An article that I have just read, called "Avatar fan wants a girlfriend who speaks Na'vi language" mentions an interesting story. Richard Littauer, or with his Avatar name Taronyu, wants a girlfriend who can speak the Na'vi language - the language of the huge blue Na'vi people in the movie. He is a linguistics student, and he already compiled a dictionary for the language as to help other people learn it like himself. He finds the movie fascinating, particularly because it created a new language instead of using the languages that already exist. He wishes to create his own tribe of Na'vi on the earth. Littauer also wants to have a girlfriend who will share his love for the movie and living like a Na'vi - and most importantly who can speak the Na'vi language as he does.
This story definitely sounds interesting - but what sounds more interesting to me is Littauer's fondness of the language. As far as the article goes, what he is more fascinated by in this movie is the novel, original, newly discovered Na'vi language. It is so interesting to see how the idea of a newly invented language appeals to him. What I wonder is why Littauer is so excited about the creation of a new language. What makes the idea of a new language so appealing to him?
One thing that I came up with is this idea of language and the level of prestige that is attached to it. Nancy C. Dorian, a renowned anthropologist and linguist, argues that every language has a certain level of prestige. This prestige does not necessarily depend on the complexity of the grammatical structures of the language or the number of words it has in its lexicon, she says. Instead, it depends on how many people speak that language. People tend to see a language more prestigious than others if that language is being spoken by more people or, generally, is a dominant language. That is why, even though most minority languages are more complex than dominant languages such as English or Spanish, we still see the dominant ones as the most prestigious ones, because they are more widely spread and have more speakers.
This idea of prestige may not be that wrong. It just means that for most of us, what determines the prestige of a language is not its form, structures or grammar rules, but how widely spread it is.
With the article about the Avatar fan and his love for the Na'vi language, I would argue that the idea of prestige plays a great role. It is not really possible that he knows much about the grammatical structures, rules or form of the language - the language, I would argue, cannot be a very elaborate language anyway if it is invented for a movie. Undoubtedly, the movie itself made a great impact on the popular culture and lots of people around the world talked about this movie for a very long time. It was the most expensive movie when it came out, and it still is. Despite criticisms, I think that such factors and the media exposure gave this movie a lot of prestige - and the same prestige is also true for the language. It is why, I think, the Na'vi language is able to attract such a level of attention.
What do you think?
Link to article: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/26/avatarfan-wants-a-girlfriend-who-speaks-navilanguage.html
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Translation of the Bible verses from English to Turkish
(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.
(1) Tanri once cenneti ve dunyayi yaratti. (2) Simdi dunya sekilsiz ve bostu, karanlik derinligin yuzeyindeydi, ve Tanri'nin ruhu sularin uzerinde bekliyordu. (3) Ve Tanri, "Isik olsun," dedi, ve isik geldi. (4) Tanri isigin iyi oldugunu gordu, ve isigi karanliktan ayirdi. (5) Tanri isiga "gunduz," karanliga ise "gece" adini verdi. Ve aksam oldu, ve sabah - ilk gun.
The most difficult decision that I had to make about translating these verses from English to Turkish is how to translate the word "God." In Turkish, we have two different words for God: Tanri or Allah. Since Turkish language is the official language of Turkey - that is, a largely Muslim country, we almost always use the word Allah rather than Tanri, because it is how it is used in the holy book, Quran. Also, in colloquial language, the idioms that we use, such as "God forbid," we almost always use Allah. I don't know the exact reason why we prefer Allah over Tanri, but to me using the word Tanri seems more distant and unnecessarily formal. On the other hand, Allah has a more positive connotation in my mind - it feels much closer.
The problem here stems from the fact that people from other religions often know that Allah is a word which Muslims use for the word God. Not many people know the other word (Tanri). Thus, the word Allah is closely associated with Islam. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, the question of whether there is a relationship between Islam and terrorism has been widely disputed, and the word Allah, "the Muslim God" as people would like to refer to as, has been used many times in the media.
These reasons are why I could not decide which of the two words I should choose to translate the word God from English to Turkish. At the end, I ended up choosing the word Tanri in order to free the translation from any unintended implications.
Other decisions that I had to made while translating the verses were not this difficult, but they still left lingering thoughts in my mind. For instance, while translating the word "heavens," I was not sure whether I should translate it as plural or singular. In Turkish, we never use that word in a plural form, and it sounds very unfamiliar. Since we believe that there is one heaven, heavens sound very unbelievable. I think this also shows the relationship between cultural beliefs and language. At the end, I ended up using heaven instead of heavens.
Another issue that came up is about how to translate the word earth. In English, earth can mean the world or soil. In Turkish, however, that distinction is very clear and those two words are not synonymous. I assume that in this context, the earth is meant to describe the world, so I chose to translate the word like that.
The same issue came up with the word "day." Even though in the context it seems to describe the morning, I still was not sure. Again, in Turkish we have two very distinct words to describe a day and a morning, and they are not interchangeable. I decided to translate the word day as morning in Turkish.
(1) Tanri once cenneti ve dunyayi yaratti. (2) Simdi dunya sekilsiz ve bostu, karanlik derinligin yuzeyindeydi, ve Tanri'nin ruhu sularin uzerinde bekliyordu. (3) Ve Tanri, "Isik olsun," dedi, ve isik geldi. (4) Tanri isigin iyi oldugunu gordu, ve isigi karanliktan ayirdi. (5) Tanri isiga "gunduz," karanliga ise "gece" adini verdi. Ve aksam oldu, ve sabah - ilk gun.
The most difficult decision that I had to make about translating these verses from English to Turkish is how to translate the word "God." In Turkish, we have two different words for God: Tanri or Allah. Since Turkish language is the official language of Turkey - that is, a largely Muslim country, we almost always use the word Allah rather than Tanri, because it is how it is used in the holy book, Quran. Also, in colloquial language, the idioms that we use, such as "God forbid," we almost always use Allah. I don't know the exact reason why we prefer Allah over Tanri, but to me using the word Tanri seems more distant and unnecessarily formal. On the other hand, Allah has a more positive connotation in my mind - it feels much closer.
The problem here stems from the fact that people from other religions often know that Allah is a word which Muslims use for the word God. Not many people know the other word (Tanri). Thus, the word Allah is closely associated with Islam. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, the question of whether there is a relationship between Islam and terrorism has been widely disputed, and the word Allah, "the Muslim God" as people would like to refer to as, has been used many times in the media.
These reasons are why I could not decide which of the two words I should choose to translate the word God from English to Turkish. At the end, I ended up choosing the word Tanri in order to free the translation from any unintended implications.
Other decisions that I had to made while translating the verses were not this difficult, but they still left lingering thoughts in my mind. For instance, while translating the word "heavens," I was not sure whether I should translate it as plural or singular. In Turkish, we never use that word in a plural form, and it sounds very unfamiliar. Since we believe that there is one heaven, heavens sound very unbelievable. I think this also shows the relationship between cultural beliefs and language. At the end, I ended up using heaven instead of heavens.
Another issue that came up is about how to translate the word earth. In English, earth can mean the world or soil. In Turkish, however, that distinction is very clear and those two words are not synonymous. I assume that in this context, the earth is meant to describe the world, so I chose to translate the word like that.
The same issue came up with the word "day." Even though in the context it seems to describe the morning, I still was not sure. Again, in Turkish we have two very distinct words to describe a day and a morning, and they are not interchangeable. I decided to translate the word day as morning in Turkish.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Learning Language in the Womb
The relationship between language learning and prenatal development, and the studies conducted to find the correlation between the two are very interesting. A recent article that I have read, called "Bilingual Babies Learn Language in the Womb," talks about a study on this issue.
The research shows that babies who hear two languages while they are in their mother's womb later show equal preference for both languages and are more open to be bilingual. Those babies can distinguish between the two languages from very early stages of their development, and thus do not have any difficulty acquiring the ability to speak in both languages with a high level of proficiency without confusing them later in their lives.On the other hand, babies who hear only one language during their prenatal development do not show any interest when they hear a second language after they are born.
It is very interesting to see that the acquisition of language and bilingualism start in the mother's womb. I have found another research reported on Science Daily that talks about how babies start familiarizing themselves with the language that they hear in their mother's womb. Their cries, as opposed to what we usually think, are actually responses to that language. Babies who hear French during their prenatal development, for instance, cry with a rising intonation as to mimic the French language that they hear. On the other hand, babies who hear German during their prenatal development cry with a failing melody contour. This same phenomenon is, however, not seen with the babies who do not hear the language during their prenatal development and are exposed to it only after 12 weeks of postnatal care. Interestingly, these babies do not show the same pattern as the first group do. Their cries do match the characteristics of the language that they start hearing during postnatal development.
I have been always fascinated by the notion of prenatal development, and how the baby understands and interprets things from the outside world. What I wonder about this research is whether the question of who is speaking to the baby during the prenatal development has an significance. Some studies mention that babies, when they are born, can recognize their mother's voice but not necessarily other people's voices who have also talk to the baby during the prenatal stage.
Some of the questions that these studies make me think about are these: Does the person who speak to the baby in two different languages have to be the mother if babies tend to recognize her voice more than they do others' voices? Does it make any difference whether it is the mother or someone else who speak to the baby during the prenatal stage? Also, how does the baby actually hear and process the language? Does the baby hear it through vibrations in the uterus? Does the baby's brain use a different way of processing the language during the prenatal stage? Are there any other significant similarities or differences between language acquisition during prenatal and postnatal development?
Link to article: http://news.discovery.com/human/babies-language-bilingual.html
Link to additional research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105092607.htm
The research shows that babies who hear two languages while they are in their mother's womb later show equal preference for both languages and are more open to be bilingual. Those babies can distinguish between the two languages from very early stages of their development, and thus do not have any difficulty acquiring the ability to speak in both languages with a high level of proficiency without confusing them later in their lives.On the other hand, babies who hear only one language during their prenatal development do not show any interest when they hear a second language after they are born.
It is very interesting to see that the acquisition of language and bilingualism start in the mother's womb. I have found another research reported on Science Daily that talks about how babies start familiarizing themselves with the language that they hear in their mother's womb. Their cries, as opposed to what we usually think, are actually responses to that language. Babies who hear French during their prenatal development, for instance, cry with a rising intonation as to mimic the French language that they hear. On the other hand, babies who hear German during their prenatal development cry with a failing melody contour. This same phenomenon is, however, not seen with the babies who do not hear the language during their prenatal development and are exposed to it only after 12 weeks of postnatal care. Interestingly, these babies do not show the same pattern as the first group do. Their cries do match the characteristics of the language that they start hearing during postnatal development.
I have been always fascinated by the notion of prenatal development, and how the baby understands and interprets things from the outside world. What I wonder about this research is whether the question of who is speaking to the baby during the prenatal development has an significance. Some studies mention that babies, when they are born, can recognize their mother's voice but not necessarily other people's voices who have also talk to the baby during the prenatal stage.
Some of the questions that these studies make me think about are these: Does the person who speak to the baby in two different languages have to be the mother if babies tend to recognize her voice more than they do others' voices? Does it make any difference whether it is the mother or someone else who speak to the baby during the prenatal stage? Also, how does the baby actually hear and process the language? Does the baby hear it through vibrations in the uterus? Does the baby's brain use a different way of processing the language during the prenatal stage? Are there any other significant similarities or differences between language acquisition during prenatal and postnatal development?
Link to article: http://news.discovery.com/human/babies-language-bilingual.html
Link to additional research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105092607.htm
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A Common Language for the European Union?
After reading an article talking about the common language question within the European Union, I decided to do some research about the history of this issue. The European Union is expanding everyday, and already has 27 member countries which, most of them, speak quite different languages.
The discussion about the problem is interesting. The EU does not have one official language. Instead, it has an official language for each of its members. This means that important documents of any sort within the EU are being translated to all those 23 official languages. The translation expenses add up to more than 1 million euros annually. And this is one of the main reasons why people have been voicing their ideas about an implementation of a common language.
There are many different ideas regarding this issue. Some people want a common language both within the European Union and Europe. Those people then fall into two different categories regarding which language should be the common language. Some favor English, but they are against the usage of American English within the EU. These people want to use a new version of English that they refer to as "Euro-English." Others, on the other hand, support the creation of a totally new language that is unique to Europe. However, there are also people who do not want a common language at all. They believe that every country should preserve its own language and thus culture.
I can understand why some people find a common language for Europe necessary. Most European countries are together under the umbrella of the European Union, and they are looking for a way to further strengthen this bond. While the Europeans will be able to understand each other better, the EU can also spend its time and money on other things instead of translating between 23 languages.
In my opinion, however, I think preserving languages within Europe, or anywhere in the world, has great importance to the wealth of human culture and understanding. I believe that time and money invested in translation is worth it. The European Union was born out of the economic incentives of Europe, and one of its main objectives is, or should be, to preserve the rich cultural heritage of and diversity within Europe - which is, undoubtedly, linked with the many different European languages.
Such an attempt to implement a common language in the EU would also, in my opinion, exacerbate the problem of language death in the long run. As one common language takes over the European Union, and gradually Europe, it will replace many languages and cause them, especially languages that are already endangered, disappear sooner.
The European Union recently announced that it is against the implementation of a common language. The EU is not adopting a common language, mainly because "it would cut off most people in the EU from an understanding of what the EU was doing." Despite the time and money investment, the EU is still fostering the multilingual nature of the union, which I believe is the right thing to do.
Link to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/europe-languages-jonny-dymond
Link to the map: http://www.eurominority.eu/documents/cartes/europe-languages-continant.gif
Additional source: http://europa.eu/languages/en/document/59
The discussion about the problem is interesting. The EU does not have one official language. Instead, it has an official language for each of its members. This means that important documents of any sort within the EU are being translated to all those 23 official languages. The translation expenses add up to more than 1 million euros annually. And this is one of the main reasons why people have been voicing their ideas about an implementation of a common language.
There are many different ideas regarding this issue. Some people want a common language both within the European Union and Europe. Those people then fall into two different categories regarding which language should be the common language. Some favor English, but they are against the usage of American English within the EU. These people want to use a new version of English that they refer to as "Euro-English." Others, on the other hand, support the creation of a totally new language that is unique to Europe. However, there are also people who do not want a common language at all. They believe that every country should preserve its own language and thus culture.
I can understand why some people find a common language for Europe necessary. Most European countries are together under the umbrella of the European Union, and they are looking for a way to further strengthen this bond. While the Europeans will be able to understand each other better, the EU can also spend its time and money on other things instead of translating between 23 languages.
In my opinion, however, I think preserving languages within Europe, or anywhere in the world, has great importance to the wealth of human culture and understanding. I believe that time and money invested in translation is worth it. The European Union was born out of the economic incentives of Europe, and one of its main objectives is, or should be, to preserve the rich cultural heritage of and diversity within Europe - which is, undoubtedly, linked with the many different European languages.
Such an attempt to implement a common language in the EU would also, in my opinion, exacerbate the problem of language death in the long run. As one common language takes over the European Union, and gradually Europe, it will replace many languages and cause them, especially languages that are already endangered, disappear sooner.
The European Union recently announced that it is against the implementation of a common language. The EU is not adopting a common language, mainly because "it would cut off most people in the EU from an understanding of what the EU was doing." Despite the time and money investment, the EU is still fostering the multilingual nature of the union, which I believe is the right thing to do.
Link to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/europe-languages-jonny-dymond
Link to the map: http://www.eurominority.eu/documents/cartes/europe-languages-continant.gif
Additional source: http://europa.eu/languages/en/document/59
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Bilingual Aphasia: An Interesting Phenomenon
Can you imagine forgetting your native language - the language that you have been speaking since you were a baby? To me, losing the ability to speak in my own native language seems impossible. I may forget English, French, but not Turkish.
An article that I have read, however, makes me consider this notion again. A Croatian girl, whose native language is Croatian, recently had an accident. She has been learning German in school, but she was not fluent in the language yet. When she woke up from coma after the accident, she started speaking German fluently, but at the same time she lost her ability to speak in her native language, Croatian.
How can she forget her first language, but not the second one? Actually, the answer to this question sheds some light on the discussion we had in class about children being more able to learn new languages than adults are. Different parts of the human brain are responsible for learning different languages. When children learn their first language, the realm of the brain that is responsible is called procedural memory. Procedural memory controls actions that we do without thinking, or rather, unconsciously. For a young child, learning a language is like jumping and walking, as the article points out. They learn the language even without realizing that they are learning it. On the other hand, when we learn a second language later in our lives, a different realm of our brains, called declarative memory, is responsible. And it is quite different than procedural memory as it memorizes and studies facts rather than holding onto them without us realizing. I think this may be another good explanation as to why children are better at learning languages than adults are.
Since different regions of brain are responsible for learning different languages, it makes sense that the Croatian girl lost her native language but not her second language. It may be that her procedural memory got damaged while her declarative memory did not.
Researchers and cognitive scientists expressed their skepticism about her ability to speak fluent German after the accident. If she was not fluent in the language before, it is not possible for her to gain fluency after the accident, they say - the best thing she could do is to retain the level of language she already knows. To me, gaining fluency in German after the accident also sounds impossible, but it may not be so. I wonder if she can speak German fluently after losing her ability to speak Croatian. Now that she forgot how to speak her native language, her memory might have gained the ability and space to hold German more than it did before when she knew two languages. Can this be possible?
Link to article: http://news.discovery.com/human/coma-croatian-girl-german.html
Link to chart: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=neurosci&part=A2219&rendertype=figure&id=A2219
An article that I have read, however, makes me consider this notion again. A Croatian girl, whose native language is Croatian, recently had an accident. She has been learning German in school, but she was not fluent in the language yet. When she woke up from coma after the accident, she started speaking German fluently, but at the same time she lost her ability to speak in her native language, Croatian.
How can she forget her first language, but not the second one? Actually, the answer to this question sheds some light on the discussion we had in class about children being more able to learn new languages than adults are. Different parts of the human brain are responsible for learning different languages. When children learn their first language, the realm of the brain that is responsible is called procedural memory. Procedural memory controls actions that we do without thinking, or rather, unconsciously. For a young child, learning a language is like jumping and walking, as the article points out. They learn the language even without realizing that they are learning it. On the other hand, when we learn a second language later in our lives, a different realm of our brains, called declarative memory, is responsible. And it is quite different than procedural memory as it memorizes and studies facts rather than holding onto them without us realizing. I think this may be another good explanation as to why children are better at learning languages than adults are.
Since different regions of brain are responsible for learning different languages, it makes sense that the Croatian girl lost her native language but not her second language. It may be that her procedural memory got damaged while her declarative memory did not.
Researchers and cognitive scientists expressed their skepticism about her ability to speak fluent German after the accident. If she was not fluent in the language before, it is not possible for her to gain fluency after the accident, they say - the best thing she could do is to retain the level of language she already knows. To me, gaining fluency in German after the accident also sounds impossible, but it may not be so. I wonder if she can speak German fluently after losing her ability to speak Croatian. Now that she forgot how to speak her native language, her memory might have gained the ability and space to hold German more than it did before when she knew two languages. Can this be possible?
Link to article: http://news.discovery.com/human/coma-croatian-girl-german.html
Link to chart: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=neurosci&part=A2219&rendertype=figure&id=A2219
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Why Learn a Foreign Language?
This is a question we have been discussing a lot lately: "Why should we learn a foreign language?" Does it have advantages if we learn one? Or are drawbacks of knowing another language more than the advantages that a foreign language brings?
Another important question that I want us to tackle today is this: "How do we actually learn a foreign language? At what level we can confidently say that we know a language?" Most people agree that when a person is fluent in a language, then they know it. However, the education system today, and more precisely, the way languages are taught in schools, contradicts this idea.
In most of the important universities in the US, and most other countries, students fulfill their language requirement by taking one year of language classes. These classes surely provide a good insight about the language and teaches the basic grammar rules along with useful vocabulary, but it definitely does not achieve a higher level of proficiency in the language.
As Jay Mathews points out in his article called "Why Waste Time on a Foreign Language?," the foreign language teaching at colleges and high schools is not efficient. As he says, there are "high grades for little progress." It is actually quite easy not to learn a language and still get high grades in class, as the foreign language teaching today is based more on memorization and less on fluency and proficiency.
A question that I have is this: If we change the education system regarding the foreign language teaching, would the negative attitude towards foreign languages change? Instead of requiring one year of foreign language, if we require certain courses which aim at proficiency and fluency rather than generic language classes, would people think that learning a foreign language is actually useful?
Link to the article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/04/why_waste_time_on_a_foreign_la.html
Another important question that I want us to tackle today is this: "How do we actually learn a foreign language? At what level we can confidently say that we know a language?" Most people agree that when a person is fluent in a language, then they know it. However, the education system today, and more precisely, the way languages are taught in schools, contradicts this idea.
In most of the important universities in the US, and most other countries, students fulfill their language requirement by taking one year of language classes. These classes surely provide a good insight about the language and teaches the basic grammar rules along with useful vocabulary, but it definitely does not achieve a higher level of proficiency in the language.
As Jay Mathews points out in his article called "Why Waste Time on a Foreign Language?," the foreign language teaching at colleges and high schools is not efficient. As he says, there are "high grades for little progress." It is actually quite easy not to learn a language and still get high grades in class, as the foreign language teaching today is based more on memorization and less on fluency and proficiency.
A question that I have is this: If we change the education system regarding the foreign language teaching, would the negative attitude towards foreign languages change? Instead of requiring one year of foreign language, if we require certain courses which aim at proficiency and fluency rather than generic language classes, would people think that learning a foreign language is actually useful?
Link to the article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/04/why_waste_time_on_a_foreign_la.html
Monday, April 19, 2010
"Vanishing Words, Vanishing Worlds"
In one of my previous entries, I mentioned the problem of language death and the dire statistics: A language dies every two weeks, and we are rapidly losing languages along with a valuable source of human history, culture, and insight into how languages shape the way we think and live.
An article called "Vanishing Words, Vanishing Worlds" on Rapid City Journal made me think about a different question on the problem of language death. Can we possibly do anything to stop this? How can we prevent endangered languages from disappearing from the face of the earth? Is there really any incentive that we can offer to people who are native speakers of endangered languages to make sure that these languages survive for many years?
The article talks about an important example regarding these questions and attempts of people who want to save their native languages. People of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation are aware of the alarming situation that their native language, Lakota, is in. Of 20,000 to 29,000 people in the population, only 5% to 15% can speak the language fluently.
An important point regarding how to save endangered languages comes up to mind after reading the article. The way to address this problem greatly varies from generation to generation. The attitudes and thoughts of various generations are very different. For instance, the elderly of Pine Ridge Indian Population are aware of the alarming situation, but they feel disconnected with the young generation and do not know ways to teach them the language. Also, they are still haunted by the memories where they were not allowed to speak their own language in Catholic boarding schools.
The middle-aged people, on the other hand, even though they are better educated than their parents, do not speak the language fluently. Despite their wish to pass on the language to their own children, they do not know the language themselves. The reason why they were not taught the Lakoda language at first place was because people saw the language as a sign of being uneducated. Instead of Lakota, they taught their children more wide-spread and commonly used languages, such as English.
Now, there is barely any resource for the youth to learn Lakota. Although it is too late, older generations realized that knowing Lakota is not a sign of ignorance or incapability, but a way to preserve their culture and heritage.
What can be done at this point then? Is it a feasible solution to educate the elderly and teach them how to teach a language to the younger generations? Or to motivate the youth to learn the language with their own efforts? Would any of these solutions bring success at the end and help save the language?
An article called "Vanishing Words, Vanishing Worlds" on Rapid City Journal made me think about a different question on the problem of language death. Can we possibly do anything to stop this? How can we prevent endangered languages from disappearing from the face of the earth? Is there really any incentive that we can offer to people who are native speakers of endangered languages to make sure that these languages survive for many years?
The article talks about an important example regarding these questions and attempts of people who want to save their native languages. People of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation are aware of the alarming situation that their native language, Lakota, is in. Of 20,000 to 29,000 people in the population, only 5% to 15% can speak the language fluently.
An important point regarding how to save endangered languages comes up to mind after reading the article. The way to address this problem greatly varies from generation to generation. The attitudes and thoughts of various generations are very different. For instance, the elderly of Pine Ridge Indian Population are aware of the alarming situation, but they feel disconnected with the young generation and do not know ways to teach them the language. Also, they are still haunted by the memories where they were not allowed to speak their own language in Catholic boarding schools.
The middle-aged people, on the other hand, even though they are better educated than their parents, do not speak the language fluently. Despite their wish to pass on the language to their own children, they do not know the language themselves. The reason why they were not taught the Lakoda language at first place was because people saw the language as a sign of being uneducated. Instead of Lakota, they taught their children more wide-spread and commonly used languages, such as English.
Now, there is barely any resource for the youth to learn Lakota. Although it is too late, older generations realized that knowing Lakota is not a sign of ignorance or incapability, but a way to preserve their culture and heritage.
What can be done at this point then? Is it a feasible solution to educate the elderly and teach them how to teach a language to the younger generations? Or to motivate the youth to learn the language with their own efforts? Would any of these solutions bring success at the end and help save the language?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
"Me speak no English"
It is very interesting to see how people who speak different languages interact without actually understanding each other. An article in The New York Times, "U.S. Reviews New York Police Dealings With People Who Don’t Speak English," made me think about this strange way of interaction again.
As we have talked in class before, there is an unquestionable barrier between people who do not speak the same language, because there are not many common grounds that they can communicate. Interestingly enough though, there is also an element of aloofness, sometimes even disregard and dislike. In the article, for instance, the reporter talks about a striking example: Non-English speakers in New York, when they are victims of a certain crime, are reported by officers as "uncooperative" or "refused." Of course, there may be times where the victim refuses to talk to the officer, but what about the other times where the English-speaking officer just cannot talk to, let's say, the Chinese-speaking victim?
In this case, the first question that comes up to my mind is this: Why does the officer document the victim as "uncooperative" or "refused"? Do people who speak different languages find each other guilty of not speaking their own language? In the above example, to me it almost seems like the officer is putting the blame on the victim, because they are being "uncooperative" and refuse to talk to the authorities simply by not knowing English. Not speaking the language of the officer seems like defying his authority. I think in a way this example shows how deeply entrenched the notions of language and identity are. The language of the officer, in this case, is a symbol of his hierarchical power in the society, and anyone who does not help him by speaking in his own language is being uncooperative.
I never came across a situation where I could not talk to a person because of language barriers, so I cannot really guess how I would react in a case where the person and I could not interact because we don't speak the same language. Still, I would not think that they are being "uncooperative." I think that is a strong judgment of someone's personality, and language is not the only factor that shapes our personality or the way we think even though it plays an important role. However, I think that I would feel "aloof" from that person as we do not have any common grounds to communicate.
How would you feel in such a case? Do you think there may be other reasons behind the English-speaking officer reporting the non-English speaking victim as "uncooperative" or "refused?"
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/nyregion/10police.html
As we have talked in class before, there is an unquestionable barrier between people who do not speak the same language, because there are not many common grounds that they can communicate. Interestingly enough though, there is also an element of aloofness, sometimes even disregard and dislike. In the article, for instance, the reporter talks about a striking example: Non-English speakers in New York, when they are victims of a certain crime, are reported by officers as "uncooperative" or "refused." Of course, there may be times where the victim refuses to talk to the officer, but what about the other times where the English-speaking officer just cannot talk to, let's say, the Chinese-speaking victim?
In this case, the first question that comes up to my mind is this: Why does the officer document the victim as "uncooperative" or "refused"? Do people who speak different languages find each other guilty of not speaking their own language? In the above example, to me it almost seems like the officer is putting the blame on the victim, because they are being "uncooperative" and refuse to talk to the authorities simply by not knowing English. Not speaking the language of the officer seems like defying his authority. I think in a way this example shows how deeply entrenched the notions of language and identity are. The language of the officer, in this case, is a symbol of his hierarchical power in the society, and anyone who does not help him by speaking in his own language is being uncooperative.
I never came across a situation where I could not talk to a person because of language barriers, so I cannot really guess how I would react in a case where the person and I could not interact because we don't speak the same language. Still, I would not think that they are being "uncooperative." I think that is a strong judgment of someone's personality, and language is not the only factor that shapes our personality or the way we think even though it plays an important role. However, I think that I would feel "aloof" from that person as we do not have any common grounds to communicate.
How would you feel in such a case? Do you think there may be other reasons behind the English-speaking officer reporting the non-English speaking victim as "uncooperative" or "refused?"
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/nyregion/10police.html
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Language Death
Not too much time ago, on February 21, 2010, UNESCO acknowledged the 10th anniversary of International Mother Language Day. It sounds very strange at first. Why should we be celebrating our mother language - the language that most of us have been learning since we were little kids? As strange as it seems, I believe that this is a caution to all of us.
National Geographic recently published a study about language death and disappearance. Every 14 days a language dies, and by 2100, more than 3,500 languages will disappear from the face of the earth. Most of these languages will remain undiscovered, taking with them a great source of knowledge about different cultures, traditions, ways of thinking and history. Among all other global crises such as climate change or economical depression, language death is also alarming. With the death of each language, we become more unable to bridge the gap between different languages and ways of thinking associated with them. We are losing our diversity.
Included in the research, there is also a map of language hotspots, areas with many languages under the threat of extinction. It is interesting to see that nearly every region in the world is a language hotspot - only except Europe. Why is Europe not plagued by language death? Is it the European invasion and imperial politics of old European powers?
Another article that I have read, although it is not about language death, made me pose more questions about this topic. "Present imperfect: Is the human brain ill adapted for language?" by Katherine Harmon mentions an argument by Gary Marcus, a psychologist in New York University, that human brain still needs to evolve in order to be able to use languages effectively. The human brain is a context-driven memory, and some psychologists argue that in order for the brain to use a language as efficiently as possible, there should be a "logical language," one based on mathematical and logic models. Such a language was created in the 1960s, but it failed since people had a difficult time with learning it.
I can see why this artificial language failed to succeed. Languages are human creations, and they are created out of need - in order to describe emotions, to communicate thoughts, to talk. The creation process is not perfectly systematic, but that is how human brain chose to communicate its ideas with others. Is it really possible to create an artificial language without taking the way of human thinking, expression and psychology? Is a language a set of grammatical rules or a product of human thinking? I believe that since language is an innately natural creation, an artificial language that is systematized may not be the best one to match the natural need of humans. Language is more than a set of grammatical rules and list of conjugations. At a time when we are losing our naturally created languages so rapidly, it is not surprising to lose an artificial one.
Links: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=present-imperfect-is-the-human-brai-2010-04-07
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mission/enduringvoices/
(Both are very interesting articles - I highly recommend reading them.)
Link to map: http://resources.lsaweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/language-hotspots-map.jpg
National Geographic recently published a study about language death and disappearance. Every 14 days a language dies, and by 2100, more than 3,500 languages will disappear from the face of the earth. Most of these languages will remain undiscovered, taking with them a great source of knowledge about different cultures, traditions, ways of thinking and history. Among all other global crises such as climate change or economical depression, language death is also alarming. With the death of each language, we become more unable to bridge the gap between different languages and ways of thinking associated with them. We are losing our diversity.
Included in the research, there is also a map of language hotspots, areas with many languages under the threat of extinction. It is interesting to see that nearly every region in the world is a language hotspot - only except Europe. Why is Europe not plagued by language death? Is it the European invasion and imperial politics of old European powers?
Another article that I have read, although it is not about language death, made me pose more questions about this topic. "Present imperfect: Is the human brain ill adapted for language?" by Katherine Harmon mentions an argument by Gary Marcus, a psychologist in New York University, that human brain still needs to evolve in order to be able to use languages effectively. The human brain is a context-driven memory, and some psychologists argue that in order for the brain to use a language as efficiently as possible, there should be a "logical language," one based on mathematical and logic models. Such a language was created in the 1960s, but it failed since people had a difficult time with learning it.
I can see why this artificial language failed to succeed. Languages are human creations, and they are created out of need - in order to describe emotions, to communicate thoughts, to talk. The creation process is not perfectly systematic, but that is how human brain chose to communicate its ideas with others. Is it really possible to create an artificial language without taking the way of human thinking, expression and psychology? Is a language a set of grammatical rules or a product of human thinking? I believe that since language is an innately natural creation, an artificial language that is systematized may not be the best one to match the natural need of humans. Language is more than a set of grammatical rules and list of conjugations. At a time when we are losing our naturally created languages so rapidly, it is not surprising to lose an artificial one.
Links: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=present-imperfect-is-the-human-brai-2010-04-07
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mission/enduringvoices/
(Both are very interesting articles - I highly recommend reading them.)
Link to map: http://resources.lsaweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/language-hotspots-map.jpg
Monday, April 5, 2010
Animals and Language - An Interesting Thought
I have recently read an article called "Songbirds Offer Clues to How We Learn Language." The article reports a recent research on the Australian zebra finches: When the bird hears its father singing, certain genes in the bird’s brain get activated. It is a very interesting thought that hearing a song can actually alter the state of a gene in the brain. The relationship between language and speech, and a set of genes getting activated by a specific use of language serves as a further proof of the complexity of language learning and processing in the brain.
Up until now, many researchers attempted to teach language-like systems to different species of animals. Most of these attempts did not help much with explaining the idea of language in living creatures other than humans as their linguistic abilities seem to be rather limited. However, I believe that this research about the Australian zebra finches can bring a new insight to the linguistic abilities of animals.
One question to think about may be whether animals learn and process languages in a very different way than people do. If the process is similar both in humans and animals, can this really tell us something about disorders that inhibit speech, like autism?
It almost seems like a reversed process to trace the roots of autism by language. The genes in the songbird's brain that get activated by a song may be similar to those in the human brain which are also responsible for language processing and speech. Then, with autistic people, these genes would be deactivated, so that they would inhibit speech.
At this point, what I wonder is that if scientists manage to find a similarity between the genes regarding language processing and speech of the songbird and human, would it be possible to find a "song" to activate the genes in the human brain? Can this actually offer a way to improve the language development in autistic people which the disease greatly impedes?
(Link to the article: http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/04/01/songbirds-offer-clues-to-how-we-learn-language.html).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)