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
Thursday, May 13, 2010
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
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Avatar fan and Na'vi language
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)