According to Lauren Gurry's article "Spanish: not your standard language," Spain currently has four or five different official languages, since "different areas of Spain deviated from the original form of Latin centuries ago when the Moors invaded" Spain. There have been efforts by the French colonizers during the 18th century to standardize the Spanish language, but the locals of each area reverted back to their own form of Spanish after Spain became an independent nation again. Renewed efforts are now attempting to unite the country under a single official form of Spanish once again.
"According to Gabriel-Stheeman, the steps to standardizing a language are selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance." Of these, he argues that acceptance is the hardest part to successfully achieve. As I have argued in previous blogs, and as we have discussed in class, a common language plays an undeniably integral role in uniting people and creating a sense of shared experience and connection to create a shared community out of a shared geographical location. Looking at language's ability and function from this perspective, it seems much worth the effort to enforce a single official language for the nation. Considering the variations of Spanish spoken in different parts of Spain as dialects (I'm not sure how much these variations differ from each other), however, taking away a community's distinct dialect might cause that community to lose a part of its very history and culture--a part of the very ideas and traditions that define it as unique itself. This brings us back to some of the core questions we have been trying to answer this quarter: What defines language? At what point does a language stop being a dialect and become a new different language in and of itself?
According to wikipedia (alright, alright, not exactly an absolute, accurate source), "There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results." A dialect is sometimes called a dialect instead of a language only because it's not an official version of a state or country, when it lacks prestige, or when it's used only orally and not in literature or other written documents. In this sense, suppressing dialects and insisting on a single common language is like "killing" a language itself. Between national unity and preserving dialect-languages (along with the history, traditions, and unique reflections of a community that they carry within them), what then is a good balance or viable solution? This remains a question with many implications to be considered.
Source: Wikipedia - Dialect
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Idiomatic: problematic or unavoidable and enjoyable?
Going home for Thanksgiving break and seeing my parents again, I spoke Vietnamese extensively for the first time in two months, and found myself in the exact same problem I had when I first learned to speak English: I automatically reach for idioms to compose my speech when I talk, only to immediately after realize I have used the wrong proposition or noun. (In Vietnamese, idioms often rhyme internally. An idiom would still sound right to the ears, at least initially, if a wrong noun is used that still keeps up with the internal rhyme scheme.) While talking with my mother one morning, for example, I used the expression "Chuột chạy cùng sào mới vào sư phạm," which literally translates to "Only a rat at the end of its stick would go to ____ college," and figuratively stating that only a college hopeful with no other choice would go to such a school. Of course, being the temporarily Vietnamese-deficient daughter that I was, I said "rào," which is the word for "fence," instead of "sào," which is the word for "stick." Not only does my idiom still rhymes, it still makes complete sense ("only a rat at the end of the fence..."), and in my opinion communicates the exact same idea as the original idiom. But it was still wrong, and still gave my mother a prime opportunity to "comment" on my "neglect" of my native tongue. Some idioms are not perfect; many, such as "kick the bucket," are even nonsensical, their denotative meaning having nothing to do at all with their figurative meaning. As Gina Kim's article "Idioms Are Testimony to Language's Torturous Path" points out, an idiom's existence and popularity paradoxically also mark the beginning of its death: "an idiom starts as a phrase, becomes an idiom when it catches on, and then dies as a cliché" because it catches on. Defying the value placed on individuality and originality at the very center of the American culture, idioms are not even necessary for communication. Saying "to die" is definitely easier, shorter, and more to the point than saying "to kick the bucket." And we still use a large amount of idioms in our everyday language. Why?
A large part of the answer might lie in the claim that idioms are "not considered a part of the language, but rather a part of the culture." In order to process and understand an idiom, a person must draw upon his cultural knowledge and experience. Idioms seem to force a person to connect with his cultural background, to put himself in local context, to identify with something larger than himself. In other words, the use of idioms suggests belonging and loyalty to a culture in a way. In this way, idioms assume a role of language at large: just as a common language connects and opens two people up to each other in a way few other things can, the use of idiom implies common background and experience to connect people. After all, humans are made of their experiences, and what can be better than similar experiences to start conversation, instill trust, and inspire connection.
Also, though an idiom may not be the only way to communicate an idea, it is generally one of the most polished and poetic ways. This is especially true for many of the American idioms currently in use that were coined by Shakespeare. Between risking inarticulateness to sound original, and using an idiom--a perfectly acceptable practice, opting for the idiom seems like a safe, rational choice for everyday conversation. In Vietnamese, idioms--with their elaborate rhymes, imagery and sometimes even historical references--also reflect the best and most beautiful of the language. Behind every idiom can be a moral, a life lesson, a reflection of society, a philosophy, or even a suggestion for a way of life. "Trời đánh tránh bữa ăn," (Using "God" loosely to refer to the omnipotent Force, this translates to "Not even God will punish/become angry at you during a meal") for example reveals the importance of meals in the Vietnamese culture, the time when families get together to share food and stories. The analysis, understanding and use of idioms then even become an elegant game of class and culture, something to expand cultural knowledge, evaluate personal philosophies, and enrich personalities.
Sources:
A large part of the answer might lie in the claim that idioms are "not considered a part of the language, but rather a part of the culture." In order to process and understand an idiom, a person must draw upon his cultural knowledge and experience. Idioms seem to force a person to connect with his cultural background, to put himself in local context, to identify with something larger than himself. In other words, the use of idioms suggests belonging and loyalty to a culture in a way. In this way, idioms assume a role of language at large: just as a common language connects and opens two people up to each other in a way few other things can, the use of idiom implies common background and experience to connect people. After all, humans are made of their experiences, and what can be better than similar experiences to start conversation, instill trust, and inspire connection.
Also, though an idiom may not be the only way to communicate an idea, it is generally one of the most polished and poetic ways. This is especially true for many of the American idioms currently in use that were coined by Shakespeare. Between risking inarticulateness to sound original, and using an idiom--a perfectly acceptable practice, opting for the idiom seems like a safe, rational choice for everyday conversation. In Vietnamese, idioms--with their elaborate rhymes, imagery and sometimes even historical references--also reflect the best and most beautiful of the language. Behind every idiom can be a moral, a life lesson, a reflection of society, a philosophy, or even a suggestion for a way of life. "Trời đánh tránh bữa ăn," (Using "God" loosely to refer to the omnipotent Force, this translates to "Not even God will punish/become angry at you during a meal") for example reveals the importance of meals in the Vietnamese culture, the time when families get together to share food and stories. The analysis, understanding and use of idioms then even become an elegant game of class and culture, something to expand cultural knowledge, evaluate personal philosophies, and enrich personalities.
Sources:
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Language and communication: reciprocal influences
Michael Skapinker's article "Whose language?" on the online Financial Times emphasizes language's role as a tool for communications, and how language itself is being shaped by communication while it is shaping global communication. This parallels quite nicely with language's other relationship with thought to remind us that language's communication function is just as important as its role in thought and thought expression.
Language's communication function is so important, indeed, that millions of people are spending hefty amounts on learning English--the language of commerce and globalization--these days. Many private firms teaching English to Asian students are rapidly growing and earning huge profits, and Korean presidential candidate Chung Dong-young himself is making quality-English instruction his vote-gaining campaign commitment, promising "a vast increase in English teaching so that young Koreans do not have to go abroad to learn the language." The article estimates that about 1.5 million people can "communicate reasonably well" in English today; that's about a quarter of the world's population, and about three non-native speakers out of every four. This number will only grow, and will reach 2 million in 15 to 20 years.
We all have some sense of English's immense influence on the world. What I found especially about the article, however, is its presentation of the world's influence on English, specifically its vocabulary and grammar. As we have already discussed in class, there are many variants of English spoken around the world today, from American English and British English to Trinidadian English. As English gains new speakers and fragments even further, the variants become more and more different. Even though most people who learn English for economic reasons probably learned either American or British English, I would expect each country to add its language's flavors to create its own version of English (Singlish or Kinglish, to name a few), and that it would therefore by much easier for non-native speakers to communicate with a native American or British--for a variant to communicate with an original, rather than for non natives from two different English variants to communicate with each other. This, as the article points out, is however not true. "Native speakers are often poor at ensuring that they are understood in international discussions. They tend to think they need to avoid longer words, when comprehension problems are more often caused by their use of colloquial and metaphorical English." In fact, many non-native speakers prefer to and do discuss business with other non-natives rather than a native. Non-native speaking patterns, such as adding or leaving out articles in wrong places or adding "s" to words like "information," "knowledge," or "advice" to create the plurals, are common at these discussions. As long as the non-native partners can understand each other, they often don't bother with correct English. Interestingly enough, even native speakers begin to speak in similar, non-native patterns after working with non-native colleagues for some time. As English transforms the world, then, the world is in turn transforming English, not only through non-native but through native speakers as well.
Sources:
Article: Whose Language?
Language's communication function is so important, indeed, that millions of people are spending hefty amounts on learning English--the language of commerce and globalization--these days. Many private firms teaching English to Asian students are rapidly growing and earning huge profits, and Korean presidential candidate Chung Dong-young himself is making quality-English instruction his vote-gaining campaign commitment, promising "a vast increase in English teaching so that young Koreans do not have to go abroad to learn the language." The article estimates that about 1.5 million people can "communicate reasonably well" in English today; that's about a quarter of the world's population, and about three non-native speakers out of every four. This number will only grow, and will reach 2 million in 15 to 20 years.
We all have some sense of English's immense influence on the world. What I found especially about the article, however, is its presentation of the world's influence on English, specifically its vocabulary and grammar. As we have already discussed in class, there are many variants of English spoken around the world today, from American English and British English to Trinidadian English. As English gains new speakers and fragments even further, the variants become more and more different. Even though most people who learn English for economic reasons probably learned either American or British English, I would expect each country to add its language's flavors to create its own version of English (Singlish or Kinglish, to name a few), and that it would therefore by much easier for non-native speakers to communicate with a native American or British--for a variant to communicate with an original, rather than for non natives from two different English variants to communicate with each other. This, as the article points out, is however not true. "Native speakers are often poor at ensuring that they are understood in international discussions. They tend to think they need to avoid longer words, when comprehension problems are more often caused by their use of colloquial and metaphorical English." In fact, many non-native speakers prefer to and do discuss business with other non-natives rather than a native. Non-native speaking patterns, such as adding or leaving out articles in wrong places or adding "s" to words like "information," "knowledge," or "advice" to create the plurals, are common at these discussions. As long as the non-native partners can understand each other, they often don't bother with correct English. Interestingly enough, even native speakers begin to speak in similar, non-native patterns after working with non-native colleagues for some time. As English transforms the world, then, the world is in turn transforming English, not only through non-native but through native speakers as well.
Sources:
Article: Whose Language?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Multilingualism in America
In his article "Immigrants' language skills crucial in era of global economy" for the San Jose Mercury News, Representative Mike Honda makes a great observation about the language irony in America: we fear multilingualism, and we look down upon immigrants whose native tongue isn't English, and yet we value native-speaking employees who could speak other languages. Children of immigrant parents are embarrassed to learn their parents' native tongues, and grow up refusing to speak anything but English only to spend up to "thousands of dollars to acquire a second language" later.
In fact, there are roughly two categories of multilingual communicative competence. We look at them here under the context of bilingualism:
Some people have argued that multilingualism and multiculturalism dilute the American culture, an argument Representative Mike Honda also addresses in his article. As he states, how can a culture made up of many other cultures be diluted by addition of new cultures, or by respecting and preserving these new cultures? Others may argue that multilingualism undermines American unity. I beg to assert otherwise: by looking down upon and alienating immigrants and non-native speakers, America is only forcing them to create and withdraw into their own communities to protect themselves, further promoting disunity in the nation. "The faster we embrace new communities, the faster they become Americans," as Representative Honda recognizes and asserts.
Sources:
Have a good weekeed, everyone!
In fact, there are roughly two categories of multilingual communicative competence. We look at them here under the context of bilingualism:
- Compound bilinguals: people for whom "words and phrases in different languages are the same concepts." They are fluent and native-like in both languages.
- Coordinate bilinguals: people for whom words and phrases "are all related to their own unique concepts." One language is more dominant than the other for these speakers, and they often use their first language "to think through the second language."
Some people have argued that multilingualism and multiculturalism dilute the American culture, an argument Representative Mike Honda also addresses in his article. As he states, how can a culture made up of many other cultures be diluted by addition of new cultures, or by respecting and preserving these new cultures? Others may argue that multilingualism undermines American unity. I beg to assert otherwise: by looking down upon and alienating immigrants and non-native speakers, America is only forcing them to create and withdraw into their own communities to protect themselves, further promoting disunity in the nation. "The faster we embrace new communities, the faster they become Americans," as Representative Honda recognizes and asserts.
Sources:
Have a good weekeed, everyone!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Learning ASL: when you are neither American nor... human
An African chimpanzee, the first nonhuman ever believed to have acquire human language, has died recently at a Washington research institute. Her name was Washoe, and according to the article "An African chimpanzee and its language of signs," she knew and could reliably and dynamically used a vocabulary of about 250 American-Sign-Language words by the time she died.
Reading this article, I immediately wondered if Washoe truly understood and used the signs taught to her, or was simply taught through rewards and punishments to associate a sign and the behavior of signing that sign with specific contexts. In other words, did she truly learn how to express herself with language, or did she simply learn signs the way dogs learn a new trick? The Gardners--the family that first taught Washoe the use of sign language, definitely taught her the sign for "more" as a rewarded behavior. Noting that when she's tickled, Washoe brings her hands together in a similar way a human would when signing "more," the Gardners shaped this behavior into the correct sign for "more," rewarding Washoe each time she performs it correctly by playing with and tickling her. According to the Gardners, however, Washoe seems to learn not only the behavior for, but also the concept of "more." They claim she understood she could sign "more" "to get more of anything, including food, games, and books." Also, she seemed to have learned the sign for "toothbrush" not through any operant teachings, but only by observing others around her signing the sign for "toothbrush" whenever they hold one.
Another key word in the claim is "human language;" Washoe was the first nonhuman to learn "human language." What is the integral difference between human language and animal language? Here is what I found on the general characteristics of human language:
An interesting fact: A researcher in the 1970s studied animal language with a chimpanzee named Nim Chimsky, and failed to replicate in a more classical experimental setting the results the Gardner achieved with Washoe. Linguist Noam Chomsky is also very skeptical of the Washoe's language skills, believing that there are no scientific support to the claim that she truly "spoke" human language.
Sources I researched for this article:
Reading this article, I immediately wondered if Washoe truly understood and used the signs taught to her, or was simply taught through rewards and punishments to associate a sign and the behavior of signing that sign with specific contexts. In other words, did she truly learn how to express herself with language, or did she simply learn signs the way dogs learn a new trick? The Gardners--the family that first taught Washoe the use of sign language, definitely taught her the sign for "more" as a rewarded behavior. Noting that when she's tickled, Washoe brings her hands together in a similar way a human would when signing "more," the Gardners shaped this behavior into the correct sign for "more," rewarding Washoe each time she performs it correctly by playing with and tickling her. According to the Gardners, however, Washoe seems to learn not only the behavior for, but also the concept of "more." They claim she understood she could sign "more" "to get more of anything, including food, games, and books." Also, she seemed to have learned the sign for "toothbrush" not through any operant teachings, but only by observing others around her signing the sign for "toothbrush" whenever they hold one.
Another key word in the claim is "human language;" Washoe was the first nonhuman to learn "human language." What is the integral difference between human language and animal language? Here is what I found on the general characteristics of human language:
- Arbitrariness: no relationship between a sound or sign and its meaning
- Cultural transmission: language passes from one user to the next
- Discreteness: discreet units (words, for example) are used in different combinations to create meaning.
- Displacement: can be used to communicate ideas that are not in the "immediate vicinity"
- Duality: language has and works well on both the "surface level" and the "semantic (meaningful) level"
- Metalinguistics: language can be used to discuss language itself
- Productivity: "a finite number of units can be used to create a very large - though often mistakenly described as 'infinite' - number of utterances"
An interesting fact: A researcher in the 1970s studied animal language with a chimpanzee named Nim Chimsky, and failed to replicate in a more classical experimental setting the results the Gardner achieved with Washoe. Linguist Noam Chomsky is also very skeptical of the Washoe's language skills, believing that there are no scientific support to the claim that she truly "spoke" human language.
Sources I researched for this article:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
