This article was interesting and I agree with the idea of learning Chinese because of its importance and difficulty. After reading, I got to thinking, what other languages are becoming increasingly important in the world? I personally think that Hindi is also going to be playing a greater role right alongside China as the two economies become even more prosperous. Other than that, though, I don't know what would be important to learn.
Another interesting aspect of the article was that students who major in Chinese also major mostly in business. Other majors/minors include engineering, medicine, law, and the military. I personally wonder how business is going to progress as China plays a greater role in the global economy. Will business start to take place more in Chinese? Will it stay in English, for the most part, and have Chinese fluency necessary for other communicative purposes. What role will the U.S. play if it becomes the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th most powerful nation economically?
One final point of interest is that many of the best speakers are those that are the most motivated to learn. Because it is such a difficult language, many of the teachers say that it really doesn't matter if your aptitude to learn the language is greater. This is an interesting aspect of the conversation that occurred in class. When talking about learning languages, I think it is interesting to note that a student's motivation may be the most critical factor vs. presentation of the material. While we may find differences based on how the material is presented, it seems the highest correlating factor is motivation.
Overall, it was a good article that raised many questions.
Original Article: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66608
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Response to Recent Post Comments
Steve:
You make some great points and I agree that imperial roots played a major role in English becoming the most dominant language. My thoughts rest along the lines that English is spoken all over the world. It is expected by 2025, every Chinese person under 25 will speak English. There is debate whether future presidents of Taiwan should be required to speak English. It seems every high-impact position in today's economic/political sphere requires English of some kind - either spoken or interpreted.
My response to "simple and harmonious" is yes, it is easier for those who already speak it. It is also easier for those who don't speak it because there are major incentives to learn it economic, socially, and politically. It is also easier because there is more of a global distribution in English speakers (vs. pure numbers in which China wins...) It is also easier because we only produce one set of instruction, versue one for every major language (put that at around 15). We don't spend money in translation (or lost in translation.) It is also easier life or death situations, such as ambulances, emergencies, and hospitals. So, my question is, so what if it's simpler and more harmonious for those who already speak it? Don't we have greater issues to worry about?
Nana:
I liked your comments and regardless of what I said in my response to Steve, I still find it deeply respectful to learn the language of the country I am entering. While I think we should all learn a language, especially one that is specific, roots-based, and logical (for mostly scientific purposes), I feel that it should be just as accessible for people to learn other languages.
Joe:
I think learning a single language on a national and global level is extremely important. My question to you is, why doesn't it feel right? Because of my beliefs (as presented in the response to Steve) it feels wrong not to have everyone speak a common language.
I agree that it is important to consider the major changes in which language has been dominant. The major problem I see with this argument, though, is that there has never been a time in history where there is so much momentum in favor of a specific language. How many books are published in English? How many scientific discoveries are made and discussed in English? How many billions, if not trillions of dollars are managed through English-dominated corporations? Sure, much of this can change, but A LOT has to happen for this to occur, and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.
The logic of our alphabet system rests in the fact that it consists of 26 letters. No more, no less. Sure, we make goofy words with those letters, but we don't make up new letters. To me, pronunciation and meaning are completely independent of the alphabet. Composition of words, and how those words are pronounced, are major issues in English - something I feel also has to be taken care of (by no means am I saying English is perfect). The argument I was trying to make is that Chinese is not consistent with an alphabet. If I were to say a word and spell it to the best of my ability, 99 times out of a 100, you could figure out what word I meant. With Chinese, I believe this number is dramatically lower.
You make some great points and I agree that imperial roots played a major role in English becoming the most dominant language. My thoughts rest along the lines that English is spoken all over the world. It is expected by 2025, every Chinese person under 25 will speak English. There is debate whether future presidents of Taiwan should be required to speak English. It seems every high-impact position in today's economic/political sphere requires English of some kind - either spoken or interpreted.
My response to "simple and harmonious" is yes, it is easier for those who already speak it. It is also easier for those who don't speak it because there are major incentives to learn it economic, socially, and politically. It is also easier because there is more of a global distribution in English speakers (vs. pure numbers in which China wins...) It is also easier because we only produce one set of instruction, versue one for every major language (put that at around 15). We don't spend money in translation (or lost in translation.) It is also easier life or death situations, such as ambulances, emergencies, and hospitals. So, my question is, so what if it's simpler and more harmonious for those who already speak it? Don't we have greater issues to worry about?
Nana:
I liked your comments and regardless of what I said in my response to Steve, I still find it deeply respectful to learn the language of the country I am entering. While I think we should all learn a language, especially one that is specific, roots-based, and logical (for mostly scientific purposes), I feel that it should be just as accessible for people to learn other languages.
Joe:
I think learning a single language on a national and global level is extremely important. My question to you is, why doesn't it feel right? Because of my beliefs (as presented in the response to Steve) it feels wrong not to have everyone speak a common language.
I agree that it is important to consider the major changes in which language has been dominant. The major problem I see with this argument, though, is that there has never been a time in history where there is so much momentum in favor of a specific language. How many books are published in English? How many scientific discoveries are made and discussed in English? How many billions, if not trillions of dollars are managed through English-dominated corporations? Sure, much of this can change, but A LOT has to happen for this to occur, and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.
The logic of our alphabet system rests in the fact that it consists of 26 letters. No more, no less. Sure, we make goofy words with those letters, but we don't make up new letters. To me, pronunciation and meaning are completely independent of the alphabet. Composition of words, and how those words are pronounced, are major issues in English - something I feel also has to be taken care of (by no means am I saying English is perfect). The argument I was trying to make is that Chinese is not consistent with an alphabet. If I were to say a word and spell it to the best of my ability, 99 times out of a 100, you could figure out what word I meant. With Chinese, I believe this number is dramatically lower.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Spanish-Language Ad Spending Remains Solid
This article particularly caught my eye. The statistics say total ad spending for the first half of the year is $2.88 billion, a 2.3% increase over the same period last year. Also, Spanish-language cable tv is up 75.3%, to $104.3 million, in the first half. A final statistic is that Spanish-language national magazines are also up 14.3%. This is surprising, and probably more so than most because I came from a non-diverse background, and I find it somewhat intimidating. Part of the reason I find it intimidating is because I've always had this notion that if you come to America, you should learn English. To provide what I consider a justifiable counter, if I wanted to visit China, I would impose upon myself a duty to learn Chinese before visiting.
My reason for this is multi-fold, and this post is in part a response to comments I have received. For simplicity and harmony's sake, I feel having to know only one common language is important. Whether it be English or Esperanto or Spanish, it matters, but not significantly. The reason I feel English is the most practical and efficient to learn (even though it's neither practical nor efficient as a language) is because A.) It's the language of business, B.) It's the language of medicine, and C.) it is the most internationally adopted language. When I say internationally adopted, I mean that people in positions of power and influence learn English as their second language more-so than any other language. Another reason I think English is important is because it is based on a mostly-logical alphabetic system. While there are some complaints, it's not like Mandarin with a difficult character system.
A final reason why we should learn one language on top of our native language (if it's not English) is that it makes communication much easier. In terms of programming languages, XML is considered somewhat of a holy grail because it is seen as a language that eliminates many other languages. It provides a common system of expression no matter what type of programming you are doing. Even though you can get specific with special-purpose programming languages, if that special purpose is no longer necessary, then the language is dropped because it no longer makes sense. In my analysis of programming languages, ideas and concepts are very, very similar, but the ease of which they are expressed, and their flexibility in creating dynamic solutions matters most. This is how I feel in general about languages, and even if English isn't the best language, I feel that there should be some language as the worldwide language.
Original Article: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6497920.html
My reason for this is multi-fold, and this post is in part a response to comments I have received. For simplicity and harmony's sake, I feel having to know only one common language is important. Whether it be English or Esperanto or Spanish, it matters, but not significantly. The reason I feel English is the most practical and efficient to learn (even though it's neither practical nor efficient as a language) is because A.) It's the language of business, B.) It's the language of medicine, and C.) it is the most internationally adopted language. When I say internationally adopted, I mean that people in positions of power and influence learn English as their second language more-so than any other language. Another reason I think English is important is because it is based on a mostly-logical alphabetic system. While there are some complaints, it's not like Mandarin with a difficult character system.
A final reason why we should learn one language on top of our native language (if it's not English) is that it makes communication much easier. In terms of programming languages, XML is considered somewhat of a holy grail because it is seen as a language that eliminates many other languages. It provides a common system of expression no matter what type of programming you are doing. Even though you can get specific with special-purpose programming languages, if that special purpose is no longer necessary, then the language is dropped because it no longer makes sense. In my analysis of programming languages, ideas and concepts are very, very similar, but the ease of which they are expressed, and their flexibility in creating dynamic solutions matters most. This is how I feel in general about languages, and even if English isn't the best language, I feel that there should be some language as the worldwide language.
Original Article: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6497920.html
Worldwide, a Language Dies Every Two Weeks
This article touches on a topic that I talked about in an earlier blog. I find it interesting that we have this recurring debate about languages and determining whether or not it is beneficial, if not necessary, to preserve dying languages. The more I read about the topic, the more perspectives I learn about that provide interesting dynamics to the topic.
One interesting point was that languages not only contain stories and history, but also have the ability to describe things like medicinal uses for plants. I never gave much consideration to this dynamic, and now that I take time to think about it, I find it extremely interesting and changing my perspective on the issue to be more sensitive to the grey areas of the topic.
One other thing they talked about are the "hotspots" for a dying language. These “hotspot” areas include Northern Australia, Central South America, Eastern Siberia and parts of the United States and Canada. The languages in question seem to come from minority groups, and I was somewhat surprised by our last discussion and also in this article how some languages have three or fewer speakers. Part of me just wonders how much we are losing from all of these languages. For me, when considering programming languages, the syntax (or words) are irrelevant, but rather how easy it is to create expressions and develop functionality are key. When considering other languages, it's hard for me to develop a cohesive understanding and strong position one way or the other. As of right now, the least we should do is catalog as much of the dying languages as we can, and analyze them for their content if they die out. If not, have people learn the language and learn as much as possible about the culture from the speakers.
Original Article: http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2007-11-06-voa1.cfm
One interesting point was that languages not only contain stories and history, but also have the ability to describe things like medicinal uses for plants. I never gave much consideration to this dynamic, and now that I take time to think about it, I find it extremely interesting and changing my perspective on the issue to be more sensitive to the grey areas of the topic.
One other thing they talked about are the "hotspots" for a dying language. These “hotspot” areas include Northern Australia, Central South America, Eastern Siberia and parts of the United States and Canada. The languages in question seem to come from minority groups, and I was somewhat surprised by our last discussion and also in this article how some languages have three or fewer speakers. Part of me just wonders how much we are losing from all of these languages. For me, when considering programming languages, the syntax (or words) are irrelevant, but rather how easy it is to create expressions and develop functionality are key. When considering other languages, it's hard for me to develop a cohesive understanding and strong position one way or the other. As of right now, the least we should do is catalog as much of the dying languages as we can, and analyze them for their content if they die out. If not, have people learn the language and learn as much as possible about the culture from the speakers.
Original Article: http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2007-11-06-voa1.cfm
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Language learning system launched
This article took a fresh look at the education system and how it teaches people how to learn language. The creator of the program, Pat Howe, is dyslexic and worked for many years on developing his product. It is a system of cd's and color-coded flash cards for sounds. The article also says that 40% of people may not benefit from the program.
What seems interesting to me is the role in which color plays with the flash cards. Is there some sort of greater neurological imprint that can be made when color is used? If we use colors to signify specific sounds, how does that shape the way we think? Because I believe learning is very contextually based - for example, Prof. Boroditsky thinks and generally speaks in Russian when talking about her childhood and English when referring to her work - I believe that certain associations, especially if developed and reinforced early on, may have more significant ramifications down the road. Whether these are good or bad, I'd have to wait until data is analyzed.
Also, when it comes to learning the cd's, it would be interesting to discover the strategies used in the cd's. Are they using conversations to convey everyday vocabulary and meaning? Is this an immersion system that is backed up with the basics in grammar/spelling flash cards? I don't know how to gauge the effectiveness of this type of program, and the website isn't up to see how exactly the program works. I commented on an earlier blog that I believed effective language learning came from immersion, because that environment gives meaning and substance to every aspect of the language. I will be on the lookout for the website and it's products.
Orignial Article: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1029/breaking25.htm
What seems interesting to me is the role in which color plays with the flash cards. Is there some sort of greater neurological imprint that can be made when color is used? If we use colors to signify specific sounds, how does that shape the way we think? Because I believe learning is very contextually based - for example, Prof. Boroditsky thinks and generally speaks in Russian when talking about her childhood and English when referring to her work - I believe that certain associations, especially if developed and reinforced early on, may have more significant ramifications down the road. Whether these are good or bad, I'd have to wait until data is analyzed.
Also, when it comes to learning the cd's, it would be interesting to discover the strategies used in the cd's. Are they using conversations to convey everyday vocabulary and meaning? Is this an immersion system that is backed up with the basics in grammar/spelling flash cards? I don't know how to gauge the effectiveness of this type of program, and the website isn't up to see how exactly the program works. I commented on an earlier blog that I believed effective language learning came from immersion, because that environment gives meaning and substance to every aspect of the language. I will be on the lookout for the website and it's products.
Orignial Article: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1029/breaking25.htm
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Emergency teams focus on language gulf
This article discusses how 17 people died in a terrible windstorm in Western Washington. The interesting thing is that 85% of the individuals that died didn't speak English as their primary language. The article then discusses different actions that can be taken to reduce or eliminate this language gulf. They are printing pamphlets in multiple languages, such as Spanish, Russian, Korean, and Vietnamese.
What I find interesting is that the article is always talking about bringing the information to these people in their foreign language, but really I think we need to have everyone learn a common language. English would be an optimal choice, and I've talked about this in multiple posts, so I'll just further develop my reasoning.
I think there should be many, many more programs in place to help these individuals learn English. I believe that one program that could be set up is allowing individuals to gain citizenship and live in the country and be taught English for free, in exchange for becoming an ESL teacher in a school. If teaching at school isn't your thing, then what about learning English at the same time as learning your "trade", say a hospital's medical aide. You can then help aid with patients that come in that don't speak fluent English. If they take this route, their schooling is paid for. While it seems like a lot of money for these programs, imagine the money that can be saved from saving one individual's life because the language barrier was crossed.
There are many other ways this plan can be implemented, but immersion and nearly coercion into learning the English language, per se, seems to me as the right course of action. Not only would we get passed the language gulf, we could overcome many of the problems that occur from cultural miscommunication. It's a hope, right?
Original Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2003969991_emergency24n.html
What I find interesting is that the article is always talking about bringing the information to these people in their foreign language, but really I think we need to have everyone learn a common language. English would be an optimal choice, and I've talked about this in multiple posts, so I'll just further develop my reasoning.
I think there should be many, many more programs in place to help these individuals learn English. I believe that one program that could be set up is allowing individuals to gain citizenship and live in the country and be taught English for free, in exchange for becoming an ESL teacher in a school. If teaching at school isn't your thing, then what about learning English at the same time as learning your "trade", say a hospital's medical aide. You can then help aid with patients that come in that don't speak fluent English. If they take this route, their schooling is paid for. While it seems like a lot of money for these programs, imagine the money that can be saved from saving one individual's life because the language barrier was crossed.
There are many other ways this plan can be implemented, but immersion and nearly coercion into learning the English language, per se, seems to me as the right course of action. Not only would we get passed the language gulf, we could overcome many of the problems that occur from cultural miscommunication. It's a hope, right?
Original Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2003969991_emergency24n.html
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Is a new language programme being rushed in?
England is debating the issue of a program that teaches foreign workers only workplace English in a program known as ESOL (English for speakers of other languages.) The first major argument brought up against the program is that the workplace English necessary for one environment, such as cooking, is much different compared to the environment of being a dentist. Having one type of instruction really limits vocabulary, and potentially to the detriment of the workplace if it is not common to that environment.
Another argument made is the cost of the program, and who will foot the bill. Should it be taxpayers, employers, the students, or a combination of the three? Personally, I think it should mostly be footed by the employer and maybe some by the student. None by the taxpayer because it's workplace English, not everyday English. Also, if the worker doesn't turn out to be an effective worker and leaves or is fired within six months, then the employer has the right to deduct from the workers paycheck to recoup the loss.
Getting back to the main issue of whether or not it is enough English for a worker to learn, I would have to say it depends on the program. If it is a very communications-dependent environment, such as being a doctor, English should be taught to a much greater degree. If it is a cook, then I could understand a short program tailored to their English needs. Overall, though, I think it would be much more beneficial to teach them everyday English as well as occupation-specific English. What happens when these workers aren't at work and need to buy groceries? What about driving, public transportation, and getting directions? All of this seems to be missing and it seems to be a huge oversight by business owners to think that these areas can be skipped over.
One solution I think might work is a residency program in state that allows structured immersion into the language. It could be set up so speakers of the same native language are roomed together and undergo training as a group. How to pay for this program, I don't know, but I do know it would provide the environment necessary to create happier, more productive citizens and employees. My final comment is I that the proposed program will fall short of achieving its goals. How can an employee work if they can't get to work?
Original Article: http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,2196880,00.html
Another argument made is the cost of the program, and who will foot the bill. Should it be taxpayers, employers, the students, or a combination of the three? Personally, I think it should mostly be footed by the employer and maybe some by the student. None by the taxpayer because it's workplace English, not everyday English. Also, if the worker doesn't turn out to be an effective worker and leaves or is fired within six months, then the employer has the right to deduct from the workers paycheck to recoup the loss.
Getting back to the main issue of whether or not it is enough English for a worker to learn, I would have to say it depends on the program. If it is a very communications-dependent environment, such as being a doctor, English should be taught to a much greater degree. If it is a cook, then I could understand a short program tailored to their English needs. Overall, though, I think it would be much more beneficial to teach them everyday English as well as occupation-specific English. What happens when these workers aren't at work and need to buy groceries? What about driving, public transportation, and getting directions? All of this seems to be missing and it seems to be a huge oversight by business owners to think that these areas can be skipped over.
One solution I think might work is a residency program in state that allows structured immersion into the language. It could be set up so speakers of the same native language are roomed together and undergo training as a group. How to pay for this program, I don't know, but I do know it would provide the environment necessary to create happier, more productive citizens and employees. My final comment is I that the proposed program will fall short of achieving its goals. How can an employee work if they can't get to work?
Original Article: http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,2196880,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)