, however, is that adults can't learn language as easily or in the same way as young children, whom they constantly reference.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Censorship... does it even work?
Language problems: Oh sheesh
This link represents an interesting intersection between my Ihum class on sex, pleasure, and culture; and this class on Language and Society. That intersection focuses on the question of censorship and freedom of expression between Europe and America. In Ihum the thesis has been put forward that America is a much more reserved culture that shuns explicit content from its daily life relative to Europe which has nude beaches, naked statues everywhere, and what would be considered explicit content on regular cable television. This brief article about a woman who was screaming profanities while her toilet overflowed got me thinking about whether what was true in Ihum would be true for language too. Does America curtail language in ways other countries don't? My immediate reaction would be to note that there are many comparisons one could make that emphasize the freedom of expression in America, and do so with good reason. Freedom of speech, expression, and the press, while subjected to many tests over the course of American history, are still central concepts in American ideology and are essentially written into the central ideological document, The Constitution.
However, are there other ways that the United States curtails the use of language, or of certain language, and what really is the intention behind that curtailment? Are we subjected to political manipulation of language in order to keep us, the American public, deluded as in George Orwell's Animal Farm? Are there language-related trends that we don't consciously create, but exist nonetheless like condensation symbols from Murray Edelman's Symbolic Uses of Politics. Are there vast government conspiracies to control the way we think and behave? As to the last question, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I'd heard about it, but I can't really be sure one way or the other...
This Article from CNN makes it clear that, at least relative to China, the US is a marketplace very open to ideas. In fact, we're so open about our ideas, and so firm in our belief that that's how things should be that we're trying to circumvent the Chinese government to provide the Chinese people with access to forbidden websites.
Not incredibly surprisingly, we didn't make the list of the ten most censored countries, (North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Eritrea, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria, and Belarus). However, in the same article , Rue Freeman argues that the American obsession with "balance," or as he puts it "the truth must be watered down by equal space afforded the lies," then his conclusion that "we are living in a country where censorship is rife and growing" is certainly arguable.
But more applicably, what are the ramifications of language censorship on thought? If there are no words, as in 1984 by George Orwell, for negative things, for dissent, the question arises whether or not you block out those feelings or just the ability to express those feelings, and is there much of a difference? I don't believe it would block out feelings of dissent and rebellion. Think about it, one hears all the time about the inability to express a feeling or emotion in words, whether it be love or hatred that is "beyond words." So in this hypothetical society, negative feelings would still exist, but would the government have succeeded in ridding themselves of rebellion forever? I think they wouldn't. All around the world people have evolved thousands of different languages, and those languages are in constant flux and change. No matter how heroic the government's efforts, I don't think they could ever entirely squash human communication about any given topic unless every citizen were subject to solitary confinement. As long as two humans with working cognitive and sensory faculties are together, they will find a way to communicate about anything.
This link represents an interesting intersection between my Ihum class on sex, pleasure, and culture; and this class on Language and Society. That intersection focuses on the question of censorship and freedom of expression between Europe and America. In Ihum the thesis has been put forward that America is a much more reserved culture that shuns explicit content from its daily life relative to Europe which has nude beaches, naked statues everywhere, and what would be considered explicit content on regular cable television. This brief article about a woman who was screaming profanities while her toilet overflowed got me thinking about whether what was true in Ihum would be true for language too. Does America curtail language in ways other countries don't? My immediate reaction would be to note that there are many comparisons one could make that emphasize the freedom of expression in America, and do so with good reason. Freedom of speech, expression, and the press, while subjected to many tests over the course of American history, are still central concepts in American ideology and are essentially written into the central ideological document, The Constitution.
However, are there other ways that the United States curtails the use of language, or of certain language, and what really is the intention behind that curtailment? Are we subjected to political manipulation of language in order to keep us, the American public, deluded as in George Orwell's Animal Farm? Are there language-related trends that we don't consciously create, but exist nonetheless like condensation symbols from Murray Edelman's Symbolic Uses of Politics. Are there vast government conspiracies to control the way we think and behave? As to the last question, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I'd heard about it, but I can't really be sure one way or the other...
This Article from CNN makes it clear that, at least relative to China, the US is a marketplace very open to ideas. In fact, we're so open about our ideas, and so firm in our belief that that's how things should be that we're trying to circumvent the Chinese government to provide the Chinese people with access to forbidden websites.
Not incredibly surprisingly, we didn't make the list of the ten most censored countries, (North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Eritrea, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria, and Belarus). However, in the same article , Rue Freeman argues that the American obsession with "balance," or as he puts it "the truth must be watered down by equal space afforded the lies," then his conclusion that "we are living in a country where censorship is rife and growing" is certainly arguable.
But more applicably, what are the ramifications of language censorship on thought? If there are no words, as in 1984 by George Orwell, for negative things, for dissent, the question arises whether or not you block out those feelings or just the ability to express those feelings, and is there much of a difference? I don't believe it would block out feelings of dissent and rebellion. Think about it, one hears all the time about the inability to express a feeling or emotion in words, whether it be love or hatred that is "beyond words." So in this hypothetical society, negative feelings would still exist, but would the government have succeeded in ridding themselves of rebellion forever? I think they wouldn't. All around the world people have evolved thousands of different languages, and those languages are in constant flux and change. No matter how heroic the government's efforts, I don't think they could ever entirely squash human communication about any given topic unless every citizen were subject to solitary confinement. As long as two humans with working cognitive and sensory faculties are together, they will find a way to communicate about anything.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
internet, leaving children behind, a new Pinker book!
Web domains get language lesson
So what happens when something like the internet is invented in one country under one language and, by necessity, spreads to the rest of the world with all its varied languages? I think that's one of the common themes I noted in my last post: the globalization of the internet and the necessary language-related adaptations. Through this article we see that the rest of the world is finally asking that it not have to use the traditional Roman alphabet for its .com and .edu and .net. Seems like it's about time.
Language X helps students learn reading and writing
Ah, No Child Left Behind. It's always been important to be good at reading and writing, and for some reason math snuck in there too somewhere in the decades of the space race. With NCLB, more schools are under more and more pressure every year. It's interesting to be in a collegiate atmosphere; people really don't seem to care that much about it anymore, but that's beside the point. Now schools are employing special programs and paying for all these extra resources to try to get more kids to graduate in order to keep their minimal funding in the first place. It strikes me as kind of backwards. I suppose it is a good thing to have a high graduation rate and good test scores, but I know I'm not alone in wondering if NCLB is really the best way to go about it.
Have TV shows gone too far with raunchy language?
Ah, censorship. It's curious how over even just a few decades words like "hell" and "darn" can go from forbidden to commonplace on primetime television. By the way, I'm not sure what the Price is Right video is illustrating; I wouldn't bother with it if you visit the site.
The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature by Steven Pinker
If ever there were a book written specifically for this class... So it looks like Steven Pinker has come out with yet another long, yet insightful book into the workings of the human mind, specifically through the vehicle of language. I think I'll buy it and hopefully have read some of it by the end of this quarter to be able to discuss it further! This other article seems to take his evolutionary perspective to the extreme, possibly as sensationalist writing to attract a larger audience. It doesn't really seem that anybody educated in this field REALLY thinks that "everything from road rage to adultery can be explained by genes." Nor do I suspect Steven Pinker knows what's going on inside my head to any scary degree.
So what happens when something like the internet is invented in one country under one language and, by necessity, spreads to the rest of the world with all its varied languages? I think that's one of the common themes I noted in my last post: the globalization of the internet and the necessary language-related adaptations. Through this article we see that the rest of the world is finally asking that it not have to use the traditional Roman alphabet for its .com and .edu and .net. Seems like it's about time.
Language X helps students learn reading and writing
Ah, No Child Left Behind. It's always been important to be good at reading and writing, and for some reason math snuck in there too somewhere in the decades of the space race. With NCLB, more schools are under more and more pressure every year. It's interesting to be in a collegiate atmosphere; people really don't seem to care that much about it anymore, but that's beside the point. Now schools are employing special programs and paying for all these extra resources to try to get more kids to graduate in order to keep their minimal funding in the first place. It strikes me as kind of backwards. I suppose it is a good thing to have a high graduation rate and good test scores, but I know I'm not alone in wondering if NCLB is really the best way to go about it.
Have TV shows gone too far with raunchy language?
Ah, censorship. It's curious how over even just a few decades words like "hell" and "darn" can go from forbidden to commonplace on primetime television. By the way, I'm not sure what the Price is Right video is illustrating; I wouldn't bother with it if you visit the site.
The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature by Steven Pinker
If ever there were a book written specifically for this class... So it looks like Steven Pinker has come out with yet another long, yet insightful book into the workings of the human mind, specifically through the vehicle of language. I think I'll buy it and hopefully have read some of it by the end of this quarter to be able to discuss it further! This other article seems to take his evolutionary perspective to the extreme, possibly as sensationalist writing to attract a larger audience. It doesn't really seem that anybody educated in this field REALLY thinks that "everything from road rage to adultery can be explained by genes." Nor do I suspect Steven Pinker knows what's going on inside my head to any scary degree.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Emergencies and Beauty in Language
Language barriers in emergencies
Emergency situations. If ever one really threatens his livelihood by not learning the language of the area he's in, this would be it. As the article says, "It is frustrating to have someone that is in dire need of help, but you have to have specific information to move on to the next step of medical treatment," For the most part, I generally think that an immigrant may chose to learn or not to learn the language of his new home, knowing that he will miss certain opportunities for it, but when it comes to emergency situations, a language barrier can be a deadly thing. Personally, I'm planning on becoming a doctor and I plan to maintain Spanish fluency throughout that whole process, hopefully allowing me to help those who I might not be able to otherwise.
If one took our class as a microcosm of language variety and fluency, it is unfortunate that the outlook for multilingualism would be disproportionately high compared to the general population of America. We are becoming a global society in many ways, and there is no substitute for multilingualism on a personal level. It'll get a citizen more jobs, more friends, and allow him more freedom and intillectual stimulation on a global basis.
Now for something a little more beautiful...
Italian: The Language That Sings
Italian--the language of music. This NPR commentary makes clear the reason why Italian is ALWAYS used as the language of music. It's on the sheet music, it's what conductors use to communicate to their orchestra. It's a lyrical language and the Italian musicians were often the finest in Europe, so perhaps it's not just the beauty of the language that makes it the lingua franca of music. But what makes it beautiful? What makes it lyrical? What linguistic traits give it this beauty? If there were an Italian speaker in the class (sorry, I don't remember), he or she would probably be most qualified to analyze the melodiousness of the language, but I do have some small experience with it.
This is all conjecture, but it seems to me that Italian uses a pleasant juxtaposition of hard consonants and long, soft vowels. It also often compacts many vowel sounds into one syllable (a diphthong?) in words such as ciabatta or piano. The "t" sound also comes across fairly hard in most words, for example, molto or forte. Then again, maybe it just takes a native Italian speaker to make the beauty come out.
AT&T
Just a quick note on this one, it caught my eye because when I signed up for a cell phone I actually went through and read all the horrible terms of service and whatnot, and commented on this exact example of how absurd and confusing it seemed. It looks like I'm not the only one, and AT&T actually changed some of their agreement to be "more clear." Horray.
Emergency situations. If ever one really threatens his livelihood by not learning the language of the area he's in, this would be it. As the article says, "It is frustrating to have someone that is in dire need of help, but you have to have specific information to move on to the next step of medical treatment," For the most part, I generally think that an immigrant may chose to learn or not to learn the language of his new home, knowing that he will miss certain opportunities for it, but when it comes to emergency situations, a language barrier can be a deadly thing. Personally, I'm planning on becoming a doctor and I plan to maintain Spanish fluency throughout that whole process, hopefully allowing me to help those who I might not be able to otherwise.
If one took our class as a microcosm of language variety and fluency, it is unfortunate that the outlook for multilingualism would be disproportionately high compared to the general population of America. We are becoming a global society in many ways, and there is no substitute for multilingualism on a personal level. It'll get a citizen more jobs, more friends, and allow him more freedom and intillectual stimulation on a global basis.
Now for something a little more beautiful...
Italian: The Language That Sings
Italian--the language of music. This NPR commentary makes clear the reason why Italian is ALWAYS used as the language of music. It's on the sheet music, it's what conductors use to communicate to their orchestra. It's a lyrical language and the Italian musicians were often the finest in Europe, so perhaps it's not just the beauty of the language that makes it the lingua franca of music. But what makes it beautiful? What makes it lyrical? What linguistic traits give it this beauty? If there were an Italian speaker in the class (sorry, I don't remember), he or she would probably be most qualified to analyze the melodiousness of the language, but I do have some small experience with it.
This is all conjecture, but it seems to me that Italian uses a pleasant juxtaposition of hard consonants and long, soft vowels. It also often compacts many vowel sounds into one syllable (a diphthong?) in words such as ciabatta or piano. The "t" sound also comes across fairly hard in most words, for example, molto or forte. Then again, maybe it just takes a native Italian speaker to make the beauty come out.
AT&T
Just a quick note on this one, it caught my eye because when I signed up for a cell phone I actually went through and read all the horrible terms of service and whatnot, and commented on this exact example of how absurd and confusing it seemed. It looks like I'm not the only one, and AT&T actually changed some of their agreement to be "more clear." Horray.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Pros and Cons of Language Learning
Language immersion schools hiring some English-only teachers
I think it's a good sign that the number of language immersion schools for English-speaking Americans have gone from fewer than fifty to nearly three hundred. It's good evidence that we're becoming more worldly and conscious of the benefits of learning foreign languages. The world is becoming more and more connected and no matter how efficient the translators (electronic or human), there is no replacement for fluency in a foreign language if one wants to have a conversation with somebody or read literature or travel in the country.
I've enjoyed the class discussions on the topic; and what I glean from them is that nobody really should be forced to learn any language as a prerequisite to geographical movement, but that the individual should be fully aware of the opportunities he may lose if he chose not to learn a given language. I tend to agree with this generalization, though I'm sure specific circumstances might prove otherwise.
I think it's also important to note the opposite, the situation of the permanent institutions adapting to an immigration of a foreign-language-speaking populace. By the simple process of competition for limited resources, if one fast food chain decides to employ bilingual cashiers while others feel that this new population "should learn the language," the latter businesses will flounder while the former will flourish. So really language learning goes both ways, and people on both sides of the language barrier have things to gain by adapting to the new situation.
Reading my twelfth batch of language-related news articles, I'm beginning to see trends and categories of the topics addressed. Some articles focus on one particular line of text (referring to it as "language") in a bill or from a speech and the reactions that people have had to that text. Others focus on language learning and instruction, often regarding public schools or public policy and how it should or shouldn't react to language. A third group focuses on immigration and the language issues that that entails, which ties back in to earlier paragraphs of this very post.
I hope in class that we might be able to learn specifically about some neural processes regarding language, and I really enjoy the examples of language shaping thoughts (i.e. the absence or abundance of certain words or concepts in a language and the consequences, good or bad, for the speakers of that language).
I think it's a good sign that the number of language immersion schools for English-speaking Americans have gone from fewer than fifty to nearly three hundred. It's good evidence that we're becoming more worldly and conscious of the benefits of learning foreign languages. The world is becoming more and more connected and no matter how efficient the translators (electronic or human), there is no replacement for fluency in a foreign language if one wants to have a conversation with somebody or read literature or travel in the country.
I've enjoyed the class discussions on the topic; and what I glean from them is that nobody really should be forced to learn any language as a prerequisite to geographical movement, but that the individual should be fully aware of the opportunities he may lose if he chose not to learn a given language. I tend to agree with this generalization, though I'm sure specific circumstances might prove otherwise.
I think it's also important to note the opposite, the situation of the permanent institutions adapting to an immigration of a foreign-language-speaking populace. By the simple process of competition for limited resources, if one fast food chain decides to employ bilingual cashiers while others feel that this new population "should learn the language," the latter businesses will flounder while the former will flourish. So really language learning goes both ways, and people on both sides of the language barrier have things to gain by adapting to the new situation.
Reading my twelfth batch of language-related news articles, I'm beginning to see trends and categories of the topics addressed. Some articles focus on one particular line of text (referring to it as "language") in a bill or from a speech and the reactions that people have had to that text. Others focus on language learning and instruction, often regarding public schools or public policy and how it should or shouldn't react to language. A third group focuses on immigration and the language issues that that entails, which ties back in to earlier paragraphs of this very post.
I hope in class that we might be able to learn specifically about some neural processes regarding language, and I really enjoy the examples of language shaping thoughts (i.e. the absence or abundance of certain words or concepts in a language and the consequences, good or bad, for the speakers of that language).
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Battle of Ages on the Language Front
What Language Barrier?
Women talk too much. Men and women deal with language differently. This difference is inherent and genetic and there's nothing to be done about it. Men and women will forever be at an impasse of communication because they interpret language differently. Are any of these popular myths true?
Deborah Cameron of Oxford has written a book about the differences (or more accurately, lack thereof) between male and female language use. She discusses the shift in thought and approach to gender differences in language from taboo to common knowledge. However, she challenges this "common knowledge" as a myth, a common misconception to a certain degree. She calls it the "myth of Mars and Venus." To summarize the stereotypes she's talking about, women excel at verbal communication and empathy, and have better language skills overall. Alternatively, men deal better with spacial concepts and are a gender of actions rather than words, and have a firmer grasp of complex systems.
It is often thought that women talk more (possibly too much), but upon closer inspection Deborah Cameron found that the opposite may indeed be true, but the matter of "who talks more" is really a matter of circumstance instead of an overarching gender difference that's ingrained from birth.
Are these stereotypes self-propegating? As Cameron puts it,"Psychologists have found in experimental studies that when interpreting situations people typically pay most attention to things that match their expectations, and often fail to register counter-examples." So if a study participant is asked to recall all the instances of the loquacity of women, they'll more readily classify women as more talkative and negate the experiences where men have been the more talkative sex.
Do these stereotypes have some basis in reality? As Cameron mentions, it has been shown that the person who talks more in a conversation is generally the person who has a higher rank, or is a greater authority on the topic at hand. So women might indeed talk more if the topic of conversation is pregnancy, for example.
To the questions at the beginning of this post, it seems absurd to try to make such broad classifications. For every woman exemplifying some stereotype of language usage, there are also men who share the same characteristics. Language, it turns out, is not a hugely significant sex difference, especially compared to some of the other sex differences which have indeed been proven quite thoroughly (like throwing ability, for example).
This is an exciting topic within language study, and I think it's important to keep an open mind about it in order to keep the discussion moving and uninhibited. It's a great opportunity to be in a stage in history where people are uncertain about such things, as opposed to the fifties where stereotypes were the rule, or slightly earlier in history when saying that there were ANY significant differences between men and women were taboo.
Women talk too much. Men and women deal with language differently. This difference is inherent and genetic and there's nothing to be done about it. Men and women will forever be at an impasse of communication because they interpret language differently. Are any of these popular myths true?
Deborah Cameron of Oxford has written a book about the differences (or more accurately, lack thereof) between male and female language use. She discusses the shift in thought and approach to gender differences in language from taboo to common knowledge. However, she challenges this "common knowledge" as a myth, a common misconception to a certain degree. She calls it the "myth of Mars and Venus." To summarize the stereotypes she's talking about, women excel at verbal communication and empathy, and have better language skills overall. Alternatively, men deal better with spacial concepts and are a gender of actions rather than words, and have a firmer grasp of complex systems.
It is often thought that women talk more (possibly too much), but upon closer inspection Deborah Cameron found that the opposite may indeed be true, but the matter of "who talks more" is really a matter of circumstance instead of an overarching gender difference that's ingrained from birth.
Are these stereotypes self-propegating? As Cameron puts it,"Psychologists have found in experimental studies that when interpreting situations people typically pay most attention to things that match their expectations, and often fail to register counter-examples." So if a study participant is asked to recall all the instances of the loquacity of women, they'll more readily classify women as more talkative and negate the experiences where men have been the more talkative sex.
Do these stereotypes have some basis in reality? As Cameron mentions, it has been shown that the person who talks more in a conversation is generally the person who has a higher rank, or is a greater authority on the topic at hand. So women might indeed talk more if the topic of conversation is pregnancy, for example.
To the questions at the beginning of this post, it seems absurd to try to make such broad classifications. For every woman exemplifying some stereotype of language usage, there are also men who share the same characteristics. Language, it turns out, is not a hugely significant sex difference, especially compared to some of the other sex differences which have indeed been proven quite thoroughly (like throwing ability, for example).
This is an exciting topic within language study, and I think it's important to keep an open mind about it in order to keep the discussion moving and uninhibited. It's a great opportunity to be in a stage in history where people are uncertain about such things, as opposed to the fifties where stereotypes were the rule, or slightly earlier in history when saying that there were ANY significant differences between men and women were taboo.
Monday, October 1, 2007
body language, and many other interesting links
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709250011?f=h_topic
This article got me started on a long path of exploration lasting the better part of the last hour. I also liked it because it had a convenient video to accompany it. It's from a segment of The O'Riley Factor with a body language expert analyzing Hillary Clinton's interview. It led me to a many questions: what evolutionary forces have given rise to "body language" or "kinesics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesics)? What are the good and bad implications of the fact that most all of us consciously AND unconsciously display things about our states of mind? And more practically, what are some of the body language cues that I might be able to pick up on and what do they mean?
An interesting paper (http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/awconlang.html) gave a quick answer to the first question. Dr. Charlton states that it was our ape ancestors who first communicated largely through facial expressions and gestures, so perhaps our body language is a reminant of simpler times before complex language. (Also, something I randomly picked up from his paper was the uniqueness of human language in its displacement abilities.)
The second and third questions blended together a bit as I perused wikipedia articles on the subject of nonverbal communication, and checked one of the original sources cited (http://www.gcastrategies.com/books_articles/article_06_11.php), an interesting article aimed at some sort of governmental communicator it seems. I think there's a lot to be said for nonverbal communication and maybe I'd take a class on it in the future. It seems it would give one an edge on anybody who isn't trained in such matters.
A couple tidbits from the most recently cited article:
"Body language is a product of both genetic and environmental influences. Blind children will smile and laugh even though they have never seen a smile."
This seems to be the typical answer to questions of nature vs. nurture within psychology; I suppose it only follows reason that it would apply here as well.
"the idea of mirroring body language to put people at ease is commonly used in interviews. It sets the person being interviewed at ease. Mirroring the body language of someone else indicates that they are understood."
This is simply an example of one type of body language, what it expresses, and how it might be applied. I find these things very interesting, but I understand there must be some limits to what one can infer from nonverbal communication alone.
All this talk of body language begs the question of what email, im, and blogs are all doing to human communication, and the rise of : ) : ( ; ) and ~~^~<@ (a rose)... But that's something entirely different.
This link (same as a previous one) discusses some specific body language communications and what they imply:
http://www.gcastrategies.com/books_articles/article_06_11.php
A few other links I don't have time to blog fully about, yet still found interesting follow
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php
Language: Translating the lingo of adultaescence.
This one was particularly interesting seeing as I would qualify as one of these people, propagating this alternative vocabulary, yet there are still some of these expressions that I'm not familiar with. Why not? How am I different from "my generation" which is inventing these things. Perhaps some discussion in class might be in order...
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/irish-language-glue-for-our-new-nation-1092836.html
Language as a political tool to unify the people of Ireland.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/25/stories/2007092550830200.htm
The measure of how well a language will do these days is how adaptable it is to technology.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2189820,00.html
After reading the Language Instinct and learning how incredibly sponge-like children are in their ability to learn language, it's definitely a very indicative sign of abuse if your children can't even speak beyond a baby's level (at least in the absence of learning deficiencies.) Also, an interesting line: "when they were offered McDonald's food by social workers, they did not know what it was" It's notable that McDonald's food is the measure of being part of society.
http://www.startribune.com/west/story/1440921.html
The changing face of education, especially how languages are taught. Upsides and downsides of computers as language teachers?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/25/entertainment/e122915D48.DTL
Shakespeare is absolutely filthy, and we can't appreciate it!
Finally, let me say that it's very enjoyable to have a homework assignment that's open-ended, educational (not necessarily simple practice), and very engaging.
This article got me started on a long path of exploration lasting the better part of the last hour. I also liked it because it had a convenient video to accompany it. It's from a segment of The O'Riley Factor with a body language expert analyzing Hillary Clinton's interview. It led me to a many questions: what evolutionary forces have given rise to "body language" or "kinesics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesics)? What are the good and bad implications of the fact that most all of us consciously AND unconsciously display things about our states of mind? And more practically, what are some of the body language cues that I might be able to pick up on and what do they mean?
An interesting paper (http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/awconlang.html) gave a quick answer to the first question. Dr. Charlton states that it was our ape ancestors who first communicated largely through facial expressions and gestures, so perhaps our body language is a reminant of simpler times before complex language. (Also, something I randomly picked up from his paper was the uniqueness of human language in its displacement abilities.)
The second and third questions blended together a bit as I perused wikipedia articles on the subject of nonverbal communication, and checked one of the original sources cited (http://www.gcastrategies.com/books_articles/article_06_11.php), an interesting article aimed at some sort of governmental communicator it seems. I think there's a lot to be said for nonverbal communication and maybe I'd take a class on it in the future. It seems it would give one an edge on anybody who isn't trained in such matters.
A couple tidbits from the most recently cited article:
"Body language is a product of both genetic and environmental influences. Blind children will smile and laugh even though they have never seen a smile."
This seems to be the typical answer to questions of nature vs. nurture within psychology; I suppose it only follows reason that it would apply here as well.
"the idea of mirroring body language to put people at ease is commonly used in interviews. It sets the person being interviewed at ease. Mirroring the body language of someone else indicates that they are understood."
This is simply an example of one type of body language, what it expresses, and how it might be applied. I find these things very interesting, but I understand there must be some limits to what one can infer from nonverbal communication alone.
All this talk of body language begs the question of what email, im, and blogs are all doing to human communication, and the rise of : ) : ( ; ) and ~~^~<@ (a rose)... But that's something entirely different.
This link (same as a previous one) discusses some specific body language communications and what they imply:
http://www.gcastrategies.com/books_articles/article_06_11.php
A few other links I don't have time to blog fully about, yet still found interesting follow
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php
Language: Translating the lingo of adultaescence.
This one was particularly interesting seeing as I would qualify as one of these people, propagating this alternative vocabulary, yet there are still some of these expressions that I'm not familiar with. Why not? How am I different from "my generation" which is inventing these things. Perhaps some discussion in class might be in order...
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/irish-language-glue-for-our-new-nation-1092836.html
Language as a political tool to unify the people of Ireland.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/25/stories/2007092550830200.htm
The measure of how well a language will do these days is how adaptable it is to technology.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2189820,00.html
After reading the Language Instinct and learning how incredibly sponge-like children are in their ability to learn language, it's definitely a very indicative sign of abuse if your children can't even speak beyond a baby's level (at least in the absence of learning deficiencies.) Also, an interesting line: "when they were offered McDonald's food by social workers, they did not know what it was" It's notable that McDonald's food is the measure of being part of society.
http://www.startribune.com/west/story/1440921.html
The changing face of education, especially how languages are taught. Upsides and downsides of computers as language teachers?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/25/entertainment/e122915D48.DTL
Shakespeare is absolutely filthy, and we can't appreciate it!
Finally, let me say that it's very enjoyable to have a homework assignment that's open-ended, educational (not necessarily simple practice), and very engaging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)