An article by Teresa Watanabe called "Many English learners still struggle with the language, study shows" on Los Angeles Times talks about the fact that nearly 60% of students in Californian high schools are not proficient in the language despite the fact that they have been getting English education for at least 6 years. The study says that besides many other important factors, the problem also lies within the current English education system in the US - and I would like to tackle this issue a little bit more.
English is my second language, and I have been learning the language at school since I was seven years old. One thing about foreign language education is that instead of practicing and speaking the language, students usually learn a lot about grammatical rules and structures of the language. That is what happened with me, as well.
I think that I have a good understanding of essential grammar rules in English. For example, there is a major difference between "your" and "you're." Saying "your dog" is very different than "you're dog." However, it is still very shocking to me that a lot of native English speakers, even the highly educated ones, cannot distinguish between the two. Sometimes, I receive email full of such mistakes in my inbox from a native English speaker, and I ask myself: "Is this that person's fault, or is there a serious flaw with the language education here in the US?"
It is a difficult question to answer, because there are many factors in language education such as the person's background, ability, willingness or age. However, I still think that there must be something wrong with the English language education if a surprising number of native speakers are making the mistake that I, as a non-native speaker, have been warned against numerous times. That is why I am not surprised with the study that Teresa Watanabe wrote about.
I would love to hear from native English speakers who received English language education in the US. Is there really a flaw with the system? Is this something unique to California, or does it happen in other states as well?
Link to article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0528-english-20100528,0,2808835,full.story
Friday, May 28, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
"Evolving language? Or just falling standards?"
Susan Schwartz, in her article called "Evolving language? Or just falling standards?" on Times Colonist, touches on an important dilemma regarding the evolution of languages. Most of us must have heard from our parents or grandparents that they sometimes have a difficult time understanding us even though we are speaking the same language. For example, when I talk to my grandmother in Turkish, I sometimes say that something is "wickedly beautiful" if I want to describe an exceptional beauty. She turns to me with a confused gaze in her eyes and asks whether what I am describing is wicked or beautiful. These two words have opposite meanings, but my generation has started long ago to use the words "wicked" and "beautiful" together in order to emphasize the beauty even more. The same phenomenon is true for English, too.
Similarly, a couple of months ago, I heard one of my English-speaking friends describing something as "stupidly beautiful." He did not mean that the beauty was stupid - he actually meant that something was stupefyingly beautiful. When I told him that the phrase "stupidly beautiful" does not really work, he said that stupidly and stupefyingly sounded very similar, so they could as well mean the same thing, he argued.
Why do we need to use the word "wicked" to express an exceptional beauty, or why are we fine with using the word "stupidly" instead of "stupefyingly," then? Is our language evolving to a point where words can be used interchangeably, or are we losing the essence of our language? In her article, Schwartz asks the same question whether this is a case of evolving language or falling standards due to sloppy use of language.
I would argue that there is a fine line with evolving language and falling standards. It is greatly promising to know that every year hundreds of thousands of new words are added to the lexicon of English. As our lives change, the words and phrases we frequently change do transform as well. We look for better ways to communicate through our language. However, I believe that we arrived at a point where the evolution of language became very spontaneous and arbitrary. There is no need to describe something as "wickedly beautiful" - "exceptionally beautiful" would definitely suffice. As Susan Schwartz mentions in her article, there is a "danger inherent in allowing standards to relax to the point where they no longer do the work of standards, so that words and phrases are so routinely overused or misused that they lose their meaning."
Unfortunately, the misuse of language does not seem to concern young people. It is usually the older generations who complain about the misuse of language, because they are able to witness the changes in the use of language over years. For us, young people, though, it is not the same situation. We usually feel proud when we realize that the words and phrases we use are unknown to our parents and grandparents, because that gives us a sense of progression and improvement. However, we should realize that language evolution and misuse are not the same things, and we have been confusing the two for a long time.
Link to article: http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Evolving+language+just+falling+standards/3063113/story.html
Similarly, a couple of months ago, I heard one of my English-speaking friends describing something as "stupidly beautiful." He did not mean that the beauty was stupid - he actually meant that something was stupefyingly beautiful. When I told him that the phrase "stupidly beautiful" does not really work, he said that stupidly and stupefyingly sounded very similar, so they could as well mean the same thing, he argued.
Why do we need to use the word "wicked" to express an exceptional beauty, or why are we fine with using the word "stupidly" instead of "stupefyingly," then? Is our language evolving to a point where words can be used interchangeably, or are we losing the essence of our language? In her article, Schwartz asks the same question whether this is a case of evolving language or falling standards due to sloppy use of language.
I would argue that there is a fine line with evolving language and falling standards. It is greatly promising to know that every year hundreds of thousands of new words are added to the lexicon of English. As our lives change, the words and phrases we frequently change do transform as well. We look for better ways to communicate through our language. However, I believe that we arrived at a point where the evolution of language became very spontaneous and arbitrary. There is no need to describe something as "wickedly beautiful" - "exceptionally beautiful" would definitely suffice. As Susan Schwartz mentions in her article, there is a "danger inherent in allowing standards to relax to the point where they no longer do the work of standards, so that words and phrases are so routinely overused or misused that they lose their meaning."
Unfortunately, the misuse of language does not seem to concern young people. It is usually the older generations who complain about the misuse of language, because they are able to witness the changes in the use of language over years. For us, young people, though, it is not the same situation. We usually feel proud when we realize that the words and phrases we use are unknown to our parents and grandparents, because that gives us a sense of progression and improvement. However, we should realize that language evolution and misuse are not the same things, and we have been confusing the two for a long time.
Link to article: http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Evolving+language+just+falling+standards/3063113/story.html
Thursday, May 20, 2010
"The English Language and Freedom"
Paul Johnson, in his very interesting article called "The English Language and Freedom" on Forbes, argues that the English language is the language of freedom, democracy and progress, and that nations who are not embracing the English language are doomed to fall behind those who do. For instance, he argues that China is not making any effort to spread the English language and very few mainland Chinese people speak English. By not speaking English, Chinese people do not have "any conception of the liberal tradition that the language enshrines." The Chinese government is striving to spread the Chinese traditions, language and culture in other places such as Africa, and is distancing itself from the advanced Western traditions and English language, Johnson claims. Thus, China is doomed to stagnate because it does not make any effort to learn the English language and embrace its ideals, such as the liberal tradition.
Johnson goes on to contrast China with India, because today most Indian people are learning English, giving them the key "to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the Earth have created and hoarded in the course of 90 generations." Johnson argues that India will soon surpass China, and the primary reason for Indian dominance will be India's close relationship with the English language.
I find Johnson's argument very difficult and fallacious to believe. First, claiming that English is the language of democracy, liberal tradition and freedom is far-fetched, as these ideals were first born in France - a French-speaking population. The ideals of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" were born in French, so if we have to find a language that embraces such ideals more than other languages, then it must be French, and not English.
Still, it is arguable whether embracing a certain language or not can determine the future of a country. In the article, Johnson argues that India is becoming a more advanced and democratic country because Indian people are learning English, while China is doomed to fall behind and become unable to follow liberal and democratic ideals since it promotes the Chinese language and culture instead of English and Western ideals. Today, Chinese language is one of the most dominant languages in the world, and the number of people who learn and can speak the language, especially Mandarin, is increasing every day. China is steadily rising as a global power, and Chinese culture, especially Chinese food, has many fans all around the world. I am not championing Chinese culture or language, but I disagree with the notion that promoting their own language instead of English language makes them disadvantageous in any capacity.
Even if one argues that China is falling behind in terms of democracy and liberal ideals, the reason is not likely to be their promotion of Chinese culture instead of Western ideals. Even if that is the case, there must be other reasons, such as the governmental structure or the ideas of the society.
Johnson's argument also brings up another point. English language embodies democratic and liberal ideals whereas other languages, such as Chinese language, does not. This is why China will fall behind unless it starts embracing the English language. What is implicit in this argument, from how I understand it, is that languages are static entities, and they never change. I disagree, because over centuries people have always shaped their language, added new words or phrases to communicate better or to express a certain idea. If China wants to embrace democratic and liberal ideals, the government and the society can make their own language embrace such ideals as well. Languages do not develop on their own - it is the people who construct, shape, use and destroy the language.
Link to article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-english-language.html
Johnson goes on to contrast China with India, because today most Indian people are learning English, giving them the key "to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the Earth have created and hoarded in the course of 90 generations." Johnson argues that India will soon surpass China, and the primary reason for Indian dominance will be India's close relationship with the English language.
I find Johnson's argument very difficult and fallacious to believe. First, claiming that English is the language of democracy, liberal tradition and freedom is far-fetched, as these ideals were first born in France - a French-speaking population. The ideals of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" were born in French, so if we have to find a language that embraces such ideals more than other languages, then it must be French, and not English.
Still, it is arguable whether embracing a certain language or not can determine the future of a country. In the article, Johnson argues that India is becoming a more advanced and democratic country because Indian people are learning English, while China is doomed to fall behind and become unable to follow liberal and democratic ideals since it promotes the Chinese language and culture instead of English and Western ideals. Today, Chinese language is one of the most dominant languages in the world, and the number of people who learn and can speak the language, especially Mandarin, is increasing every day. China is steadily rising as a global power, and Chinese culture, especially Chinese food, has many fans all around the world. I am not championing Chinese culture or language, but I disagree with the notion that promoting their own language instead of English language makes them disadvantageous in any capacity.
Even if one argues that China is falling behind in terms of democracy and liberal ideals, the reason is not likely to be their promotion of Chinese culture instead of Western ideals. Even if that is the case, there must be other reasons, such as the governmental structure or the ideas of the society.
Johnson's argument also brings up another point. English language embodies democratic and liberal ideals whereas other languages, such as Chinese language, does not. This is why China will fall behind unless it starts embracing the English language. What is implicit in this argument, from how I understand it, is that languages are static entities, and they never change. I disagree, because over centuries people have always shaped their language, added new words or phrases to communicate better or to express a certain idea. If China wants to embrace democratic and liberal ideals, the government and the society can make their own language embrace such ideals as well. Languages do not develop on their own - it is the people who construct, shape, use and destroy the language.
Link to article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-english-language.html
Monday, May 17, 2010
Turkish and language death - ambivalent thoughts
Lately, I have been doing a lot of research and writing about language death, disappearing languages, the reasons and consequences of language loss for my PWR class. In one of my papers for this class, I argue that there is a great tension between dominant language speakers and minority language speakers, and that this tension makes the dominant language speakers indifferent to the death of minority languages.
Most of us speak languages that are spoken by millions of people, such as English, Spanish, Chinese or Arabic. The idea that these languages might disappear anytime soon is beyond imagination - they are so widely spread that their disappearance may not even be possible. On the other hand, though, in class we talked about a lot of languages that have already disappeared or are on the verge of disappearing. Some of these languages are only spoken by 200 people, whereas today the number of English speakers is estimated to be 450 million people. Looking at these numbers, it is reasonable to argue that English, like any other dominant language, is not going to disappear anytime soon. So, it is difficult for dominant language speakers to empathize with people who are losing their own language. It is difficult for them to put themselves in shoes of minority language speakers. Thus, dominant language speakers may indeed feel indifferent to the problem of language loss.
In my paper, I acknowledge the reasons that lead to this indifference, but I also argue that these should not stop us, dominant language speakers, from realizing how important each and every language is to us and how much they mean for humanity - no matter how widely spread they are. I personally believe and argue that each language is a manifestation of human intellect and embodies ideas that humans have been inheriting and developing for centuries.
Although I felt very passionate about the topic, advocated the importance of every language and strongly argued that the loss of any language means a greater loss for humanity, an article that I have recently read showed me that I may have, after all, ambivalent thoughts on the issue of language death. I have recently read an article called "Turkey's fading linguistic heritage" by Anita McNaught in which the writer mentions the linguistic diversity in Turkey and how it is disappearing at an alarming rate. According to the article, UNESCO recently reported that there are 15 endangered languages and dialects in Turkey. The Turkish government and the Turkish society, however, are not concerned about the decline of language diversity, as "many Turkish speakers view any diversification of Turkey's 'Turkishness' as a threat to the integrity of the nation state."
After I read the article, I realized that I am one of those many Turkish speakers threatened by the language diversity in Turkey. There are many ethnic groups in Turkey, and in the past few years, a couple of them caused a great amount of tension in the country, such as the Kurdish population. Kurds, for instance, now have a national channel in their language, Kurdish, and this channel is endorsed by the Turkish government. Like many people in Turkey, I refuse to see this as an action to preserve the Kurdish language. I actually think of this as a threat to the national unity of Turkey and as an action to undermine the official language of the country, Turkish. Thus, sadly enough, I personally do not see any problems with ethnic languages in Turkey disappearing and the Turkish language being the only language spoken in the country. I am doing the exact opposite of what I am arguing in my paper: ignoring the richness and wealth of knowledge and intellect that every language possesses, and advocating for one common language in the case of Turkey.
I am not sure whether I am falling prey to a nationalistic sentiment, thereby having no problem with having languages that threaten my native language disappear. My reaction might also be a way to respond to the recent tensions we have had in Turkey regarding several ethnic groups, their cultures and languages. Still, while I can talk about why languages, especially minority and different ethnic languages, should be preserved, I see no problem with letting those that threaten Turkish go. I certainly see the minority languages as a threat to the Turkish languages, unity and culture.
How can I be alarmed by the loss of languages, and at the same time have no problem with the death of minority languages in Turkey? Do I confuse my ideas regarding the loss of languages with a strong sense of nationalism? Or is it actually not entirely possible to isolate ourselves from the society we live in or the language we speak and think about language death objectively? Is there a way to think objectively about language death when we are already influenced by particular languages and cultures?
Link to article: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/201051695350717990.html
Link to map: http://lingvarium.org/maps/18-turkey.gif
Most of us speak languages that are spoken by millions of people, such as English, Spanish, Chinese or Arabic. The idea that these languages might disappear anytime soon is beyond imagination - they are so widely spread that their disappearance may not even be possible. On the other hand, though, in class we talked about a lot of languages that have already disappeared or are on the verge of disappearing. Some of these languages are only spoken by 200 people, whereas today the number of English speakers is estimated to be 450 million people. Looking at these numbers, it is reasonable to argue that English, like any other dominant language, is not going to disappear anytime soon. So, it is difficult for dominant language speakers to empathize with people who are losing their own language. It is difficult for them to put themselves in shoes of minority language speakers. Thus, dominant language speakers may indeed feel indifferent to the problem of language loss.
In my paper, I acknowledge the reasons that lead to this indifference, but I also argue that these should not stop us, dominant language speakers, from realizing how important each and every language is to us and how much they mean for humanity - no matter how widely spread they are. I personally believe and argue that each language is a manifestation of human intellect and embodies ideas that humans have been inheriting and developing for centuries.
Although I felt very passionate about the topic, advocated the importance of every language and strongly argued that the loss of any language means a greater loss for humanity, an article that I have recently read showed me that I may have, after all, ambivalent thoughts on the issue of language death. I have recently read an article called "Turkey's fading linguistic heritage" by Anita McNaught in which the writer mentions the linguistic diversity in Turkey and how it is disappearing at an alarming rate. According to the article, UNESCO recently reported that there are 15 endangered languages and dialects in Turkey. The Turkish government and the Turkish society, however, are not concerned about the decline of language diversity, as "many Turkish speakers view any diversification of Turkey's 'Turkishness' as a threat to the integrity of the nation state."
After I read the article, I realized that I am one of those many Turkish speakers threatened by the language diversity in Turkey. There are many ethnic groups in Turkey, and in the past few years, a couple of them caused a great amount of tension in the country, such as the Kurdish population. Kurds, for instance, now have a national channel in their language, Kurdish, and this channel is endorsed by the Turkish government. Like many people in Turkey, I refuse to see this as an action to preserve the Kurdish language. I actually think of this as a threat to the national unity of Turkey and as an action to undermine the official language of the country, Turkish. Thus, sadly enough, I personally do not see any problems with ethnic languages in Turkey disappearing and the Turkish language being the only language spoken in the country. I am doing the exact opposite of what I am arguing in my paper: ignoring the richness and wealth of knowledge and intellect that every language possesses, and advocating for one common language in the case of Turkey.
I am not sure whether I am falling prey to a nationalistic sentiment, thereby having no problem with having languages that threaten my native language disappear. My reaction might also be a way to respond to the recent tensions we have had in Turkey regarding several ethnic groups, their cultures and languages. Still, while I can talk about why languages, especially minority and different ethnic languages, should be preserved, I see no problem with letting those that threaten Turkish go. I certainly see the minority languages as a threat to the Turkish languages, unity and culture.
How can I be alarmed by the loss of languages, and at the same time have no problem with the death of minority languages in Turkey? Do I confuse my ideas regarding the loss of languages with a strong sense of nationalism? Or is it actually not entirely possible to isolate ourselves from the society we live in or the language we speak and think about language death objectively? Is there a way to think objectively about language death when we are already influenced by particular languages and cultures?
Link to article: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/201051695350717990.html
Link to map: http://lingvarium.org/maps/18-turkey.gif
Thursday, May 13, 2010
How languages shape the way we think about racial issues
The other day we had a discussion about how the language used in Census forms, and more broadly, classifying people according to races create bigger problems. An article called "Time to Change the Language Paradigm: A Tool for Promoting Social Progress" by Skywalker Payne extensively talks about this issue - how languages shape the way we think about racial issues, and how we come to accept a certain model of social structure because of the language we use.
Payne starts off mentioning "the oxymoronic expression minority-majority." She argues that when people say "I am a minority," they are actually admitting that they are less than what they define as "the majority." The first definition of minority in most dictionaries qualifies the word as a term that describes a group smaller in the number of its members. However, over years the word minority assumed a more different meaning than that. Today, when we define a group of people as minority, we do not really take into account the number of members of that group compared to those of other groups. The word minority defines a group that is inferior to a majority, and that remains lesser in significance, importance or seriousness. And this makes minority a pejorative term instead of a quantitative one.
A compelling example that Payne presents stems from this question: Would we ever call a group of white people minority? When, for example, a few white students are getting education in a university with a black population much greater in number, would anyone consider the group of white people minority? Considering how we use the term today, it is highly unlikely. Even though in that case the white people are much lesser in number, not many people would define them as minority. Similarly, although black people are more in number, not many people would call them majority.
So, there is definitely a major shift in what the words minority and majority imply. The definition shifted from quantitative to qualitative. If these words do not refer to the number anymore, then what do they actually mean in our language? I agree with Payne that now minority is a pejorative term and puts the defined group to a lesser level than "the majority." These two words are difficult to deal with in the sense that there are many implications in them: In most dictionaries, major is defined as important and significant, whereas minor is defined as lesser in importance, seriousness or significance. It is quite difficult to separate the adjectives, major or minor, from the nouns, majority or minority. When the adjectives are defined like this, it is, I believe, difficult for us to think of these nouns as mere descriptions of numbers. They definitely imply the meaning of the adjectives - that is, majority is more important and significant than a minority.
I wonder if we are aware of this shift in the definition of minority and majority. As a white person who is a member of the so-called "majority," I find these words degrading and not representative of the individuals. I believe that the language we use today is putting people into little packages for the sake of conciseness. We forgo the intricacies and uniqueness of each individual and put them in groups. And when the way we refer to a particular group changes, as in the case with minority and majority, we actually change a whole lot - we change the way how we see those individuals. In our language, they are not less in number anymore, but rather they are less in significance and importance.
I do not think that we are aware of this change. We define a group of people as minority, but we don't really know what we mean by that. Do we really mean that this group of people is less in number, or less in importance? Language is an inextricable part of our daily lives, and we often tend to ignore the shifts in our language, and what we really mean by certain words.
Link to article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Change-the-Languag-by-Skywalker-Payne-100507-522.html
Payne starts off mentioning "the oxymoronic expression minority-majority." She argues that when people say "I am a minority," they are actually admitting that they are less than what they define as "the majority." The first definition of minority in most dictionaries qualifies the word as a term that describes a group smaller in the number of its members. However, over years the word minority assumed a more different meaning than that. Today, when we define a group of people as minority, we do not really take into account the number of members of that group compared to those of other groups. The word minority defines a group that is inferior to a majority, and that remains lesser in significance, importance or seriousness. And this makes minority a pejorative term instead of a quantitative one.
A compelling example that Payne presents stems from this question: Would we ever call a group of white people minority? When, for example, a few white students are getting education in a university with a black population much greater in number, would anyone consider the group of white people minority? Considering how we use the term today, it is highly unlikely. Even though in that case the white people are much lesser in number, not many people would define them as minority. Similarly, although black people are more in number, not many people would call them majority.
So, there is definitely a major shift in what the words minority and majority imply. The definition shifted from quantitative to qualitative. If these words do not refer to the number anymore, then what do they actually mean in our language? I agree with Payne that now minority is a pejorative term and puts the defined group to a lesser level than "the majority." These two words are difficult to deal with in the sense that there are many implications in them: In most dictionaries, major is defined as important and significant, whereas minor is defined as lesser in importance, seriousness or significance. It is quite difficult to separate the adjectives, major or minor, from the nouns, majority or minority. When the adjectives are defined like this, it is, I believe, difficult for us to think of these nouns as mere descriptions of numbers. They definitely imply the meaning of the adjectives - that is, majority is more important and significant than a minority.
I wonder if we are aware of this shift in the definition of minority and majority. As a white person who is a member of the so-called "majority," I find these words degrading and not representative of the individuals. I believe that the language we use today is putting people into little packages for the sake of conciseness. We forgo the intricacies and uniqueness of each individual and put them in groups. And when the way we refer to a particular group changes, as in the case with minority and majority, we actually change a whole lot - we change the way how we see those individuals. In our language, they are not less in number anymore, but rather they are less in significance and importance.
I do not think that we are aware of this change. We define a group of people as minority, but we don't really know what we mean by that. Do we really mean that this group of people is less in number, or less in importance? Language is an inextricable part of our daily lives, and we often tend to ignore the shifts in our language, and what we really mean by certain words.
Link to article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Change-the-Languag-by-Skywalker-Payne-100507-522.html
Monday, May 10, 2010
Australian indigenous language on children's TV
In today's rapidly globalizing world, it must be difficult to attract attention to indigenous languages and cultures. It is, however, as we have already discussed in class before, very important to save such languages, in part because they are rich sources of knowledge regarding human cognition and history. How can we, then, convince people speak, or at least make them aware of, indigenous and endangered languages when it is more useful to speak English, Chinese or Spanish in today's world?
In her article called "Indigenous language finds life through children's TV" on The Wall Street Journal, Sally Jackson talks about a way to make the children in Australia aware of one of the endangered Australian languages: the Noongar language. This indigenous language was once widely spoken in the southwest region of Western Australia. The Noongar language has thirteen dialects, and eight of these dialects are endangered. And now the Noongar language is being taught to children in Australia on children's program on TV, and the program is called "Waabiny Time."
I can't really imagine how they can teach the language to little children through TV, but I still think that this is a great idea. I believe that the aim of this program is not necessarily to get children speak the language fluently, but rather raise an awareness. If the children in Australia are aware of the existence of the Noongar language and the danger of extinction that it faces today, then they will be more likely to take initiative and be an active part of saving this language.
What is even more surprising for me is that the parents and grandparents of the children who watch the program and learn about the Noongar language gave very positive feedback to the producers of the children's program. This shows that even though the program's main target is children, it also influences and educates the other generations in a certain way. So, while childrens are educated about this issue at a young age, their parents and grandparents become aware of the issue themselves if they were not already familiar with it.
I think that raising awareness for disappearing languages is a challenging task, but this idea of reaching out to children and their parents through a children's program is a great idea. I wonder what else can be done. How can we let people know that languages are dying and that it is important to save them? I believe that the issue of disappearing languages and language death is somewhat limited to linguists and researchers - general public is unaware or indifferent to the issue, and that is something we should address before more languages die out.
Link to Article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/indigenous-language-finds-life-through-childrens-tv/story-e6frg996-1225864247897
In her article called "Indigenous language finds life through children's TV" on The Wall Street Journal, Sally Jackson talks about a way to make the children in Australia aware of one of the endangered Australian languages: the Noongar language. This indigenous language was once widely spoken in the southwest region of Western Australia. The Noongar language has thirteen dialects, and eight of these dialects are endangered. And now the Noongar language is being taught to children in Australia on children's program on TV, and the program is called "Waabiny Time."
I can't really imagine how they can teach the language to little children through TV, but I still think that this is a great idea. I believe that the aim of this program is not necessarily to get children speak the language fluently, but rather raise an awareness. If the children in Australia are aware of the existence of the Noongar language and the danger of extinction that it faces today, then they will be more likely to take initiative and be an active part of saving this language.
What is even more surprising for me is that the parents and grandparents of the children who watch the program and learn about the Noongar language gave very positive feedback to the producers of the children's program. This shows that even though the program's main target is children, it also influences and educates the other generations in a certain way. So, while childrens are educated about this issue at a young age, their parents and grandparents become aware of the issue themselves if they were not already familiar with it.
I think that raising awareness for disappearing languages is a challenging task, but this idea of reaching out to children and their parents through a children's program is a great idea. I wonder what else can be done. How can we let people know that languages are dying and that it is important to save them? I believe that the issue of disappearing languages and language death is somewhat limited to linguists and researchers - general public is unaware or indifferent to the issue, and that is something we should address before more languages die out.
Link to Article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/indigenous-language-finds-life-through-childrens-tv/story-e6frg996-1225864247897
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Two languages in one country - the birth of a hybrid language
Having disputed over its official language for a long time, at the end Canada decided to use both languages that are used in the country: French and English. The Constitution of Canada recognizes these two languages as the official languages of the country. Although the presence of two official languages can be enriching and diversifying, there are also conflicts. Reid Spencer, on his article called "Montreal find common language in racing" on Sporting News Today, talks about a solution to one of the problems that the co-existence of two languages brings about: the rising of a new language that is a mixture of English and French.
Spencer mentions the former problem of language issues heavily affected racing in Canada. Not knowing which language to use during races, especially regarding directions given to the drivers during races, people had disputed whether English or French would be preferable. At the end, they came up with a solution: They did not end up choosing English or French. Instead, they decided to merge the two languages and create a new hybrid language. The suggestion was that French and English would be combined and the shortest word from each language would be chosen. For example, "nord" would be used instead of "north," "sud" instead of "south," and "west" instead of "ouest."
I wonder why they would do that. I don't see any difference in practicality between saying "nord" instead of "north," or "sud" instead of "south." Although most of the time both languages must be used as the official languages of Canada, I think that choosing one over the other for purposes of racing would be better than just randomly coming up with a rule and mixing the two languages according to that. English and French words are not much different in word length anyway, so there is no advantage to use both and choose the shortest word each time.
Mixing up English and French and coming up with a hybrid language out of the two, in my opinion, is an issue that should be closely looked at. The French government and people are famous for protecting their language vehemently. They often do not readily welcome the speakers of other languages, especially those of English, as they see the ubiquitous nature of English as a threat to French. The French Academy attempts to find French equivalents for English words that might otherwise enter the French lexicon. This protection on the French side greatly contradicts the idea of merging English and French.
Although both English and French are dominant languages, I still think that merging these two languages for any reason is an unfavorable idea. Two languages have already been influencing each other enough: In English, we use the French word "lieu" in the phrase "in lieu of," while in French we use the English word "weekend." First, there is no need in combining these two languages. They are both distinct and rich languages, and there is no need to combine the two and to create a new language. Secondly, and most importantly, merging the two would only cause them lose the nuance of either language. Both French and English languages are inextricably linked to the cultures they represent. French culture and traditions are different than those of English, and each language embodies the culture and tradition of its own people. Merging the two languages would also make the two distinct cultures blend, and the uniqueness of each culture would disappear.
This issue raises another question for me. Is not having only one official language an infeasible idea? Would the same problem arise in the USA? Having no official language, would the USA face a situation where, for example, people attempt to merge English and Spanish to create a new language? Would there be a need for that? Or is it a matter of reconciliation between the two languages and their speakers?
Link to Article: http://www.sportingnews.com/nascar/article/2010-05-05/nascar-and-montreal-find-common-language-racing
Spencer mentions the former problem of language issues heavily affected racing in Canada. Not knowing which language to use during races, especially regarding directions given to the drivers during races, people had disputed whether English or French would be preferable. At the end, they came up with a solution: They did not end up choosing English or French. Instead, they decided to merge the two languages and create a new hybrid language. The suggestion was that French and English would be combined and the shortest word from each language would be chosen. For example, "nord" would be used instead of "north," "sud" instead of "south," and "west" instead of "ouest."
I wonder why they would do that. I don't see any difference in practicality between saying "nord" instead of "north," or "sud" instead of "south." Although most of the time both languages must be used as the official languages of Canada, I think that choosing one over the other for purposes of racing would be better than just randomly coming up with a rule and mixing the two languages according to that. English and French words are not much different in word length anyway, so there is no advantage to use both and choose the shortest word each time.
Mixing up English and French and coming up with a hybrid language out of the two, in my opinion, is an issue that should be closely looked at. The French government and people are famous for protecting their language vehemently. They often do not readily welcome the speakers of other languages, especially those of English, as they see the ubiquitous nature of English as a threat to French. The French Academy attempts to find French equivalents for English words that might otherwise enter the French lexicon. This protection on the French side greatly contradicts the idea of merging English and French.
Although both English and French are dominant languages, I still think that merging these two languages for any reason is an unfavorable idea. Two languages have already been influencing each other enough: In English, we use the French word "lieu" in the phrase "in lieu of," while in French we use the English word "weekend." First, there is no need in combining these two languages. They are both distinct and rich languages, and there is no need to combine the two and to create a new language. Secondly, and most importantly, merging the two would only cause them lose the nuance of either language. Both French and English languages are inextricably linked to the cultures they represent. French culture and traditions are different than those of English, and each language embodies the culture and tradition of its own people. Merging the two languages would also make the two distinct cultures blend, and the uniqueness of each culture would disappear.
This issue raises another question for me. Is not having only one official language an infeasible idea? Would the same problem arise in the USA? Having no official language, would the USA face a situation where, for example, people attempt to merge English and Spanish to create a new language? Would there be a need for that? Or is it a matter of reconciliation between the two languages and their speakers?
Link to Article: http://www.sportingnews.com/nascar/article/2010-05-05/nascar-and-montreal-find-common-language-racing
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Eyjafjallajökull - Can anyone pronounce this?
In the article called "Language eruption: What the volcano gave us," Erin McKean touches on an issue that all of us have been hearing a lot about recently: the volcano in Iceland and its sudden eruption. Many years later, we will remember the eruption of Icelandic volcano as the event that stranded many travelers and turned Europe into a place covered with ashes and anxiety. However, this is probably not the only thing we will remember - we will all remember the strange name of the eventful volcano: Eyjafjallaökull.
Through this recent event, McKean makes an important argument that languages have a great capacity for "lexical inventiveness." She mentions that after the eruption, we became more familiar with aviation and volcanic terms that we were not before. McKean adds that "any news event of sufficient magnitude," such as the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, "will leave traces behind in our language."
While I find McKean's argument quite compelling, I think that the lexical inventiveness is already present in our daily lives. We do not need to wait for such a large scale event to invent words and expand the lexicon of our language. The technology that we use everyday, for instance, has already contributed a lot to our language. Rather than saying "I am going to talk to my parents on the Internet," we prefer to say "I am going to skype with my parents." Does skype really mean anything? It is not a word that is in dictionaries. But today, we are using the name of a computer program as a verb and a noun in the English language. Today, we do not talk to our friends through Skype - we "skype" with our friends.
This is true for other languages, too. In Turkish, for example, people who use Skype use the name of the program as a verb, and nobody really questions how easily we can invent a new lexicon for our language.
The idea of "lexical incentiveness" seem to be a good thing at first glance. Our language is capable of accommodating the advancing technology and rapid changes happening in the world. Or, is it really? Is there a limit as to how many words such as "skype" a language can contain in its lexicon? Are there languages that do not accommodate new words? Does this in any way affect its speakers negatively? Or is it a good thing for a language to stay static and preserve its structure?
We are living in an era of rapid changes. A century later, more volcanoes will have erupted, more computer programs will have been written and everything will have changed drastically. And the language we use today will have changed as well. Is it then fair to say that the English language of the next century will be same as the language we use today? Today, we find it very difficult to understand Shakespearean English. Will our English be obscure to the English speakers of the future?
I believe that language is a living entity and changes itself according to the needs of its speakers. But, I doubt that we need to use the word "skype" instead of talking on the computer, or "iPhone" instead of mobile phone. Although our language will eventually change and adapt itself to our new way of living, it still needs to protect its essence and should not be a container for our fast-changing and usually meaningless terms.
Link to article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/02/language_eruption/
Link to picture: http://www.skimountaineer.com/ROF/Beyond/Eyja/EyjafjallajokullWSW.jpg
Through this recent event, McKean makes an important argument that languages have a great capacity for "lexical inventiveness." She mentions that after the eruption, we became more familiar with aviation and volcanic terms that we were not before. McKean adds that "any news event of sufficient magnitude," such as the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, "will leave traces behind in our language."
While I find McKean's argument quite compelling, I think that the lexical inventiveness is already present in our daily lives. We do not need to wait for such a large scale event to invent words and expand the lexicon of our language. The technology that we use everyday, for instance, has already contributed a lot to our language. Rather than saying "I am going to talk to my parents on the Internet," we prefer to say "I am going to skype with my parents." Does skype really mean anything? It is not a word that is in dictionaries. But today, we are using the name of a computer program as a verb and a noun in the English language. Today, we do not talk to our friends through Skype - we "skype" with our friends.
This is true for other languages, too. In Turkish, for example, people who use Skype use the name of the program as a verb, and nobody really questions how easily we can invent a new lexicon for our language.
The idea of "lexical incentiveness" seem to be a good thing at first glance. Our language is capable of accommodating the advancing technology and rapid changes happening in the world. Or, is it really? Is there a limit as to how many words such as "skype" a language can contain in its lexicon? Are there languages that do not accommodate new words? Does this in any way affect its speakers negatively? Or is it a good thing for a language to stay static and preserve its structure?
We are living in an era of rapid changes. A century later, more volcanoes will have erupted, more computer programs will have been written and everything will have changed drastically. And the language we use today will have changed as well. Is it then fair to say that the English language of the next century will be same as the language we use today? Today, we find it very difficult to understand Shakespearean English. Will our English be obscure to the English speakers of the future?
I believe that language is a living entity and changes itself according to the needs of its speakers. But, I doubt that we need to use the word "skype" instead of talking on the computer, or "iPhone" instead of mobile phone. Although our language will eventually change and adapt itself to our new way of living, it still needs to protect its essence and should not be a container for our fast-changing and usually meaningless terms.
Link to article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/02/language_eruption/
Link to picture: http://www.skimountaineer.com/ROF/Beyond/Eyja/EyjafjallajokullWSW.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)